Discussion: The State of Kering

[KoV]

^ Why did I start reading that like 3 minutes before I have to get on a call. Anyway I love an all-in post, an actual discussion.

 

[Lola701]

Historically, Gucci does well when its collections are daring, charismatic and prodigious.

This "blandification" of the brand is gravely miscalculated and clearly, an obvious directive that they wanted a quick fix without navigating its setbacks. Now, There's no turning back. They have to be extremely pragmatic about these projections and reports. If they need to fully change their direction next season, it would be paramount and necessary at this point.

Frida’s first collection was far from bold, daring, charismatic or prodigious. It was badly received, extremely controversial and quite boring.
But it was quite commercially successful because while her pants were ugly, her clothes were quite pragmatic, with nice prints and fabulous accessories. I wasn’t the biggest fan of Frida’s Gucci and I didn’t like the collection for what it was. I ended up buying the shoes, one dress and a blouse.
Frida had an eye for what worked, even if she wasn’t daring as a fashion designer.

The real problem with Sabato is that it’s very products-focused but we have failed to see a real It piece from that.

But we never know… Sometimes, even badly received collections ends with a commercial success. Riccardo’s first collection for Givenchy was quite successful even if his breakthrough came 2 years later.

 

[San Marco]

Okay.. it does look kind of bad. Just so men (gay or straight) get an idea, it's like 'hey, these are the new designers for all the main menswear shows!':
View attachment 1239366
adpisouthcarolina

.. of all genders and of all women, it's the average sorority girl who repeatedly knows and dictates exactly what men should be wearing...? ..why?. So yeah, odd, not odd enough to break stuff or scream 'injusticeeeeeee!' on social media but it still begs a really deep question: what's up with that? lol.


@San Marco nice to see you posting more, esp at that length. May not see eye to eye but it's posts like yours what built this area of the forum and keep it so different from what the rest of the internet asks from anyone interested in fashion (limited questions, minimal commentary, yes to everything).

I will ask though, what is the 'cartel press' in fashion? do you mean the usual media outlets or all forms of media? is journalists in italics because they're trash in fashion nowadays or because the occupation itself is questionable? not going to lie, I had a hard time dissecting your post so I could see past the irony/sarcasm/Great Awakening vibe and finally get to your thoughts.

Not sure about the Great Awakening vibe (at least the intention wasn't to raise awareness hehe) because there's practically nothing new in what's written, except maybe it's written in a less cryptic version than usual - but Yes, I overdid it with sarcasm (and maybe I should have shortened it)-which came as a reaction to an article about the galloping decline of fashion magazines-for which I thought that emotions had ceased to exist, and that apathetic indifference was the true state I felt towards them. Somehow, I always imagined that there would be a certain amount of triumph in their Downfall, or to put it in a slightly meaner way - that I would find enjoyment or great satisfaction in their misfortune. To my surprise, it was actually sadness. And I blame it on a picture of Tony Ward for a Yamamoto perfume campaign, which I saw few days before the article and it…how should I say…. revived old emotions (hehe).

The question about italic journalism could not have come at a better time than after this FT article, because it somewhat demonstrates the difference between one-sided and let's say, more realistic and measured journalism. For example, in the WWD article: The departure and arrival of female staff to top positions - for example, Sara leaves as the (last) woman from the position, while Francesca joins the Executive Board as Francesca. Yes, I am aware that these are not two exactly the same things in comparison, but still this underlining of her as the last female designer from the stable of designers leaves an indirect impression, that it is a cross-section of the entire company-one click further and a look at the Executive Board and the Board of Directors reveals a completely different picture. I mean, they could highlight it (or better yet leave it out entirely). But I guess that would just confuse and get in the way of bridging to the social media part. Putting social media in focus by the press is always fun because I don't know if this should mean that they consider them as a significant factor in the discourse, and if, why always so shy in naming who exactly social media is - since on paper it is a pretty broad and rather intimidating term - while in reality it might just be two or three accounts with max. 1500 comments and a few star reinforcements in form of Karen Elson or Veronika Heilbrunner -proudly expressing their discomfort (disgust) for white people. The FT article skips this circus entirely and I'd say it shows more respect for the reader. Then reading sentences like the one where Kering was under pressure to make an acquisition that would put it on a more equal footing with rival LVMH and make it less dependent on Gucci -I don't know what else one could think except that Kering's people are stupid enough and willingly resist buying companies like Creed or Valentino (although they are obviously looking for certain companies to diversify the portfolio), and that the credit for these acquisitions belongs to the investors, and that apparently without some types of pressures are not able to decide on possibly good financial moves.

All in all, if the entire WWD article had to be summed up, it would be: RISK - everything with Kering is Risk- an acquisition that was supposed to free them from risk, brought them into the risk. The risk is a new designer, but it is also a risk to leave the previous designer, and the same applies to management. But I keep wondering could anything be seen as a chance. How many companies can, in a period of one month, buy companies of the scale of Valentino or Creed? Does the purchase instill confidence in Kering, and how exactly is it that out of all the interested competitors, they were the ones who managed to buy it? In comparison: the FT article without special evaluation chooses a neutral tone when it comes to the reorganization of the top management as well as acquisitions that would eventually restart growth. And it is interesting that the FT states in the article that both Hermes and LVMH also had softer numbers, but still better then Kering- so I assume what warrants all these strong analyzes and excursus about Kering is their poor performance compared to the competition. Since Kering has been unusually well represented in the press over the past year, it would be a shame not to mention one more example of italic journalism that offers Kering the “dummie treatment”- by publicly advising them that silence actually means supporting anti-Semitism in case of Kanye West, and that the only solution lies in the cessation of mutual cooperation (I am absolutely sure that no one at Kering has thought of that). And it still could somehow be passed off as well-intentioned and serious journalism, if Vanessa Friedman herself was not in the "deafening silence” phase when the mush she works for, was issuing apologies for their anti-Semitism ( circa 2018), and as far as I can see, the cooperation is still stable.

As for the cartel press - there is no doubt that social media and the press are competitors, and that this tandem is far from a great friendship, except when it comes to the same goal, then they briefly join together in a small cartel. As far as I see the whole situation, social networks are (almost) always the first to start a project, and in the second phase the whole project is taken over by the media, giving the project a little polish and seriousness. So, I didn't mean a cartel between newspapers, but an occasional cartel between social media and the press, when it suits.

And thanks for the nice words hehe

 

[KoV]

Well, there's one more pressing issue than men historically dominating all fields but particularly doubling down on one that exclusively targets women, with all that entails (notions of how we should look like, dress like, ideals, what's 'desirable' and what isn't and the amount of value on image, you name it), and also fashion's biggest challenge: the dominance of conglomerates and the fact that they primarily operate through the laughable 'tribute band' format, revitalizing ancient houses and their "codes" (was that the word you hate? sorry ).. codes/guidelines that were created for a very different society where they were, for the most part, in the closet, and we were in the kitchen. And yes, you can inject some 2023 dose in them, reinvent them, spice them up, but it doesn't change the foundation, that your designs are a 'continuation' of that relic, and the fact that the voice "reinterpreting" said codes needs to be secondary to the 'worshipped' dead person that founded the house, and that's issue #3 because you are deflating the potential for that person who's very much alive, and allegedly talented or at least well-trained and capable to communicate more accurately design through his/her own sociocultural context.

This issue with the ancient houses being the absolute authority in fashion is not really unbreakable, only 13-18 years ago there was a nice balance between independence, some notion of autonomy and the people who wanted to be trapped in these machines by choice and not because it's their only way to secure a steady income. That is super problematic to me and I'm really hopeful/crossing fingers that in a generation or two a group of people will open up their eyes and see how NOT normal that is and how you can challenge the suits and this ultra-corporate direction of fashion.

Moving past that (but without ignoring that), that a company was founded by a man... I mean... most companies in this planet were founded by a man, tampax was founded by a man lol.. it's a patriarchy, supported by a very defensive and ultra-sensitive group of men and women who will take anything, except you questioning their favorite men. In an ideal world, old houses would go back to where they belong: a museum exhibition every 15 years with low attendance because their input on 1950s women is THAT fascinating for the general public.... and the tribute bands that have been playing their hits over and over (aka. designers that are really just hacks that know how to suck up to suits or rise to the 'bro'occasion for their approval) would have to design for women in this time and age and that's one hell of a challenge because we can all have an idea of the past, but it takes actual skills, sensibility and having a sharp ear/eyes to capture the present and the future.


Back to the initial part of your post, I think you underestimate the role of marketing in an industry that relies on notions of beauty and luxury and the aggressive way it needs to make its way through popular culture so that a potential consumer is finally engaged. The consumer doesn't 'dictate', the state of the economy moderates its participation but marketing leads the consumer and indoctrinates, teaching him what he didn't know he wanted and with enough insistence, convince him that he wants it now. So it is more of a personal effort, not entirely a personal preference, especially for a group whose entire value in society, has been placed not on skill, but on appearance.

Now, I'm going to jump back to the end of your post (sorry, I'm.. ).. there's a difference between mockery and criticism. Women are not above criticism, especially in a field that does have an impact on how we present ourselves. In all my years in this forum, I have seen a fair amount of criticism for every designer regardless of gender but it really is only in the past 1-2 years when I have seen pure sexist mockery, and I personally have never seen it coming from a female member. I know the demographics here changed a lot and ignorance can be one tragic display of tastelessness sometimes but even last week or so, I read something like 'wE aLl kNoW mEn aRe JuSt BeTtEr dEsIgNeRs' when talking about womenswear. That doesn't even merit a reply but it goes to show how a) people won't pick up a book even if it's for the sake of enriching their own passions lol, and b) convenient way of obsessing with the past.. you want nothing more than lusting after dusty old houses, but simultaneously choose to ignore the social disadvantage in how up until 30-40 years ago women were expected to fulfill their main duty (home) and defying that often meant (and it still does for a majority) being alienated even from society or your own family, and fashion (as conceived by Rose Bertin), became a safe haven for discriminated men, where women accepted them and cherished them, and supported their creations and businesses. So there are more elements at play besides... divine superiority, or what you usually hear here explicitly or implied.. that, of all things, women are somehow incompetent in the one thing that's made them visible, and.. rankable, for centuries.

I basically agree with most of your musings, but a few things I'd say

My comment didn't account for marketing, but I don't know how much understanding a victim of luxury marketing needs. On the Kering level, this is all very... champagne problems. A salesperson can use all the tactics in the world but the consumer will ultimately always just have the power to not buy what they're selling. Kering is suffering as a result of that selfsame consumer autonomy. In this context, not only is what's being sold nonessential, it's also a hugely competitive market with dozens of attractive alternatives available if supporting women designers is the ethos of women consumers.

Even going back decades, when there was even less equality in general and almost everything in business was run by men, I don't think women had such a passive/helpless role in shaping things for this particular industry. Most of these "main" brands are recent enough that the namesake designers, when they themselves helmed their own labels, had female contemporaries. Could Donna Karen be as big as Ralph Lauren? Was it a group of men in a boardroom that deemed that wouldn't happen or was it just..... how things went, millions of individual consumers' choices adding up naturally? Men in womenswear got to where they are because their (95% female) clients made the choice to go to the gays. To use their social clout and industry clout to amplify one designer over another. And it's not just clients, but female editors and OG influencers, the Eleanor Lamberts of the industry, with real power. They helped shape the industry and set the trends. The fashion industry wasn't something that just happened to women, foisted on them by a bunch of closeted queers. they were active participants in all facets. Today that's more true than ever, I feel. I'm no fashion historian, I may be missing major pieces of the puzzle, and I hope I'm not just talking out of my @ss here, but that's how I see it. And I never like the idea, in any context, that everything is dictated to us. That personal choice is only an illusion.

I know as a man I will always have blind spots when it comes to misogyny, but to me, it's borderline ridiculous to use Alexander McQueen getting a male cd as evidence that women just can't survive or get ahead in the industry, that the cards are stacked against them. It just feels like a talking point borrowed from a more serious situation. Because you have the Chanels and Diors and Pradas and Hermeses, all as viable options, all equally if not more so desirable in the wake of massive luxury marketing spend. You have dozens of young labels founded by women, that need and would be so grateful for the patronage, er.... matronage?? And the choice to not buy Gucci or Alexander McQueen should be so easy. If a female (or any) consumer wants to make that choice I'd argue it takes zero personal effort. And if one is so susceptible to or such a victim of marketing that not buying a $3k purse from one particular brand is more an exercise in personal effort than in personal preference, I don't know what to say. They need to touch grass?

And I know "I saw a woman criticize another woman, misogyny is not real" isn't a good argument, at best. I'm not denying there's plenty of misogyny coming from gay men as well as straight. But I have been around the internet long enough to see that the nasty (not merely critical) comments directed at women designers, models, and various industry creatives are not just coming from men. In the larger pop culture realm, there's a certain sense of female solidarity in the face of male criticism, but then there are also like millions of female K-pop stans body-shaming Beyonce or whomever because she outsold their celeb crush or something. Gay guys can be vicious in tearing women down, which is awful, but they're not the only culprits. And the idea that gay men and women are in opposition is just a depressing thought. Am I even making sense anymore? Was I ever? Time for bed.

 

[MulletProof]

^ lol yes you are! fyi, I gave myself migraine with my last post cause, this layout + being past my bedtime ( ).. it just isn't the same anymore!

Personal preference in everything (clothes, partners, food) is only personal because it's coming from an individual but in reality, it's a combination of social factors. If you place this individual in a different setting with similar needs, and offer the exact same choices, that personal choice tends to change, because the social pyramid will change and we're social beings, we all respond to that (some like they're in a cult, some more relaxed but we're all trying to embellish our membership). Also, is it that much of a choice if I'm telling you I have numbers 1-10 but you can only pick either 4 or 9 and if you pick 9 'up to you, most picked 4 and they're doing AMAZING but again, up to you....'. This is why marketing gets adapted to each culture. And yes, the consumer hands the money and it is a big problem when the consumer is fearful and slows the flow of capital but that is also informed by his social context, not because he woke up feeling like his money should stay in his account. In the case of Balenciaga, the brand's social standing was tainted and that is the only reason why someone would not want the public association and shop elsewhere, it is not about principles, but what it says about them.

I do notice a few blindspots, which is totally normal, but just to put it simply: no, women never had a passive role in womenswear because again, that was the only thing we were supposed to do in society, demonstrate decorum/class/sophistication/status/beauty/desirability/other marriage qualities through appearance, so yes, it had to be consumed, you had to be an active participant and that is also where the toxic 'women tearing each other down!' campaign [that straight men pushed for and turned very much into a reality as they window-shopped for a wife] comes from.

A participant is not a leader and you can't really be a leader of any industry when you're expected to be a homemaker. It's not one or the other, it's been one choice for women for centuries (unless you're really eccentric, an outcast, a rebel that is dying to be socially ostracized, but we're not talking about these types here). Meanwhile, if you were expected to be successful in a job so you could provide for your wife and kids as an honorable family man, that's actually two choices in one, not an easy one because skipping the husband part does bring into question just how 'honorable' you are, but that's where fashion became a safe place for men who did not want that, women did not bully them for that, let alone unleash any violence, more the opposite, they were protected and elevated because they listened to women and went out of their way to excel in creating clothes with their social and functional needs in mind (plus their own notions of what women should look like- 100% influenced by male privilege which is always non-negotiable and ranks above sexual orientation), so women invested and legitimized these businesses. It was a win-win transaction between two groups that had limited choices in life.

Decades later, it is absolutely expected that we retain certain images. I for one am still surprised when I see a man changing his baby's diaper in a public place. I know men reproduce, men certainly do #2, but somehow in my stupid mind, I'm still 'oh...'. It is normal to make associations but instead of pushing for what we have normalized, how about we do our own society a favor and question where our own ideas come from and whether their foundation is solid and justifiable. There is a huge gap that advantaged some and disadvantaged others, and yes, it is very likely that you would trust a womenswear project if the person behind it was a man, that if you were in that group of men in a boardroom choosing between Karan and Lauren in the 70s, that you would invest just a tiny bit more on the latter because it sounds more viable. The idea that women are not as fully into a project because they're also 'moms' 'wives', is still very much alive, and it is sad to see it becoming more and more present in fashion as women push for more participation, as men in womenswear become more empowered, and easily persuaded by suits that are now the dominant force and bring all of their toxic masculinity dynamics with them now that they see it as a serious business and not as the silly playground of useless women and flamboyant gays. And yes, that comfy 'well, just shop at labels owned by women, no one is forcing you to buy McQueen' is an option, just like instead of voicing your opinion on something that is unfair can be easily remedied by ignoring it and looking elsewhere, but it doesn't change the increasingly monopolistic dynamics of conglomerates and the indoctrination that comes with it to justify their practices. It won't be far in the future before we're like 'but can we trust him if he's JUST a designer? you really need someone who's been corporate to understand how to sell a dress to women'.. when a designer has been connecting with women without a suit or any other middleman for centuries just fine.

I'm not really talking about McQueen btw, or about suits bringing men even to labels founded by women (Demeulemeester). I'm sure that guy will do okay. I'm just questioning the Kering lineup, and the general fixation to keep these labels alive at all costs. You even see it now with people that started a label in May, died in June, and by July 'gotta find someone to honor the vision of the founder!' (e.g. Y/Project, Off-White, AZ Factory).. like really? could you not just invest instead on a new independent label by someone WHO IS ALIVE, instead of inflating this label that never said anything, or that only said something about the youth of 1962, and turn it into this one big spectacle of nothingness but that you can so easily manipulate and coerce because, after all, 'you're just an employee 'honoring' the DEAD founder's vision, hundreds of young designers are dying to do this job if you don't want to'. This whole circus is vicious and bottom line is, if you let the dead finally rest and let the alive ones fight a fair battle.. that lineup wouldn't exist, and a fashion yearbook would look VERY different.

@San Marco I feel the same way about magazines. We've been seeing magazines fold for decades now, and it's always sudden but when it comes to their particular market (independent magazines, etc), it's gradual, as slow/natural death that matches viability. I knew Vogues would be the last to start packing up, but what I absolutely never guessed is that their downfall would be so nasty. Now that I think about it, it just makes sense that if it's 'survival of the fittest', then the weaker pieces will start falling and the person at the center of it all, emerges as 'almighty', maskless, and all the corruption and dishonesty and interests in the magazine would be more exposed. I never cared one bit about Vogue Paris, but I look at what they have now and it seems like a 'death by denigration' strategy.

Also agree with the obscure 'social media' and responding blindly to that. It's purely based on fear. I don't think it's just them and their lack of understanding and wanting to err on safety... I've seen it even here 'this is being trashed on social media!'.. and you go there and it's like 3 comments (out of 85 lol), but that 'this is being poorly received' spreads like a wildfire so next thing you know, you see that magazine on the newsstands and are like 'oh yeah, the issue that was poorly received...' and like.. it wasn't even on sale the day before!

 

[LadyJunon]

I do notice a few blindspots, which is totally normal, but just to put it simply: no, women never had a passive role in womenswear because again, that was the only thing we were supposed to do in society, demonstrate decorum/class/sophistication/status/beauty/desirability/other marriage qualities through appearance, so yes, it had to be consumed, you had to be an active participant and that is also where the toxic 'women tearing each other down!' campaign [that straight men pushed for and turned very much into a reality as they window-shopped for a wife] comes from.

A participant is not a leader and you can't really be a leader of any industry when you're expected to be a homemaker. It's not one or the other, it's been one choice for women for centuries (unless you're really eccentric, an outcast, a rebel that is dying to be socially ostracized, but we're not talking about these types here). Meanwhile, if you were expected to be successful in a job so you could provide for your wife and kids as an honorable family man, that's actually two choices in one, not an easy one because skipping the husband part does bring into question just how 'honorable' you are, but that's where fashion became a safe place for men who did not want that, women did not bully them for that, let alone unleash any violence, more the opposite, they were protected and elevated because they listened to women and went out of their way to excel in creating clothes with their social and functional needs in mind (plus their own notions of what women should look like- 100% influenced by male privilege which is always non-negotiable and ranks above sexual orientation), so women invested and legitimized these businesses. It was a win-win transaction between two groups that had limited choices in life.

I've always admired that part of the old guard: unconventional people building culture together through platonic love. You don't really see tightly-knit relationships like that anymore within the new guard, maybe Vaccarello × Rubik and Demna × Lotta...

Decades later, it is absolutely expected that we retain certain images. I for one am still surprised when I see a man changing his baby's diaper in a public place. I know men reproduce, men certainly do #2, but somehow in my stupid mind, I'm still 'oh...'. It is normal to make associations but instead of pushing for what we have normalized, how about we do our own society a favor and question where our own ideas come from and whether their foundation is solid and justifiable. There is a huge gap that advantaged some and disadvantaged others, and yes, it is very likely that you would trust a womenswear project if the person behind it was a man, that if you were in that group of men in a boardroom choosing between Karan and Lauren in the 70s, that you would invest just a tiny bit more on the latter because it sounds more viable. The idea that women are not as fully into a project because they're also 'moms' 'wives', is still very much alive, and it is sad to see it becoming more and more present in fashion as women push for more participation, as men in womenswear become more empowered, and easily persuaded by suits that are now the dominant force and bring all of their toxic masculinity dynamics with them now that they see it as a serious business and not as the silly playground of useless women and flamboyant gays. And yes, that comfy 'well, just shop at labels owned by women, no one is forcing you to buy McQueen' is an option, just like instead of voicing your opinion on something that is unfair can be easily remedied by ignoring it and looking elsewhere, but it doesn't change the increasingly monopolistic dynamics of conglomerates and the indoctrination that comes with it to justify their practices. It won't be far in the future before we're like 'but can we trust him if he's JUST a designer? you really need someone who's been corporate to understand how to sell a dress to women'.. when a designer has been connecting with women without a suit or any other middleman for centuries just fine.

Suits often are pragmatists to a fault, but in a brand's "first generation" they're often at the mercy of the creative director (aka the reason they even have their job). It's the second generation, when the design and management teams begin to shift to privileged descendants, company outsider or worse, conglomerate ownership.

I'm not really talking about McQueen btw, or about suits bringing men even to labels founded by women (Demeulemeester). I'm sure that guy will do okay. I'm just questioning the Kering lineup, and the general fixation to keep these labels alive at all costs. You even see it now with people that started a label in May, died in June, and by July 'gotta find someone to honor the vision of the founder!' (e.g. Y/Project, Off-White, AZ Factory).. like really? could you not just invest instead on a new independent label by someone WHO IS ALIVE, instead of inflating this label that never said anything, or that only said something about the youth of 1962, and turn it into this one big spectacle of nothingness but that you can so easily manipulate and coerce because, after all, 'you're just an employee 'honoring' the DEAD founder's vision, hundreds of young designers are dying to do this job if you don't want to'. This whole circus is vicious and bottom line is, if you let the dead finally rest and let the alive ones fight a fair battle.. that lineup wouldn't exist, and a fashion yearbook would look VERY different.

For me, whether a brand should be continued should based on three things:
• the brand's age: For how long has the founding been building their codes and vision? 5 to 10 years? Too short. 20? Abridged, but sufficient. 30? Ideal.
• the succession plan: Have they thought about the creative director's replacement? What about the C-suites? Licensing? Ownership? Acquisition?
• the current state of the brand: Are the brand's main operations still profitable? Are they relevant? If not, how steep was the decline? Is it worth recovering?

 

[donyan]

^ lol yes you are! fyi, I gave myself migraine with my last post cause, this layout + being past my bedtime ( ).. it just isn't the same anymore!

Personal preference in everything (clothes, partners, food) is only personal because it's coming from an individual but in reality, it's a combination of social factors. If you place this individual in a different setting with similar needs, and offer the exact same choices, that personal choice tends to change, because the social pyramid will change and we're social beings, we all respond to that (some like they're in a cult, some more relaxed but we're all trying to embellish our membership). Also, is it that much of a choice if I'm telling you I have numbers 1-10 but you can only pick either 4 or 9 and if you pick 9 'up to you, most picked 4 and they're doing AMAZING but again, up to you....'. This is why marketing gets adapted to each culture. And yes, the consumer hands the money and it is a big problem when the consumer is fearful and slows the flow of capital but that is also informed by his social context, not because he woke up feeling like his money should stay in his account. In the case of Balenciaga, the brand's social standing was tainted and that is the only reason why someone would not want the public association and shop elsewhere, it is not about principles, but what it says about them.

I do notice a few blindspots, which is totally normal, but just to put it simply: no, women never had a passive role in womenswear because again, that was the only thing we were supposed to do in society, demonstrate decorum/class/sophistication/status/beauty/desirability/other marriage qualities through appearance, so yes, it had to be consumed, you had to be an active participant and that is also where the toxic 'women tearing each other down!' campaign [that straight men pushed for and turned very much into a reality as they window-shopped for a wife] comes from.

A participant is not a leader and you can't really be a leader of any industry when you're expected to be a homemaker. It's not one or the other, it's been one choice for women for centuries (unless you're really eccentric, an outcast, a rebel that is dying to be socially ostracized, but we're not talking about these types here). Meanwhile, if you were expected to be successful in a job so you could provide for your wife and kids as an honorable family man, that's actually two choices in one, not an easy one because skipping the husband part does bring into question just how 'honorable' you are, but that's where fashion became a safe place for men who did not want that, women did not bully them for that, let alone unleash any violence, more the opposite, they were protected and elevated because they listened to women and went out of their way to excel in creating clothes with their social and functional needs in mind (plus their own notions of what women should look like- 100% influenced by male privilege which is always non-negotiable and ranks above sexual orientation), so women invested and legitimized these businesses. It was a win-win transaction between two groups that had limited choices in life.

Decades later, it is absolutely expected that we retain certain images. I for one am still surprised when I see a man changing his baby's diaper in a public place. I know men reproduce, men certainly do #2, but somehow in my stupid mind, I'm still 'oh...'. It is normal to make associations but instead of pushing for what we have normalized, how about we do our own society a favor and question where our own ideas come from and whether their foundation is solid and justifiable. There is a huge gap that advantaged some and disadvantaged others, and yes, it is very likely that you would trust a womenswear project if the person behind it was a man, that if you were in that group of men in a boardroom choosing between Karan and Lauren in the 70s, that you would invest just a tiny bit more on the latter because it sounds more viable. The idea that women are not as fully into a project because they're also 'moms' 'wives', is still very much alive, and it is sad to see it becoming more and more present in fashion as women push for more participation, as men in womenswear become more empowered, and easily persuaded by suits that are now the dominant force and bring all of their toxic masculinity dynamics with them now that they see it as a serious business and not as the silly playground of useless women and flamboyant gays. And yes, that comfy 'well, just shop at labels owned by women, no one is forcing you to buy McQueen' is an option, just like instead of voicing your opinion on something that is unfair can be easily remedied by ignoring it and looking elsewhere, but it doesn't change the increasingly monopolistic dynamics of conglomerates and the indoctrination that comes with it to justify their practices. It won't be far in the future before we're like 'but can we trust him if he's JUST a designer? you really need someone who's been corporate to understand how to sell a dress to women'.. when a designer has been connecting with women without a suit or any other middleman for centuries just fine.

I'm not really talking about McQueen btw, or about suits bringing men even to labels founded by women (Demeulemeester). I'm sure that guy will do okay. I'm just questioning the Kering lineup, and the general fixation to keep these labels alive at all costs. You even see it now with people that started a label in May, died in June, and by July 'gotta find someone to honor the vision of the founder!' (e.g. Y/Project, Off-White, AZ Factory).. like really? could you not just invest instead on a new independent label by someone WHO IS ALIVE, instead of inflating this label that never said anything, or that only said something about the youth of 1962, and turn it into this one big spectacle of nothingness but that you can so easily manipulate and coerce because, after all, 'you're just an employee 'honoring' the DEAD founder's vision, hundreds of young designers are dying to do this job if you don't want to'. This whole circus is vicious and bottom line is, if you let the dead finally rest and let the alive ones fight a fair battle.. that lineup wouldn't exist, and a fashion yearbook would look VERY different.

@San Marco I feel the same way about magazines. We've been seeing magazines fold for decades now, and it's always sudden but when it comes to their particular market (independent magazines, etc), it's gradual, as slow/natural death that matches viability. I knew Vogues would be the last to start packing up, but what I absolutely never guessed is that their downfall would be so nasty. Now that I think about it, it just makes sense that if it's 'survival of the fittest', then the weaker pieces will start falling and the person at the center of it all, emerges as 'almighty', maskless, and all the corruption and dishonesty and interests in the magazine would be more exposed. I never cared one bit about Vogue Paris, but I look at what they have now and it seems like a 'death by denigration' strategy.

Also agree with the obscure 'social media' and responding blindly to that. It's purely based on fear. I don't think it's just them and their lack of understanding and wanting to err on safety... I've seen it even here 'this is being trashed on social media!'.. and you go there and it's like 3 comments (out of 85 lol), but that 'this is being poorly received' spreads like a wildfire so next thing you know, you see that magazine on the newsstands and are like 'oh yeah, the issue that was poorly received...' and like.. it wasn't even on sale the day before!

@MulletProof Why are you not writing for BoF or even SZG or any other ‘serious’ publication ? You’re always so brilliantly astute and spot-on, it’s an absolute joy reading you.

 

[KoV]

Personal preference in everything (clothes, partners, food) is only personal because it's coming from an individual but in reality, it's a combination of social factors. If you place this individual in a different setting with similar needs, and offer the exact same choices, that personal choice tends to change, because the social pyramid will change and we're social beings, we all respond to that (some like they're in a cult, some more relaxed but we're all trying to embellish our membership). Also, is it that much of a choice if I'm telling you I have numbers 1-10 but you can only pick either 4 or 9 and if you pick 9 'up to you, most picked 4 and they're doing AMAZING but again, up to you....'. This is why marketing gets adapted to each culture. And yes, the consumer hands the money and it is a big problem when the consumer is fearful and slows the flow of capital but that is also informed by his social context, not because he woke up feeling like his money should stay in his account. In the case of Balenciaga, the brand's social standing was tainted and that is the only reason why someone would not want the public association and shop elsewhere, it is not about principles, but what it says about them.

Marketing teams exploit those social factors to their advantage, but they don't own the playing field. If you're totally new to society, and the "you can only pick 4 or 9" scenario plays out, you can't be blamed for being so suggestible. But if you're an adult in society and you didn't grow up in the woods, you have to take some responsibility for yourself. Being the victim of luxury marketing isn't such a tragedy, it's kind of a privileged state to be in. In this "4 or 9" scenario, realistically there would be multiple other people with similar tactics to get you to choose 3, 6, 7, or whatever. We're being marketed to all the time, by competing forces. So at some point, you have to learn to be discerning, not to take everything at face value, to develop your own sense of direction, to see things for what they are. I don't even disagree with anything you're saying, really, it's more just.... yes, societal pressures as a consumer are nearly unavoidable at this point but I'm sure we all know people we'd consider much less susceptible to it all. Kering and other conglomerates of their ilk are banking on lazy, tasteless masses following directions. But any individual can make the choice to have their spending power be less easily exploited.

On the other hand, when you look at it big picture, so many of the "competing" brands all lead to the same ocean. So sometimes I do feel it's all an illusion of choice. I'm sure there are people who didn't want to be seen in Balenciaga and took their dollar to Saint Laurent instead - there's so little brand loyalty these days because people seem increasingly happy to not think for themselves and let the trend dictate all. It's all a bit depressing. But even these all-powerful brands and the conglomerates behind them are still just fallible groups of humans, sometimes terrible at their jobs, often failing miserably. I think that's kind of a comforting thought lol. And ultimately, you don't have to choose Coke OR Pepsi - you could just not have the damn soda.


(why do I sound like I'm in one of those strange, pseudo-intellectual conversations that happen late into the night after you've imbibed something)

 

[MulletProof]

^ But you're talking about a very rare group of people with a quality that is rarer by the minute: critical thinking. Perhaps the '4 or 9' example is too simple given how 'evolved' marketing is and how public opinion and even votes can be patiently persuaded through something like Cambridge Analytica. If you properly study people, their context and keep a close eye on culture/politics/economy, you can make a very accurate prediction on their choices, especially now that the information of each person is so abundant and you can draw many parallels. Humans are complex as biological beings but not at all as social beings and certainly not as consumers. This isn't really a territory that is exclusive to the incredibly naive, or ignorant, someone that's come out of the woods, or even fashion consumers, you even see the billionaires (people running conglomerates/in tech, you name it) respond like zombies to areas like auction through its basic psychology: lower the estimate, see the number of bidders multiply and the higher the richest person bidding will go over the estimate, and that is an average 'what I find desirable is desired by others' psychological exercise because nowadays the way of persuading consumers is more and more sophisticated and imperceptible, and I think that the more we acknowledge our own vulnerability, the more alert we can be.

To bring this back to its role on image and beauty, it is something that requires caution and education with women's fashion because of the central role appearance has had in oppression. It has been throughout history, an odd tool to stand out and get away with things or a life or certain freedoms that you could not have afforded had you looked/dressed/carried yourself differently, and it has also been the default way men use to 'humble' us and remind us of our 'inferiority' or what we're really meant to do: play with clothes + look good for them. We're all wired to this dynamic, and it's been changing, but when all of the powerful conglomerates with the most aggressive marketing are owned by men, who choose men to head their main houses, who get more and more comfortable with simply skipping the complicated areas of power dressing, sensuality and sexual empowerment, and begin to exclusively feed p*rn/lolita/middle-aged predator culture.. it's concerning, it's a pretty gross misuse of a powerful position in a field that you know fully well you're not entirely qualified to play authority in, and like all consumerism, it shouldn't be above criticism, and hopefully these men are not too fragile if their target demographic talks sometimes, instead of just

Anyway, I think Phoebe is mainstream enough and hopefully her return will shift things a bit..

@doryan thanks! hype me up cause lord knows that when I'm not in this area it's really just joy-less s*it posting! . SZG as in stylezeigeist, correct?. I kind of 'came of age' with that guy (former tfs member). He would pressure us youngsters into saying more than 'yas girl!', I think he was a teacher in real life, and super thankful for the free classes lol, but as I got older, I realised preaching/'owning the truth' (as SZ was founded with all the master-and-followers/alpha+beta dynamic) is quite boring. You're really just left with approval and uniformity. Feeling like someone's rising up to the topic and can challenge you in everything with respect and thoughts that are 100% theirs, and is fundamentally different so trying to convince them is not even a part of the exchange (in other words, KoV, Phuel, Lola lol).. that's way more fun, and enriching.

I've always admired that part of the old guard: unconventional people building culture together through platonic love. You don't really see tightly-knit relationships like that anymore within the new guard, maybe Vaccarello × Rubik and Demna × Lotta...

It's tricky with Rubik because she's essentially there to provide body, not ideas, and then gets paid, and proceeds with the next client doing the exact same lol. She's no Loulou de la Falaise. Demna and Lotta are the perfect spokespeople for suits: looking down on their customers, mocking them for their insecurities and their income, being cynical when collecting their money, and proudly talking more than they can listen, so if something flops, they'll pout about being misunderstood. You don't see their exchanges flow or get anywhere new.. it's like a political party that takes a hard line on their s*it the moment critics multiply.

I'm sure there are others that I'm not aware of but you kind of just see that mutual exchange between two people with different social experiences (one more privileged than the other) with Sarah Linh Tran and Christophe Lemaire, and you see his awareness of these advantages and some degree of humility and gratitude that is almost extinct now. Charlotte Rampling and Yohji too?. These are all independent labels anyway, it really is a different agenda.. or just not a sweatshop owned by a horndog haha!

 

[yslforever]

I am kinda pissed off against Vacarello ... Belletini and Kering are talking about a big YSL retrospective at the MET (à la 1983), to "historically" explain Yves' work (not Alber, Tom or Hedi) to a younger public, and it's agreed on principle, we will gladly help and provide to the Met teams, BUT Vacarello doesn't because his work is not included or he won't be the main creative director or curator of the exhibition.... So there are frictions between AV and Belletini;

Plus this morning's Q4/"holidays" figures are very disappointing for every brands ....

 

[blueorchid]

Another retrospective!?! Good god… two museums, countless books, what else can be said about Yves… Jesus Christ. Give it a rest and I say that as an “enthusiast.”

 

[LadyJunon]

I am kinda pissed off against Vacarello ... Belletini and Kering are talking about a big YSL retrospective at the MET (à la 1983), to "historically" explain Yves' work (not Alber, Tom or Hedi) to a younger public, and it's agreed on principle, we will gladly help and provide to the Met teams, BUT Vacarello doesn't because his work is not included or he won't be the main creative director or curator of the exhibition.... So there are frictions between AV and Belletini;

Plus this morning's Q4/"holidays" figures are very disappointing for every brands ....

Welp, seems like the end is coming soon...

 

[yslforever]

Another retrospective!?! Good god… two museums, countless books, what else can be said about Yves… Jesus Christ. Give it a rest and I say that as an “enthusiast.”

Oh both museums are already at full capacity, the exhibition in Tokyo too, so around 5,500 visitors a day on the 3 sites.
So there is still a huge interest from a young public, especially the one accustomed to « luxury », they know YSL by name, but they only know the bags and maybe a couple of hoodies. They are actually quite surprised to discover there is much more art and designs than the stores offer in their home countries.
It’s the same effect for Galerie Dior.
The retrospective would be planned while the Paris museum is closed (there is a 4 year plan for renovation and extension), but it’s usual to show a collection somewhere else when the place usually showing it is closed.

 

[yslforever]

Welp, seems like the end is coming soon...

They are getting creative with their accounting too; sales will be accounted in 23, but post Holidays returns will be mysteriously delayed to be accounted in 2024 only 😂. On all their 3 major brands.

 

[Drusilla_]

wouldn't they be what they did for 2022-23 too? I suppose the effect would even out over the years.

 

[yslforever]

wouldn't they be what they did for 2022-23 too? I suppose the effect would even out over the years.

Not really, that was some few pieces sparkled in different museums in conjunction with their own works of art. The original idea was in 60 museums for the 60th anniversary, the museums picked up what they liked best.

 

[Drusilla_]

no I was referring to the accounting for sales in 2023 but post-holiday returns only in 2024 part, not the one about the museums

 

[LadyJunon]

I don't think Kering is really taking their current situation very seriously at all. They've just acquired an incredibly expensive retail property on New York's 5th Avenue:

Kering Pays $963 Million for Prime Fifth Avenue Property
The luxury conglomerate purchased 715-717 Fifth Avenue, which could eventually house some of its designer brands.

By DAVID MOIN
JANUARY 22, 2024, 3:47PM

Kering is spending big to build its presence on Fifth Avenue.

The luxury conglomerate paid $963 million, or 885 million euros, for 715-717 Fifth Avenue, a prime piece of real estate on the southeast corner of 56th Street that currently houses Giorgio Armani and Dolce & Gabbana. The building includes a multilevel, 115,000-square-foot retail space.

The site could eventually house certain of Kering’s luxury brands given that Dolce & Gabbana is expected to relocate its store to 695 Madison Avenue on 62nd Street, while Giorgio Armani is expected to leave the site upon the completion of the designer’s mixed-used project currently under construction at 760 Madison Avenue.

With the exception of Gucci in the Trump Tower, none of Kering’s luxury brands have stores along Fifth Avenue. Kering’s portfolio includes Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen, Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, DoDo, Qeelin, Ginori 1735 as well as eyewear and beauty lines.

Kering’s Fifth Avenue real estate deal, disclosed Monday, follows Prada’s acquisitions of 724 Fifth Avenue, which houses the Prada flagship store, and 720 Fifth Avenue next door for a combined $835 million.

“Prada, Kering and LVMH have cash on their balance sheets and are looking to make good use of their capital to control the destinies of their brands,” Gene Spiegelman, vice chairman and principle of Ripco Real Estate, told WWD. “Their global luxury brands have been located on Fifth Avenue and 57th Streets for decades and expect they will be here for decades more, so it makes sense for them to own their real estate, long term.

“From the seller’s perspective, particularly with the 715-717 Fifth Avenue building, clearly vacancies are coming up but also with the market for commercial debt being very expensive, the owner would not be able to refinance at current debt levels if debt was coming due, so it makes sense to sell the properties,” Spiegelman added.

Landlord Jeff Sutton sold the Fifth Avenue properties to Kering and Prada. Sutton has an extensive real estate holdings on Fifth Avenue, 34th Street, in Times Square, SoHo and other areas in the city.

“With this transaction, Kering acquires exceptional retail locations on one of the world’s most iconic avenues,” the company indicated in a statement Monday on the 715-717 Fifth Avenue purchase. “This investment represents a further step in Kering’s selective real estate strategy, aimed at securing key highly desirable locations for its houses. In addition to recently acquired prime properties on Avenue Montaigne and Rue de Castiglione in Paris, the group’s portfolio includes landmark assets in Tokyo’s Omotesando, and the Hôtel de Nocé housing Boucheron’s Paris flagship. In line with its longstanding financial strategy, Kering intends to execute a disciplined and flexible approach with regards to the management of its real estate portfolio.”

Another real estate source suggested that to rent 715-717 Fifth Avenue, rather than owning, would be cost prohibitive, at around an estimated $50 million a year, based on $3,000 per square foot for the ground level, and approximately $200 a square foot for the rest of the space in the 115,000-square-foot retail area.

Recent high-profile Fifth Avenue openings include Chopard, Swarovski, Citizen Watch and the reimagined Tiffany flagship. The former Abercrombie & Fitch site at 720 Fifth is vacant after A&F last summer relocated to 668 Fifth Avenue to a location formerly occupied by the company’s Hollister brand. The former Tommy Hilfiger space at 681 Fifth Avenue is also available, and the Banana Republic store at 626 Fifth Avenue in Rockefeller Center is available. Louis Vuitton will temporarily move into the former Niketown space on East 57th Street while it renovates its Fifth Avenue and 57th Street flagship; Chanel fine jewelry will soon open on the avenue. Rolex is constructing a new building on Fifth Avenue and 53rd Street, and the former Valentino space is temporarily leased to Burberry, among other changes happening on the avenue.

In 2023, Kering marked its 10th anniversary and had a string of deals, including taking beauty in-house; acquiring Creed; investing in Valentino and forging a strategic alliance with Qatari investment group Mayhoola. The company also recruited new designers for Gucci and McQueen; parted ways with longtime Gucci executive Marco Bizzarri, and entrusted Saint Laurent president and chief executive officer Francesca Bellettini with overseeing all the brands in the French group’s portfolio. In 2022, Kering had more than 47,000 employees and revenue of 20.4 billion euros.

Source: WWD

 

[style_expert]

Seems like a pretty good deal comparing it to the estimated annual rent…

 

[Frederic01]

That’s so strange, they acquired two properties on Saint Honoré in Paris last year and are now trying to sell them. So interesting that they are looking to invest in New York now instead?