Alber Elbaz - Designer

[fashionista-ta]

It may or may not be futile, but I continue to love the French attitude about this. At the very least, Wang is going to be made very uncomfortable as a result of her egotism and poor decision making.


The employee works council seems to be implying that procedure wasn't followed, and they've mentioned legal action. Where I live, it couldn't be easier to get rid of people ... but even here, you do have to answer to the employees if the perception is that you've been unfair (or, as in this case, shot the entire company in the foot).


As I mentioned bofore, to me the scenario that works for Alber to return to Lanvin is Wang being shamed into selling to a viable investor. If there's a viable way forward for the business, and the two people he didn't get along with are gone, along with any sycophants, then there is no problem.


Perhaps this is final ... but the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

 

[Lola701]

What's getting fired if not being forced to leave?

IMO forced to leave means make it hard for you to work properly. As he said, his ideas weren't taken in consideration by th executives. SO he decided to leave.

PPR wanted to restrict Tom Ford's 100% creative control. He couldn't take it so he decided to leave.

Lanvin executives decided to fire Alber. He didn't want to leave.

Maybe i'm wrong but it's not the same thing even if forcing you to leave is an alternative to firing. It's less expensive.

 

[Steddycam91]

Who knows, six to eight months from now we could be getting Raf and Alber tell-alls in System magazine.

I was wrong, we didn't even have to wait that long

 

[squilliam]

I've heard getting fired usually means you did something bad or wrong and so you get sacked (Galliano would be an example of "fired"). The alternative term might be layed off or let go, but I'm not really sure

 

[donyan]

It's all getting too much now. I liked Alber Elbaz at Lanvin as well but maybe, just maybe Ms Wang had her reasons to let him go? Why would she let somebody go if everything was picture perfect? Maybe it wasn't, and maybe Mr Elbaz is not as incredibly perfect as everybody is making him out to be.

 

[MyNameIs]

IMO forced to leave means make it hard for you to work properly. As he said, his ideas weren't taken in consideration by th executives. SO he decided to leave.

PPR wanted to restrict Tom Ford's 100% creative control. He couldn't take it so he decided to leave.

Lanvin executives decided to fire Alber. He didn't want to leave.

Maybe i'm wrong but it's not the same thing even if forcing you to leave is an alternative to firing. It's less expensive.

When you're forced to do something it means you're doing it against your will. It's not voluntary. What you're saying in regards to Raf and Tom - if true - tells me they weren't forced to leave. Maybe they weren't happy with their working environment which led them to decide to leave, but ultimately it was still a voluntary decision.

 

[Benn98]

As I mentioned bofore, to me the scenario that works for Alber to return to Lanvin is Wang being shamed into selling to a viable investor. If there's a viable way forward for the business, and the two people he didn't get along with are gone, along with any sycophants,

.....then they'll all live happily ever after. The end. Look, I'm sorry, but the idea that Wang ought to be 'shamed into selling' seems a bit far-fetched, not to mention vindictive. And whether it happens or not, this entire affair will be a rude awakening for Alber, I'm sure. I doubt he'll be able to just continue where he left off. What I really want to know is what exactly Wang's grievances were, and what made her sack him?

 

[donyan]

.....then they'll all live happily ever after. The end. Look, I'm sorry, but the idea that Wang ought to be 'shamed into selling' seems a bit far-fetched, not to mention vindictive. And whether it happens or not, this entire affair will be a rude awakening for Alber, I'm sure. I doubt he'll be able to just continue where he left off. What I really want to know is what exactly Wang's grievances were, and what made her sack him?

my point exactly. She can't just have waken up one morning and decided that she didn't want Alber anymore. There must have been a reason to make such an extreme change.

 

[anlabe32]

.....then they'll all live happily ever after. The end. Look, I'm sorry, but the idea that Wang ought to be 'shamed into selling' seems a bit far-fetched, not to mention vindictive. And whether it happens or not, this entire affair will be a rude awakening for Alber, I'm sure. I doubt he'll be able to just continue where he left off. What I really want to know is what exactly Wang's grievances were, and what made her sack him?

Totally agree.

I love Alber for Lanvin but it doesn't mean I want to see him there forever. I'm actually excited to see some changes now.

 

[fashionista-ta]

.....then they'll all live happily ever after. The end. Look, I'm sorry, but the idea that Wang ought to be 'shamed into selling' seems a bit far-fetched, not to mention vindictive. And whether it happens or not, this entire affair will be a rude awakening for Alber, I'm sure. I doubt he'll be able to just continue where he left off. What I really want to know is what exactly Wang's grievances were, and what made her sack him?

I find the psychology of siding with the boss quite interesting.

She has no experience in fashion prior to owning Lanvin. The business is now losing money. Alber, who has spent his entire career in fashion (obviously) believes that the house needs a knowledgeable, able fashion investor to move the house to the next level (or really, keep it at the level it has been, for a start). I have seen no expert analysis disagreeing with him. So basically he has been telling the owner that she is not the person to do this. That to me is clearly the reason that several people seem to think is mysterious. I see no mystery.

You seem to believe that as the owner, she has the right to run this historic and important fashion house into the ground simply because she wishes to. That is certainly one perspective.

The former French minister of culture disagrees. He says that Lanvin and Alber are national treasures.

It really all comes down to whether you believe that holding the purse strings gives you the right to do anything you want to, regardless of value to the world at large, regardless of agreements with employees, regardless of law, etc. I imagine it's already clear that that is not my perspective.

 

[nastassia]

I find the psychology of siding with the boss quite interesting.

She has no experience in fashion prior to owning Lanvin. The business is now losing money. Alber, who has spent his entire career in fashion (obviously) believes that the house needs a knowledgeable, able fashion investor to move the house to the next level (or really, keep it at the level it has been, for a start). I have seen no expert analysis disagreeing with him. So basically he has been telling the owner that she is not the person to do this. That to me is clearly the reason that several people seem to think is mysterious. I see no mystery.

You seem to believe that as the owner, she has the right to run this historic and important fashion house into the ground simply because she wishes to. That is certainly one perspective.

The former French minister of culture disagrees. He says that Lanvin and Alber are national treasures.

It really all comes down to whether you believe that holding the purse strings gives you the right to do anything you want to, regardless of value to the world at large, regardless of agreements with employees, regardless of law, etc. I imagine it's already clear that that is not my perspective.

Thank you! You've put into words what I was thinking, more eloquently than I would have done myself.

 

[MyNameIs]

I find the psychology of siding with the boss quite interesting.

She has no experience in fashion prior to owning Lanvin. The business is now losing money. Alber, who has spent his entire career in fashion (obviously) believes that the house needs a knowledgeable, able fashion investor to move the house to the next level (or really, keep it at the level it has been, for a start). I have seen no expert analysis disagreeing with him. So basically he has been telling the owner that she is not the person to do this. That to me is clearly the reason that several people seem to think is mysterious. I see no mystery.

You seem to believe that as the owner, she has the right to run this historic and important fashion house into the ground simply because she wishes to. That is certainly one perspective.

The former French minister of culture disagrees. He says that Lanvin and Alber are national treasures.

It really all comes down to whether you believe that holding the purse strings gives you the right to do anything you want to, regardless of value to the world at large, regardless of agreements with employees, regardless of law, etc. I imagine it's already clear that that is not my perspective.

First, what law did she break?

Second, are you seriously saying fashion houses should ask for government approval when changing its designer? If the French government is so concerned with Lanvin and its contribution to the French culture, they should buy it from the current owner and do with it as they please.

Besides, who's to say the next designer of Lanvin won't make an even bigger contribution to the house and the French culture?

 

[Littleathquakes]

I've heard getting fired usually means you did something bad or wrong and so you get sacked (Galliano would be an example of "fired"). The alternative term might be layed off or let go, but I'm not really sure

You are correct technically. But anybody's who's ever worked in a corporate world knows that people get fired all the time through no fault of their own, though. The boss maybe didn't like you. Someone else gunning for your position and knows someone who can make it happen. or the classic setting someone up for failure - giving someone a workload that is way over his capabilities, then citing that failure as a reason for the attrition.


A layoff is not an alternative term. It is when the company you work for can no longer financially or viably sustain without cutting down its workforce. So when you are in that position, it's not you getting fired. You simply no longer have a job because your position was eliminated due to budget cuts.

 

[fashionista-ta]

First, what law did she break?

Second, are you seriously saying fashion houses should ask for government approval when changing its designer? If the French government is so concerned with Lanvin and its contribution to the French culture, they should buy it from the current owner and do with it as they please.

Besides, who's to say the next designer of Lanvin won't make an even bigger contribution to the house and the French culture?

I am not an expert in French employment law, or why the Lanvin works council has mentioned the possibility of legal action.


Of course that's not what I was saying. I was responding to the characterization that shaming the current owner into selling would be vindictive. I don't think so. I think it would be a plus for the house, and so I imagine do the vast majority of its employees, who are the ultimate insiders.


That certainly is a possibility. But show me any serious fashion commentator who believes there's a snowball's chance that will happen. He is top talent in the fashion world, and everyone knows it. Maybe even his former boss is starting to get an inkling.


***


I find interesting a point in Bridget Foley's Diary, where she talks about how Alber at Lanvin created a customer who didn't exist before. I'd be quite interested to hear more about that.


If I were going to look elsewhere for the same kind of thing, Donna Karan comes to mind as perhaps the closest substitute (and not that close ...). And now that her line is shuttered, I wonder where the Lanvin customer will go?

 

[Fashionstuff]

You are correct technically. But anybody's who's ever worked in a corporate world knows that people get fired all the time through no fault of their own, though. The boss maybe didn't like you. Someone else gunning for your position and knows someone who can make it happen. or the classic setting someone up for failure - giving someone a workload that is way over his capabilities, then citing that failure as a reason for the attrition.


A layoff is not an alternative term. It is when the company you work for can no longer financially or viably sustain without cutting down its workforce. So when you are in that position, it's not you getting fired. You simply no longer have a job because your position was eliminated due to budget cuts.

Exactly. This is the real world.
I think there were some pivat and business misunderstandings,for example Elbaz has about 18 percent.

Source :businessoffashon.com

Elbaz has a stake of 10 percent Elbaz has a stake of 10 percent or greater in Lanvin, which has no doubt played a role in keeping the designer at the house for 14 years. But the report of Elbaz’s departure casts doubt as to whether this was enough to retain him.

This article is interesting:

Source uk.reuters.com

Alber Elbaz is leaving Lanvin after 14 years at the creative helm of France's oldest fashion brand.

Lanvin gave no explanation but industry and financial sources said tensions had been growing between shareholders because the company's sales and profits had been in constant decline over the past three years.

Partly stoking the tensions was the fact that Lanvin's controlling shareholder, Taiwanese media magnate Shaw-Lan Wang, had rejected several offers for the company a few months ago, the sources said.

Wang rejected an informal offer worth more than 400 million euros from Valentino's Qatari owners Mayhoola and another indicative bid of less than 400 million euros from Gucci owner Kering, sources close to the matter said on Wednesday.

"It is a shame Ms Wang rejected that offer, as Lanvin without Alber now, is certainly not going to be worth that much today," one of the sources said on Wednesday.

Lanvin's minority shareholders include German investor Ralph Bartel, who owns 25 percent, and Elbaz who has a stake of nearly 18 percent. Elbaz is widely credited with having infused new life in Lanvin and has been the brand's main driving force.

"It is clear that Elbaz and Bartel were not happy to see the sales and the value of their investments go down... But I think Ms Wang simply did not want to sell," another source said.

It is not clear what Elbaz will do with his stake since he bought part of it thanks to a loan from Wang, the sources said.

They said the designer was earning more than 5 million euros a year.

Founded in 1889, Lanvin is known for its silk cocktail dresses adorned with chunky jewellery and it is one of the last remaining independent major luxury fashion brands in France together with Hermes.

The sources said Bartel and Elbaz felt Wang was not investing enough in the business, in areas such as merchandising and boutiques, and did not see eye to eye with her on strategy.

Many industry specialists say Lanvin has the potential to be one of the industry's biggest fashion brands and could replicate the phenomenal success of Valentino.

Several sources estimated Lanvin would need at least 100 million euros of investment to take its development to the next level.

Over the years, Wang has sold off many of Lanvin's assets including its Japanese operations as well as its perfume business to perfume maker Interparfums.

Wang and Mayhoola were not immediately available for comment while Kering declined to comment.

Lanvin's operating profit in 2014 fell to 3.3 million euros from 13.9 million euros in 2012 on revenue of 206 million euros, down from 235.1 million euros in 2012, according to the company's official filing with France's companies' registry.

Thierry Andretta abruptly resigned as Lanvin's boss two years ago due to strategic disagreements with Wang who took over the executive management of the company.

Andretta is now chief executive of British fashion brand Mulberry.

Elbaz's resignation comes a few days after Raf Simons left Dior after a three-and-a-half year tenure to pursue other interests. Some media suggested Elbaz could join Dior.

Simons' departure sparked media comments about how fast-fashion brands such as Inditex's Zara have been putting pressure on big fashion brands such as Dior and Chanel to produce more collections every year, creating ever more work for designers.

 

[Nymphaea]

Alber Elbaz, Lanvin Management Trade Barbs Following Designer’s Exit

A war of words is erupting anew in the wake of Alber Elbaz’s ouster from Lanvin.

On Monday, the designer dispatched a letter to Lanvin owner Shaw-Lan Wang and chief executive officer Michèle Huiban expressing “shock” and contesting assertions that a lack of “creative designs” was partly to blame for the company’s woes.

In the the letter, seen by WWD, Elbaz called the charges – detailed in an email sent to Lanvin employees on Nov. 6 – as “unjustifiable” and blamed weak management and the lack of a marketing strategy and investment for stagnating sales.

He urged Wang and Huiban to cease questioning his creative work, or he would grant a long interview to defend his reputation, or seek legal action to gag them.

Meanwhile, in the Nov. 6 letter, also seen by WWD, Huiban described Elbaz’s ouster as “inevitable” given a degradation in his relations with the company.

She described his “aggression” towards management, urging Wang to sell the company and making other “grave” and “groundless” accusations.

A search for his successor is “under way” and Huiban expressed confidence in finding a creative talent to helm the brand, which celebrated its 125th birthday last year.

“The fundamentals of the business are healthy, its shareholder and governance are solid, the brand is strong, the strategy is clear,” she wrote.

However, she noted relations with the works council are strained and a court hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 17 at the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris to referee and restore constructive dialogue.

News of Elbaz’s ouster after an eventful 14-year tenure was first reported on WWD.com on Oct. 28, with the designer holding out hope that the company “finds the business vision it needs to engage in the right way forward.”

Sources said the rupture came following bitter disagreements between Elbaz, Wang and Huiban.

Elbaz has yet to indicate his future intentions, and his successor at Lanvin has not been named.

A raft of design talents recruited by Elbaz are carrying the torch for his soigne designs and working on the French house’s pre-fall 2016 collection. These include Chemena Kamali, who recently joined Lanvin as design director for women’s ready-to-wear from Chloé, while Lucio Finale was recently promoted to creative director of women’s bags and shoes after one year as its head designer of women’s bags, as reported.

wwd

 

[donyan]

this is getting ugly. mudslinging in public is never a good idea. This actually makes both parties look bad. What a mess

 

[fashionista-ta]

Wang's desperate accusations and finger-pointing are no threat to Alber, and I suspect aren't going to help her cause in the least. But I certainly wouldn't mind reading a long interview!!


As far as the most recent collection, I am not personally a fan of the look of shapewear as outerwear--I don't see myself wearing any of those pieces. However, I suspect the clothes are supremely flattering, and the collection also strikes me as orders of magnitude better executed than Marc Jacobs' lingerie theme collection of a few years ago--and yet my recollection is that Marc's was better received--at least around here (for whatever that is worth).


PS Thanks for posting the piece about Kering's offer. I can certainly understand how frustrating that must have been for the other stakeholders to watch that offer evaporate into the ether.

 

[Lola701]

WOW, it's getting even more messy.
I can totally understand the frustrations of Alber when you see what Mayhoola have done for Valentino and the success of Slimane, Burton, Mc Cartney or even Michele at Kering.
Funny fact: Alber attended the Valentino couture show at Rome and the last Saint Laurent show.

I really hope that she will bring Sophia Kokosalaki. And i hope the best for Alber but this mess needs to stop.

 

[Fashionstuff]

WOW, it's getting even more messy.
I can totally understand the frustrations of Alber when you see what Mayhoola have done for Valentino and the success of Slimane, Burton, Mc Cartney or even Michele at Kering.
Funny fact: Alber attended the Valentino couture show at Rome and the last Saint Laurent show.

I really hope that she will bring Sophia Kokosalaki. And i hope the best for Alber but this mess needs to stop.

Me too

Mrs. Wang is controlling shareholder ,in this case it would be her exit. I didn't found how much did she invest at the beginning?
Who knows if Mayhoola or Kering would keep Elbaz at the helm, maybe also not, but anyway, financial the Brand could have more potential.

It could be interesting, it seems Elbaz has something to say, would like to read interview in case he will give it.