Can Schiaparelli's ultra-luxury strategy succeed?

[nationalsalt]

From various interviews, I understand that Diego Della Valle is happy to keep funding the label - even given its continuing losses - with slow expansion plans and a positioning strategy that will cement it as an ultra-luxury label.

Schiaparelli's prices are already astronomical, however its wannabe peers like Chanel, Hermes etc. generally sell far more traditional / quiet luxury designs.

Are the high net worth patrons of these labels creative enough in their style to sustain sales at the more surrealist Schiaparelli?

Furthermore, these other big labels are underpinned by fragrances, beauty and leather goods which the masses can buy into - but even Schiaparelli's gold-toe Converse sneakers are €2300, making it pretty impenetrable to all but the 0.1%.

Clearly Della Valle has deep pockets and the house has an abundance of ideas, but I'm a little puzzled by this approach which doesn't indicate any rush to turn a profit.

Am I missing something, or is this all perfectly normal?

 

[blueorchid]

Let's not pat Roseberry on the back too much for the "surrealism" at Schiaparelli. When it comes down it, the definition of surrealism he's going with is pretty literal? Isn't it KrAzY if we use nipples as BUTTONS omg? I don't think anything being offered is too elevated for patrons who want this stuff, you don't need an MFA in Art History to get it. Frankly, the less people I see wearing those vile sneakers, the better.

Like, they're going to find this stuff in an excavated dumpster 500 years from now and think this is what we worshipped, aren't they?

 

[nationalsalt]

Let's not pat Roseberry on the back too much for the "surrealism" at Schiaparelli. When it comes down it, the definition of surrealism he's going with is pretty literal? Isn't it KrAzY if we use nipples as BUTTONS omg? I don't think anything being offered is too elevated for patrons who want this stuff, you don't need an MFA in Art History to get it. Frankly, the less people I see wearing those vile sneakers, the better.

Like, they're going to find this stuff in an excavated dumpster 500 years from now and think this is what we worshipped, aren't they?

View attachment 1324873

Nevertheless, nipple buttons, eyeball earrings and ant-covered jackets are still somewhat more "out there" than a Chanel tweed jacket or a plain Loro Piana cashmere jumper.

I'm just curious whether enough super-rich customers will buy into his vision long term when they might be used to dressing more discreetly.

 

[Nimsay]

im weird bc ro me Hermes is not discreet.

 

[tourbillions]

omg the roseberry stans has infiltrated the forums... There is nothing ultra luxury in schiaparelli. Lets not interchange luxury with gimmicks. They are commanding those prices because of the embellishments which they try to appear as "demi-couture". At the end, most of their business are probably for their couture clients and the rtw line are probably additions to their couture clients wardrobes. Whether these clients actually exist or whether theyve been the friends we met all along, we will never know.

They can never compete with their "wannabe" competitors. Schiaparelli has 0 value in the resale market, i hate to say it but those tweed jackets are really investment pieces. Meanwhile Schiaparelli will be all over cheap department stores beside christian lacroix and karl lagerfeld after they grow the brand enough to sell the license to someone.

 

[Lola701]

I think it’s a little bit early to have a judgement on a strategy considering that they are only starting to develop the RTW. It’s the same argument as Phoebe Philo.

Chanel and Hermes aren’t Schiaparelli’s competition either.

But for me they are clever. If Della Valle wanted a quick money grab, he could have done the fragrance a long time ago. I command him for waiting to have some kind of new identity for Schiaparelli to start developing it.

I think Daniel Roseberry has still to grown into his identity as a designer and mostly as a direction for his RTW.

However, Schiaparelli RTW was build on the backbone of the Couture and so, the prices makes sense. Couture is for the 1%, the ones who can’t afford Couture but still have the means can go to RTW. From what I have seen, the quality is great. It may not be my personal style, but it works.

I often use the same example but Balmain had a similar beginning under Decarnin. Few people believed that 1K€ tshirts, 3K blazers and 1k/2k jeans could work and it worked. They had a good line of shoes with Giuseppe Zanotti and a bag with Aurelie Bidermann. The brand grew, the owners weren’t prepared and ultimately they sold the brand once it was too big for them.

Della Valle has the infrastructures to handle the growth of the brand and with his recent partnership with LVMH, the potential of the brand could be interesting.

However, Schiaparelli is a 200M brand max IMO.

 

[Creative]

Schiaparelli will never happen. They peaked 1 year ago.

It’s not sustainable.

 

[mdmmxl]

I often use the same example but Balmain had a similar beginning under Decarnin. Few people believed that 1K€ tshirts, 3K blazers and 1k/2k jeans could work and it worked. They had a good line of shoes with Giuseppe Zanotti and a bag with Aurelie Bidermann. The brand grew, the owners weren’t prepared and ultimately they sold the brand once it was too big for them.

What differs between Decarnins Balmain and Schiaparelli, in my opinion, is that Decarnin, though highly skilled (much more so than Roseberry), had a very different clientele. His clothes were able to be sold at such high prices because they appealed to the nouveau riche, who were happy to pay a lot for clothes that were not tweed suits and pilgrim pumps. Not to go too deep into Veblens "theory of the leisure class" but Balmain was the predecessor, at a different level, of course, to PP - "tr/flashy" clothes at very high prices that, design wise, were pretty much about boobs, waist and legs. Again, I believe Decarnin is a great craftsman but also a very clever business man (see also Tom Ford). (Grailed, of all places, had a great article about him and the business of Balmain, few years ago: https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/christophe-decarnin-master-class)

Roseberrys Schiaparelli is not discreet, elegant or any of those things, but also not really "sexy" (hate that word) or desirable outside of its "oddness" (which it also really is only to people who are not really interested in art beyond a very, very surface level - sorry). So what makes them desirable enough to maintain a loyal customer base or grown beyond the current interest?

Also, hi!, this is my first post here - though I've been reading the forum since school.

 

[kasper!]

Their Shanghai pop-up store is OK, many VIPs who are tired long distance flight come to shop specially....But still it is a great chanllenge for them becasue Tod's is mostly a footwear and leathergoods company, not all-range mega brands like Dior or LV. They need to keep investing at least 5-10 years or more.

 

[Lola701]

What differs between Decarnins Balmain and Schiaparelli, in my opinion, is that Decarnin, though highly skilled (much more so than Roseberry), had a very different clientele. His clothes were able to be sold at such high prices because they appealed to the nouveau riche, who were happy to pay a lot for clothes that were not tweed suits and pilgrim pumps. Not to go too deep into Veblens "theory of the leisure class" but Balmain was the predecessor, at a different level, of course, to PP - "tr/flashy" clothes at very high prices that, design wise, were pretty much about boobs, waist and legs. Again, I believe Decarnin is a great craftsman but also a very clever business man (see also Tom Ford). (Grailed, of all places, had a great article about him and the business of Balmain, few years ago: https://www.grailed.com/drycleanonly/christophe-decarnin-master-class)

Roseberrys Schiaparelli is not discreet, elegant or any of those things, but also not really "sexy" (hate that word) or desirable outside of its "oddness" (which it also really is only to people who are not really interested in art beyond a very, very surface level - sorry). So what makes them desirable enough to maintain a loyal customer base or grown beyond the current interest?

Also, hi!, this is my first post here - though I've been reading the forum since school.

Hi! Welcome!
But essentially, the people who are buying Schiaparelli are the same profile of people who bought Balmain in 2007/2011.
The woman who is buying Schiaparelli is not going to Christian Siriano. She wants a standout piece, a statement for a specific thing. And Schiaparelli got you covered. You can have a beautifully made blazer, a simple black dress in velvet and more loud pieces.

Don’t be blinded by your appreciation or your personal taste. There’s no such a thing as monolith in the clientele today.

Schiaparelli is the It brand in the Couture landscape. That position alone allows them to have a moment and to create the beginning of a following. What lacks now is a signature piece.
At Balmain, it was clear that the blazers, jeans and coats were the signature pieces under Decarnin. Under Rousteing, the emphasis was made in the blazers.


Decarnin was indeed very skilled but he wasn’t a business man. He was I would say a very instinctive designer and he the chance to have the support of the most influential publication at the time. The pricing strategy at Balmain was a bit born as a necessity. The house had nearly nothing left and the clothes were expensive because they were produced by the existing atelier and facilities in Paris. They weren’t prepared for the success at all.

In essence, the craftmanship of the collections by Rousteing was much more impressive than Decarnin.

But I think we needs to let time for things to happen and for strategies and aesthetic to unfold and develop.
People are expecting Phoebe Philo to create an empire with one collection, Daniel Roseberry to create a long lasting business when the RTW is only at it early development.

So far, things are happening, there’s a momentum and they are doing things cleverly. The showroom in Place Vendome and some key, exclusive distributors. I don’t know when Roseberry’s contract is up to renewal but that would be a interesting due date to start look more in depth into the strategy of the brand. If he signs for 5 more years, we know now that things can develop.

 

[nationalsalt]

I think it’s a little bit early to have a judgement on a strategy considering that they are only starting to develop the RTW. It’s the same argument as Phoebe Philo.

Chanel and Hermes aren’t Schiaparelli’s competition either.

But for me they are clever. If Della Valle wanted a quick money grab, he could have done the fragrance a long time ago. I command him for waiting to have some kind of new identity for Schiaparelli to start developing it.

I think Daniel Roseberry has still to grown into his identity as a designer and mostly as a direction for his RTW.

However, Schiaparelli RTW was build on the backbone of the Couture and so, the prices makes sense. Couture is for the 1%, the ones who can’t afford Couture but still have the means can go to RTW. From what I have seen, the quality is great. It may not be my personal style, but it works.

I often use the same example but Balmain had a similar beginning under Decarnin. Few people believed that 1K€ tshirts, 3K blazers and 1k/2k jeans could work and it worked. They had a good line of shoes with Giuseppe Zanotti and a bag with Aurelie Bidermann. The brand grew, the owners weren’t prepared and ultimately they sold the brand once it was too big for them.

Della Valle has the infrastructures to handle the growth of the brand and with his recent partnership with LVMH, the potential of the brand could be interesting.

However, Schiaparelli is a 200M brand max IMO.

Thanks Lola701, that's an interesting perspective. You're right, Balmain is probably the better equivalent than Chanel or Hermes. I forgot what a stir Decarnin's bedazzled t-shirts and jeans caused when they first dropped!

I suppose Della Valle might not want to follow Balmain's steps of logo t-shirts that prop up the balance sheet while they're still solidifying Schiaparelli's status, but according to Balmain's Wikipedia, "As of 2012, 50% of the company's total income is from license royalties." This is after Decarnin's reign and a year into Rousteing's, implying they were still counting on revenue from more affordable goods alongside $3K blazers.

But as has been pointed out, Schiaparelli have only just started on their RTW journey. So if Della Valle is happy to keep funding them, I'm happy to wait and see what happens....

 

[Monsieur Cristobal]

Roseberrys Schiaparelli is not discreet, elegant or any of those things, but also not really "sexy" (hate that word) or desirable outside of its "oddness" (which it also really is only to people who are not really interested in art beyond a very, very surface level - sorry). So what makes them desirable enough to maintain a loyal customer base or grown beyond the current interest?

Also, hi!, this is my first post here - though I've been reading the forum since school.

Welcome! ☺️

If, in what you wrote, you change "Roseberrys Schiaparelli" and put "A. Michele's Gucci" you have, instead of the reasons why Schiaparelli is going to fail, the exact formula that turned Gucci into a white hot brand.

I am with Lola, it is too early to judge certain projects.
But Schiaparelli has its own thread now 😉 and I know during the Haute Couture week theirs is a fashion show I don't want to miss.
I can miss Dior or Chanel, but I want to know what's going on at Schiaparelli.

And one last thing:
When it was born, Zara's strategy was to do no advertisements at all. Zero publicity. Neither on TV, nor in the magazines, nor in the street. To me that is crazy. It is behaving as the most discreet and exclusive luxury brand, while being a humble-priced retailer. A Brunello Cuccinelli strategy to sell 5€ tshirts. I don't know if they follow this policy to this day, but I always found this astonishing.

So sometimes the riskiest strategies can work (like starting a house through the Haute Couture) and sometimes what appears to be a safe choice can result in a car crash (Sabato for Gucci).

 

[Lola701]

Thanks Lola701, that's an interesting perspective. You're right, Balmain is probably the better equivalent than Chanel or Hermes. I forgot what a stir Decarnin's bedazzled t-shirts and jeans caused when they first dropped!

I suppose Della Valle might not want to follow Balmain's steps of logo t-shirts that prop up the balance sheet while they're still solidifying Schiaparelli's status, but according to Balmain's Wikipedia, "As of 2012, 50% of the company's total income is from license royalties." This is after Decarnin's reign and a year into Rousteing's, implying they were still counting on revenue from more affordable goods alongside $3K blazers.

But as has been pointed out, Schiaparelli have only just started on their RTW journey. So if Della Valle is happy to keep funding them, I'm happy to wait and see what happens....

I mean, up until Decarnin took over, Balmain’s name existed only through licences. I think rent was that high at that time because they could even afford their store. I remember at that time you had brands like Escada or Georges Rech having stores in the best locations of Paris.

That’s why they were able to afford to produce those Decarnin shows and collections and to have a decent infrastructure.

If I remember well, Decarnin had an issue with the owner of the brand because as soon as the brand had the success, they wanted to launch a more affordable line. Decarnin was against it, as he should!

Eventually, they started the Pierre Balmain line when Olivier joined but it didn’t make sense because it was at the same time that brands were getting rid of diffusion lines. I think the Qataris closed it and refocused the business entirely with Rousteing.

I think they got rid of all their licensing deals. The last one was with Interparfums. That one was useless because they never pushed for the fragrances released probably because they knew they were going to sign with a more prestigious entity.

I think Schiaparelli is not an issue now.

I’m more worried about a brand like Mugler. The Clarins family never made it work. L’Oreal bought it but despite the buzz generated by the work of the new designer, I don’t have the feeling that it’s working, that there’s a following or even a long lasting future.

And if we put it against Schiaparelli, which is speaking to the 1%, I can say that I see a brighter future for Schiaparelli than Mugler. The advantage of Schiaparelli is that it’s so expensive and unreachable for the mass that it will never reach the level of démodé. At Mugler, the Spiral jeans moment is passed and it seems like they are waiting/chasing the next moment.

 

[Nimsay]

Yea the problem w Schiaparelli is that - without the bits and bobs - it looks like Balmain…

also Balmain benefitted off of Pierre Balmain only retiring in like 1999 - so it was a lot easier to pickup where he left off since there was clothes in circulation still from PB. Not only museum pieces that may be quite polarizing as in Schiaparellis case.

 

[LadyJunon]

Yea the problem w Schiaparelli is that - without the bits and bobs - it looks like Balmain…

also Balmain benefitted off of Pierre Balmain only retiring in like 1999 - so it was a lot easier to pickup where he left off since there was clothes in circulation still from PB. Not only museum pieces that may be quite polarizing as in Schiaparellis case.

We also have to acknowledge that, with the exception of 2-year break follwing Hivelin's acquisition, Balmain never closed like Schiaparelli did. After Balmain's death in 1982, the brand went through a string of unsuccessful tenures until Alain Hivelin acquired the entity and appointed Decarnin.