Designers Switching Houses & Moving to New Brands

[Lola701]

Givenchy lead the couture boom in the 1980s. That haughty, stuffy, poufy, giant jeweled earring look---that very Dynasty look----was the Givenchy look.

More Ungaro no?

I like what Galliano is doing now but I think Lanvin through his lens would be so good

Seriously, judging by what the Management’s plan looks like…I hope no seasoned designer will be part of it.

 

[jeanclaude]

Galliano at Lanvin would be a dream! A dream that is not gonna happen, though...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I like what Galliano is doing now but I think Lanvin through his lens would be so good

More Ungaro no?



Seriously, judging by what the Management’s plan looks like…I hope no seasoned designer will be part of it.

When I worked at a historic costume collection we had a LOT of 80s couture donated by rich old women. It was definitely more Givenchy. By far.

 

[Lola701]

When I worked at a historic costume collection we had a LOT of 80s couture donated by rich old women. It was definitely more Givenchy. By far.

I get that Couture clients may have bought a lot of Givenchy but in terms of aesthetic, that idea of flamboyance in Couture is usually associated with Ungaro and even to a lesser degree, Scherrer.

‘Givenchy was on trend but still remained very chic and conservative. Maybe not the driving force of that aesthetic…

 

[jeanclaude]

The "Dinasty" power-dressing look was everywhere in the 80s...all the big haute couture names were into it:



@Lola701 A lot of 80s Ungaro in this video for you!

 

[Lola701]

The "Dinasty" power-dressing look was everywhere in the 80s...all the big haute couture names were into it:



@Lola701 A lot of 80s Ungaro in this video for you!

Ahaha! Chanel is still my favorite thing from 80’s Couture!
I already saw that documentary…

The 80’s were almost schizophrenic in a way.

But it’s very interesting to realize in retrospect the division in the way wealthy people used to dress. The historical socialites were still wearing the big names ou Couture, with the new generation wearing Chanel and later Christian Lacroix…While the bourgeoisie was wearing Alaia, Mugler and all.

‘The dynasty look couldn’t be more different from what Alaia, Gaultier, Montana and what happened in Italy looked but they still exist in that time frame.

We associate flamboyance with Versace for example but 80’s Versace was still less big than any of the « good taste » of classic Couture houses.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

The "Dinasty" power-dressing look was everywhere in the 80s...all the big haute couture names were into it:



@Lola701 A lot of 80s Ungaro in this video for you!

The real life version of that Dynasty woman was buying and wearing Givenchy.

 

[jeanclaude]

The real life version of that Dynasty woman was buying and wearing Givenchy.

And the rest of Haute Couture designers too!

 

[LadyJunon]

When I look at 80's Haute Couture, I thank Galliano and McQueen for giving it the jolt it severely needed.

 

[Kennnnn]

I think Marco Zanini would be a good fit for Givenchy, although he might not have the commercial savvy to grow it into a behemoth (if that's what LVMH wants).

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I get that Couture clients may have bought a lot of Givenchy but in terms of aesthetic, that idea of flamboyance in Couture is usually associated with Ungaro and even to a lesser degree, Scherrer.

‘Givenchy was on trend but still remained very chic and conservative. Maybe not the driving force of that aesthetic…

I should not have said "poufy," what I meant was "frou frou."

I don't necessarily mean eccentric and loud clothes, just uppity rich and opulent clothes.

But this is where the historical record and fashion press and storytelling diverge. Sure Lacroix and Ungaro were emblematic of the couture boom but having looked at what women in that era actually wore and then eventually donated to costume collections... Givenchy was really the driving force. Him and Saint Laurent.

As influential as Lacroix and Ungaro were, Givenchy and Saint Laurent were probably more widely copied.

 

[Nimsay]

Putting on my business cap I would prob want Givenchy to be a partner brand to Dior. To expand the potential wardrobe for the Dior woman. Id do that because i would want Dior to remain the crown jewel for rtw and couture. Riccardos Givenchy was practically stomping Dior. The current dior look is allegedly working well. Id prob appoint someone from MGCs atelier who has a similar design ethos. That would be the ultimate in couture for morning noon and night since it would all be so dull it can go together seamlessly. Givenchy should be unbranded- so no GGGG logowear. Maybe let Givenchy keep the wild accessories.

 

[Nimsay]

I just noticed that Givenchy has makeup now... what is LVMH doing?

Differentiating Givenchy is going to be very hard.


Continuing what I said above ^

I would keep Givenchy as a primarily RTW separates line (Giv Heritage) that coordinates with Dior, make the Giv Couture Red Carpet focused letting Dior focus only on couture customers who don't want red carpet looks. I would keep wild and crazy accessories at Giv so there is something differentiating it from Dior and so it doesn't cut into any of Dior's sales. Also if Giv is on the red carpet in People Magazine then having wild accessories makes sense for that customer wanting to buy in.

This is the only way forward without cutting into Dior which Im sure Riccardo's Givenchy was doing since Dior sucked in comparison. The idea is to get people wearing Dior and Givenchy at the same time which was not happening before. Riccardos Giv didn't go with Dior (I dont even remember what dior looked like during that period TBH) so customers were choosing a brand over the other.

 

[Cocteau Stone]

I just noticed that Givenchy has makeup now... what is LVMH doing?

Differentiating Givenchy is going to be very hard.

Givenchy has had a beauty/makeup sector since the late 80s, so it isn't that strange. How they've been trying to advertise it during the past years has been another story...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I just noticed that Givenchy has makeup now... what is LVMH doing?

Differentiating Givenchy is going to be very hard.


Continuing what I said above ^

I would keep Givenchy as a primarily RTW separates line (Giv Heritage) that coordinates with Dior, make the Giv Couture Red Carpet focused letting Dior focus only on couture customers who don't want red carpet looks. I would keep wild and crazy accessories at Giv so there is something differentiating it from Dior and so it doesn't cut into any of Dior's sales. Also if Giv is on the red carpet in People Magazine then having wild accessories makes sense for that customer wanting to buy in.

This is the only way forward without cutting into Dior which Im sure Riccardo's Givenchy was doing since Dior sucked in comparison. The idea is to get people wearing Dior and Givenchy at the same time which was not happening before. Riccardos Giv didn't go with Dior (I dont even remember what dior looked like during that period TBH) so customers were choosing a brand over the other.

I think Dior and Givenchy are two very different customers and it's better business to keep it that way.

 

[perhydrol]

If you thought Lanvin can't get even messier, you should think again. They have a massive sale of Sialelli's pieces from the archives now and they're up to 80% off. It's like they don't understand the impact of such actions on the image of the brand.

 

[reese06]

Where?

In Boutiques only?

 

[perhydrol]

^It's on their website.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

^It's on their website.

Link? I don't see anything marked down on their website.

 

[perhydrol]

Link? I don't see anything marked down on their website.

There you go.