Doo-Ri Chung Out at Doo.Ri

[ChrissyM]

Just saw this at Fashionista.com

Getty



Is designers leaving their namesake labels a new trend? Just a couple of months after Simon Spurr announced his departure from six year old label Simon Spurr, WWD is reporting that Doo-Ri Chung has decided to leave Doo.Ri, the clothing company she founded in 2001.

Like Spurr’s move, Chung’s is difficult to understand. WWD offers zero details on why Chung left or what she plans to do next and, by all accounts, the label had a pretty good couple of years. She dressed Michelle Obama for a state dinner honoring South Korea (Chung is Korean-American) and designed a high-profile Macy’s capsule collections–two projects that boosted the designer’s name recognition significantly. And, back in 2006, the talented designer, a Parsons alum, won both the CFDA Fashion Award for Swarovski/Perry Ellis’ Up and Coming Designer of the Year and the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund.


At the Macy’s launch, Chung told us

I’m still a very small, young designer. I’m still considered ‘niche’ and I’m always hesitant about being associated with someone that’s much bigger than I am. We’re still trying to make a place for ourselves, and I think having an association with Macy’s will definitely override that. But I think in the end, the partnership was beneficial for everybody.
​

Guess it wasn’t beneficial enough. Tharanco Group, the company that owns Doo.Ri (and a few other low-profile brands), told WWD it “wishes Chung well in all her future endeavors.” As for what’s to come of the label, “market sources” told the trade that Tharanco may sell the firm or shift to a licensing model. And that’s all we know. Another fashion mystery for us to ponder.

 

[lucy92]

i am not surprised at all.

she was very resistant to change and refused to do any other well known retailer partnerships until it was too late...she could have been a household name if she had played her cards right...

and it didnt make sense that her diffusion line cost so much money. it was more expensive then marc by marc jacobs. a t shirt from the diffusion line still cost hundreds of dollars.

other designers do draped garments and jersey items just as well, ie daryl K and have a better relationship with retailers.

and i can understand why the other investors and majority owners of the company wanted her out.

 

[Scott]

perhaps that hesitation should have been felt before she made the deal to sell. i hate seeing these sorts of stories....where designers are forced to leave their own labels. it's very surreal how corporate fashion has become.

 

[MulletProof]

Every time this happens I repulse the fashion industry and the way it puts some of its talents on a road to.. banishment.

Her label was still very small and young, I resent how they're going to keep her name from now on but good luck trying to define it when no one even knew 100% what Doo-Ri was about. I hope she does find a better way to get back in the game and well.. learn from the unfortunate experience.

 

[Scott]

if ever i had my ambivalence about fashion as a system,it's even stronger these days. i'm just grateful for those few that we do have and that remain uncompromising to this current trend of buying and selling like cheap plastic toys. seems to me the only person who has any grain of integrity in this vein,is anne chapelle who holds stakes in demeulemeester and ackermann.

on a side note,has anybody learned nothing from the experiences with prada group and what's happened with margiela and the like?

 

[thejarc]

Yea, the list is endless, Helmut Lang, Jil Sander, Simons Spurr, Roland Mouret, Margiela, Galliano, Theyskens, Martine Sitbon, the list is seemingly endless. And there is Mr Arnault who likes to force out people as well (Mr Givenchy).


As previously mentioned, Anne Chapelle seems to be a prime example of a fruitful backer/designer relationship, seems like more designers need their own Anne. (who is also backing Josephus Thimister, I believe)

 

[Not Plain Jane]

perhaps that hesitation should have been felt before she made the deal to sell. i hate seeing these sorts of stories....where designers are forced to leave their own labels. it's very surreal how corporate fashion has become.

Fully agree. I loved her work.

 

[ScarlettLover]

I can't even imagine being cast from your own namesake line. The industry can be cruel but it's true Doo-ri isn't a special case, it's happened to many. I hope this can turn positive for her and be a learning experience that she takes to create future success.

 

[fashionista-ta]

perhaps that hesitation should have been felt before she made the deal to sell. i hate seeing these sorts of stories....where designers are forced to leave their own labels. it's very surreal how corporate fashion has become.

Agree, it just seems so intuitively wrong.

 

[Mathewthew]

Yea, the list is endless, Helmut Lang, Jil Sander, Simons Spurr, Roland Mouret, Margiela, Galliano, Theyskens, Martine Sitbon, the list is seemingly endless. And there is Mr Arnault who likes to force out people as well (Mr Givenchy).


As previously mentioned, Anne Chapelle seems to be a prime example of a fruitful backer/designer relationship, seems like more designers need their own Anne. (who is also backing Josephus Thimister, I believe)

Anne force Thimister to close his own label and give his studio to another desginer.
That's why I heard some designer turn down those investors ..

 

[Scott]

^interesting. i don't want to veer too far away from doo-ri,but i checked her site and he was even removed from her roster of designers--no info or the slightest mention. so in that i would hope she sold him back her share in his company.

 

[lucy92]

I can't even imagine being cast from your own namesake line. The industry can be cruel but it's true Doo-ri isn't a special case, it's happened to many. I hope this can turn positive for her and be a learning experience that she takes to create future success.

its called selling out.

she already sold the vast majority of her company to the Tharanco Group (a private equity company) years ago. i think she may only have owned around 10% of the company.

she probably decided to sell ALL the remaining share of the company.

its unfortunate that when designers see short term gain over long term gain.

 

[softgrey]

going back to the original article...
that person who wrote it sounds really ignorant and, frankly, stupid...

new trend....?

designers leaving/selling their own labels/names has gone on for ages and ages...
HALSTON anyone?...

hell- if i could get someone to pay me for my name, i'd probably do it too...
as long as i have the talent, they can have the name...
i would just change my name then and do something else...

as shakespeare said---
what's in a name?...

and as they say on SNL---
so what, who cares...lol...

 

[zamb]

well all of this depends on what is your reason for being in fashion

if you are in fashion to build a brand where its recognition brings value that you can then cash in, by all means..............but then, why not start the brand with some other name than your own, so that when you sell you dont loose the rights to your name.

I keep seeing too many stories like this, and its always sad to see brands like Helmut Lang become the complete opposite of what the original founders believed in.

But I think too many designers are too lazy in learning the fundamentals, too impatient to wait on their brands to grow organically (and by no means am I saying this is the case with Doo Ri,). they are suckered in by the pressures of doing too much too quickly and maintaining an image at the expense of making a profit.
Some of these businesses doesn't have the money for all the shows the magazine ads etc, and as such they are forced to borrow money, to sell shares in hopes of staying afloat....

when the investors need a return on their investment and you the designer seems like an obstacle in the way, you are thrown out head first from the company that bears your name........

 

[Meg]

I think Doo.Ri wanted to grow organically but I think she needed a clearer sense of what she wanted to bring to the table - and without that, she was completely priced out. She had some stellar seasons where I was completely wowed. And some others that were just so incredibly boring and 'so what?' - you can't be a 'so what?' when you have limited name recognition and are charging so much.

I think it's funny that they suggest at the end that licensing may be a way forward - didn't we just establish she has had very limited name recognition? What is the point of licensing a brand like hers unless you bring in a big designer to start accessories? No one is going to buy Doo.Ri socks