It’s unfortunate to see the Marc Jacobs label deteriorated the way that once great American labels Donna Karan and Clavin Klein have. That there’s some chaotic effort to keep his mainline’s aura alive with whatever he’s doing right now with the mainline is at once endearing and desperate. But I wonder what would be the incentive, for any potential investor to revive the brand in any way? Would you invest in the brand’s revival? Marc himself seems to have abandoned the signatures that made his label so worthy: The oddball-meets-blueblood Andy Warhol NYer of his namesake, then the sportsweary American in couturey Paris of his Vuitton have both been discarded for this Rick/Rei/Lady Bunny wannabe playing dressup for likes/follows to just hustle the most basic tote bags to impressionable 15yos.
And interesting that the mainline's pricepoints aren’t ridiculously outrageous, so I wonder how well Marc Jacobs Runaway does at Bergdorf? But even with the measly availability of the mainline, is it really a sustainable earning for the brand’s business model? The overhaul of such the label would be such a heart-attack inducing project with the label’s Runway Rick/Rei/Lady Bunny sensibility an entirely different entity from the current consumer totebag-pushing campaign’s Tory Burch/Kate Spade/Coach Outlet targeted counterpoint. It’s this hilarious and desperate everything, everywhere, everyone at once slop: How soon before those totebags are an international licence to the highest bidder-- like what's happened to the Karl Lagerfeld name? (BTW, the Bergdorf site is insultingly budget/clearout/outlet in its sensibility I thought I had stumbled onto its outlet site— or one of those warehouse operations from the late-2000s that carry countless LA brands, like Revolve. I’ve experienced the cheapening of highend establishments from my neck of the woods, but to be reminded that the cheapness plague is at an international level, is still sort of disheartening.)
Maybe I’m reading too much about it but I wonder if the trajectory of the Marc Jacobs brand is not the fate of the conception of success as seen in America. You have to be big it seems at all cost. And commercial success is what matters the most in that area where Fashion is just Fashion and it’s seen as normal that a Michael Kors does the same numbers as Levi’s because…They are all American Sportswear.
The ones who escaped that decided to establish themselves in Europe, where prestige is more valued. We see it with Thom Browne, Rick Owens and Tom Ford. They may never reach the numbers of CK, TB, RL and others but the cachet is preserved.
The only one really who did it perfectly is Ralph Lauren. But that comes from his genius in « marketing » or at least story telling.
He manages to sell the same lifestyle at different price points without hurting his brand or his cachet. And success of all success, a Ralph Lauren Collection/Purple Label customer buy Polo RL without feeling like it’s a lesser brand.
It would have been courageous for Marc and LVMH to let the brand have a period of turmoil in projection for brighter days.
When Marc left Vuitton, the promise was that his brand had a potential. They stopped Marc by Marc in the same way that Dolce & Gabbana stopped D&G…But I think it was clear, shows after shows that Marc lacked identity. He could reinvent himself every season at Vuitton but part of having your own brand or even language as a designer is to be identifiable.
There’s a Marc Jacobs RTW collection of cute pieces, well priced, very in the spirit of Marc as we knew, the Marc that Sofia Coppola could wear. There’s Heaven that I still don’t understand…And there’s the runway extravaganza that doesn’t really interact with the two others.
But really? Who is the Marc Jacobs person today? The Kiki boots fan can’t possibly connect with the brand as it is. The tote bag person trade MJ for MK, TB or Coach at any given time and the historic MJ woman for me, Sofia Coppola has become a full Chanel woman (interesting that Sofia never went for Prada now that I’m thinking about it).
.
