Marc Not Happy

[Lena]

thats news to me...
could the ysl/jacobs rumours turn true?

WSJ: Marc Jacobs Laments His Deal with Bernard Arnault
Posted by Godfrey Deeny
February 09, 2004 @ 7:40 PM - New York 

Everyone in New York fashion circles is talking about Monday’s  front page in the Wall Street Journal, where Louis Vuitton's creative director Marc Jacobs very publicly unveils his dissatisfaction with his bosses, and deal, with LVMH.

Entitled “Wearing Thin, For Marc Jacobs, A Hot Partnership Needs Alterations,” the story chronicles the designer’s unhappiness with management at Louis Vuitton, his lack of creative control and the salary package paid to himself and his partner Robert Duffy.

From LVMH’s point of view, the story could not have come at a less opportune time. On Tuesday night Vuitton opens the largest store in its huge retail empire at 57th Street and Fifth Avenue, and stages a mega after-party in celebration of its 150th anniversary.

“I hit the jackpot. I got a front page,” beamed the author of the piece, the WSJ’s veteran fashion watcher, Terri Agins, as she greeted friends at Monday’s shows in Bryant Park.

The timing of the story itself would indicate that Jacobs’ discontent must be pretty deep, even if the feature recounts a lot of information already well-known to fashion insiders.

“I think Gucci treated Tom Ford better than LVMH treated me,” Jacobs tells the financial newspaper.
As has been reported ad infinitum, Ford and Domenico De Sole will leave their positions as creative director and ceo of the Gucci Group this spring after failing to agree on management control and fresh terms with the new owners of Gucci, the Pinault family, the great rivals of Bernard Arnault, chairman and controlling shareholder of LVMH.

Duffy and Jacobs also lament the heavy executive turnover at Marc Jacobs own house, which in seven years saw four different CEOs, all of who were appointed by LVMH and all of whom clashed with Duffy. LVMH began its relationship with Jacobs in 1996 when it first hired him and took a 34 percent stake in the financially troubled house. Today it owns 96 percent of the Marc Jacobs holding company.

Moreover, according to Duffy, both Jacobs and Duffy were paid less than $1 million annually. ....

....Further underling the difference in remuneration, Vuitton had annual sales of some $2.6 billion last year, compared with sales at the house of Gucci of around $1 billion.

So it sounds to us like Messers Jacobs and Duffy and Monsieur Arnault will have lots to talk about before tomorrow’s fete. Stay tuned. 

from fwd

 

[faust]

Interesting read, thanks! I think he should go on his own, and then we'll see if he sinks or swims. I understand him completely, but what did he think when he joined a conglomerate? It's all about business with LVMH.

On the human level, he has my sympathy. No designer should lose creative control.

P.S. I don't see him complaining about the mega name LVMH made him with all the advertising they threw at the general public!

 

[PrinceOfCats]

I don't have too much sympathy for Marc - most of Vuitton's sales are made by the Vuitton name not Marc's design skills.

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Feb 10th, 2004 - 12:11 pm
I don't have too much sympathy for Marc - most of Vuitton's sales are made by the Vuitton name not Marc's design skills.

I agree, and regarding his quote referencing Gucci's treatment towards Tom Ford, I wouldn't exactly consider his contribution to Vuitton to be remotely near what Ford has done for Gucci. When they can churn out something as revolting as the Murakami collection and still manage to get waiting lists for that stuff, you'd know it's more about the logo than the design.

First it's Alexander Mcqueen, then Michael Kors, now Marc Jacobs. I really believe that LVMH has absolute no clue how to treat big-name designers, and is a poor manager of brands.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by Orochian+Feb 10th, 2004 - 1:19 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Orochian @ Feb 10th, 2004 - 1:19 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-PrinceOfCats@Feb 10th, 2004 - 12:11 pm
I don't have too much sympathy for Marc - most of Vuitton's sales are made by the Vuitton name not Marc's design skills.

I agree, and regarding his quote referencing Gucci's treatment towards Tom Ford, I wouldn't exactly consider his contribution to Vuitton to be remotely near what Ford has done for Gucci. When they can churn out something as revolting as the Murakami collection and still manage to get waiting lists for that stuff, you'd know it's more about the logo than the design.

First it's Alexander Mcqueen, then Michael Kors, now Marc Jacobs. I really believe that LVMH has absolute no clue how to treat big-name designers, and is a poor manager of brands. [/b][/quote]
I absolutely agree. Only, they have the most powerful tool of the trade and they use it well - advertising. And as long as the masses remain sheep LVMH will be a hit.

 

[Orochian]

Originally posted by faust@Feb 10th, 2004 - 1:44 pm
I absolutely agree. Only, they have the most powerful tool of the trade and they use it well - advertising. And as long as the masses remain sheep LVMH will be a hit.

For me personally, LVMH is the luxury goods equivalent of General Motors - a lumbering, inefficient giant that excels in nothing but mediocrity and bureaucracy. What makes GM sink and LVMH float, though, is that car buyers are generally savvy of their purchases, while there are more than enough fashion victims willing to part with their substantial amounts of cash for a logoed handbag of questionable taste, to keep Bernard Arnault and his shareholders happy.

I wonder though, just how long can LVMH maintain their superiority in the business over their rivals, given the current state of their portfolio of brands. Besides Vuitton and Dior (who has a fair share of problems itself, such as a schizonphrenic brand image and clashing design mentalities within the house), most of their labels aren't making any money. There are a few names under their umbrella that have the potential of being much more than the staid, passe brands that they are now, if they were in more capable hands. I've always thought Celine was on the right track with Michael Kors at the helm. Now after his departure, when was the last time the brand was even mentioned in a glossy magazine as something remotely trendy or desirable?

That's why I was so thoroughly puzzled when Hedi Slimane declined a generous offer from the Gucci group and instead chose to work for LVMH under Dior, a menswear label burdened with the tacky, poor quality licensing stuff favored by middle age Oriental businessmen - not at all the "blank slate" he claimed it to be. He complained about bureaucracy and creative restrictions with the Gucci group as if Tom Ford was the devil himself, while merrily signing his contracts with LVMH. Oh the irony.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by Orochian@Feb 11th, 2004 - 12:23 am
For me personally, LVMH is the luxury goods equivalent of General Motors - a lumbering, inefficient giant that excels in nothing but mediocrity and bureaucracy. What makes GM sink and LVMH float, though, is that car buyers are generally savvy of their purchases, while there are more than enough fashion victims willing to part with their substantial amounts of cash for a logoed handbag of questionable taste, to keep Bernard Arnault and his shareholders happy.

I think you answered your own question. Fashion for the masses today is what the car market for the masses was in the 60's and 70's. Let's examine what happened then? Uneducated consumer masses with money to buy but uneducated about the car market went to GM in hords, because GM used heavy advertising. Seeing incredible sales GM stopped caring for the quality of their cars. Not before long, the Japanese enter the market. Soon, GM sales start slomping, regardless of their advertising budget. The consumer, like you said, has become savvy. The same will happen to the fashion market, because fashion for the masses is in the infant stage. When the AVERAGE consumer will become more discerning and start making decision for himself, instead of looking at glossy adverisements, the tide will turn.... or at least I hope so!

I think everything is a learning curve.