Matthew M. Williams - Designer

[gallianostan]

this house truly is the oft-overlooked, forgotten child that nobody wants. i don't know what arnault is thinking actively letting this house wither away and die under his negligent stewardship.

 

[LadyJunon]

this house truly is the oft-overlooked, forgotten child that nobody wants. i don't know what arnault is thinking actively letting this house wither away and die under his negligent stewardship.

Personally, the big issue that Arnault doesn't know what to do with Givenchy. In the decade following Hubert's retirement, the house dealt with a rotation of designers and several skipped seasons before hitting gold with Tisci for almost 12 years, before becoming unstable once again. To add to this, Givenchy is extremely similar to Dior, in terms of aesthetics and brand identity, which raises the question of self-cannibalisation.

Givenchy needs to feel fresh and new again. The stages to that would be to:
• find a CEO that is hands-on and knows how to merchandise, position and structure a fashion house in this sort of situation.
• find a creative director who can produce forward-facing collections and desirable accessories, along with the capacity to curate a full 360º image for the house.
• revamp the branding (logo, website, packaging, social media) to shake off the messy history and render those all of those t-shirts and hoodies obsolete.
• revamp the advertising and branding for Givenchy Beauty, especially the advertising for the Interdit and Gentleman perfumes, to fully align with the fashion house.

Dior has long vacated the spot for couture-level fashion-forward propositions at LVMH, so Givenchy should work towards filling that hole.

 

[fenty]

2020 was really 3 years ago woah

 

[yslforever]

Personally, the big issue that Arnault doesn't know what to do with Givenchy. In the decade following Hubert's retirement, the house dealt with a rotation of designers and several skipped seasons before hitting gold with Tisci for almost 12 years, before becoming unstable once again. To add to this, Givenchy is extremely similar to Dior, in terms of aesthetics and brand identity, which raises the question of self-cannibalisation.

Givenchy needs to feel fresh and new again. The stages to that would be to:
• find a CEO that is hands-on and knows how to merchandise, position and structure a fashion house in this sort of situation.
• find a creative director who can produce forward-facing collections and desirable accessories, along with the capacity to curate a full 360º image for the house.
• revamp the branding (logo, website, packaging, social media) to shake off the messy history and render those all of those t-shirts and hoodies obsolete.
• revamp the advertising and branding for Givenchy Beauty, especially the advertising for the Interdit and Gentleman perfumes, to fully align with the fashion house.

Dior has long vacated the spot for couture-level fashion-forward propositions at LVMH, so Givenchy should work towards filling that hole.

Aka the Twelve Labours of Hercules; I assume you won't miss that 101 Dalmatians collab ?

 

[GivenchyAddict]

I’d be more than happy to have Dossena at Givenchy but I can keep dreaming.

or we can have Haider but he will not be able to turn the house into a big one with billion sales but he has proven great at Couture, he has experiences with his Fila collab for the sportswear/streetwear, he does menswear amazingly (still mourning his Berluti), he has Chalamet as muse and friend as well as Tilda Swinton and the press loves him.

plus they can play the diversity card. He will just need to hire one great bag designers though.

 

[gallianostan]

Personally, the big issue that Arnault doesn't know what to do with Givenchy. In the decade following Hubert's retirement, the house dealt with a rotation of designers and several skipped seasons before hitting gold with Tisci for almost 12 years, before becoming unstable once again. To add to this, Givenchy is extremely similar to Dior, in terms of aesthetics and brand identity, which raises the question of self-cannibalisation.

Givenchy needs to feel fresh and new again. The stages to that would be to:
• find a CEO that is hands-on and knows how to merchandise, position and structure a fashion house in this sort of situation.
• find a creative director who can produce forward-facing collections and desirable accessories, along with the capacity to curate a full 360º image for the house.
• revamp the branding (logo, website, packaging, social media) to shake off the messy history and render those all of those t-shirts and hoodies obsolete.
• revamp the advertising and branding for Givenchy Beauty, especially the advertising for the Interdit and Gentleman perfumes, to fully align with the fashion house.

Dior has long vacated the spot for couture-level fashion-forward propositions at LVMH, so Givenchy should work towards filling that hole.

i agree that dior, in many respects not limited solely to brand identity and aesthetics, is too similar to givenchy, so there is a risk of self-cannibalisation. but i think there’s enough of a distinction which allows for a creative director to hone in certain components of the givenchy woman - the tailleur aspect, for instance, i’ve always felt has been a major house code, whereas dior has historically focused largely on flou.

it goes without saying that the house desperately needs an imaginative creative director who can capably set out an comprehensive vision for at least the next decade. the couture, the ready-to-wear, the accessories and the fragrances, the handbags and ads, the editorials - they must all coalesce to form one unique and coherent vision. but is arnault willing to relinquish that much creative control? having an all-encompassing creative director like galliano at dior seems almost unthinkable in 2023. but how long will the brand continue to suffer as a result of corporate mismanagement?

that arnault seems increasingly ambivalent toward givenchy these days is perhaps a positive indication that he might capitulate and hand over the reins, creatively speaking, unreservedly. i wouldn’t bet on it, though.

does givenchy even generate enough revenue for it to be profitable enough to keep it in LVMH’s stable? if they really don’t have a plan, why not just [gasp] sell it?

 

[Lola701]

Personally, the big issue that Arnault doesn't know what to do with Givenchy. In the decade following Hubert's retirement, the house dealt with a rotation of designers and several skipped seasons before hitting gold with Tisci for almost 12 years, before becoming unstable once again. To add to this, Givenchy is extremely similar to Dior, in terms of aesthetics and brand identity, which raises the question of self-cannibalisation.

Givenchy needs to feel fresh and new again. The stages to that would be to:
• find a CEO that is hands-on and knows how to merchandise, position and structure a fashion house in this sort of situation.
• find a creative director who can produce forward-facing collections and desirable accessories, along with the capacity to curate a full 360º image for the house.
• revamp the branding (logo, website, packaging, social media) to shake off the messy history and render those all of those t-shirts and hoodies obsolete.
• revamp the advertising and branding for Givenchy Beauty, especially the advertising for the Interdit and Gentleman perfumes, to fully align with the fashion house.

Dior has long vacated the spot for couture-level fashion-forward propositions at LVMH, so Givenchy should work towards filling that hole.

No, do not touch the logo or the packaging. That’s the only thing timeless and long-lasting of this house.

But Givenchy needs a strong vision.
Having a talented or capable designer won’t change anything if the designer doesn’t have a strong vision. The reality is that Riccardo was the only one with a strong vision and when I mean vision, it was really 360.

Even if his fragrances didn’t work, It was coherent and consistent.

But yes, they don’t know what to do with Givenchy a bit like Kenzo.

For me, Haider has a point of view and we know he is capable in menswear and womenswear but it’s a risk. If the vision is strong and supported by great accessories, it will be a success.

But tbh, Givenchy cannot have a voice in Streetwear today. Riccardo had that authority because he was the first one to jump into it 15 years ago. Now, you cannot compete against Louis Vuitton and Dior in that segment.
The twist of Hedi is that he is committed to his Rock aesthetic while selling merch to Streetwear-enthusiasts.

‘Regarding the beauty, a lot of fashion houses have their beauty department totally separated from the fashion. It’s not a problem per say…Vuitton, Dior, Chanel, Kenzo and others are not aligned with the beauty. But you need a strong institution of a brand to be able to do that because the time frame in beauty is different from fashion.

‘What Loewe did was great as Jonathan was able to redesign everything but the Loewe fragrances were very confidential before.

The good thing at LVMH is that CD can consult on beauty.

LVMH is so big that the semi-failures can be overshadowed by the major successes. But it also shows the fragility within the group. It’s weird to believe that not so long ago, Givenchy was bigger than Celine or that a brand like Loewe was seen as totally forgotten.

 

[LadyJunon]

I’d be more than happy to have Dossena at Givenchy but I can keep dreaming.


or we can have Haider but he will not be able to turn the house into a big one with billion sales but he has proven great at Couture, he has experiences with his Fila collab for the sportswear/streetwear, he does menswear amazingly (still mourning his Berluti), he has Chalamet as muse and friend as well as Tilda Swinton and the press loves him.


plus they can play the diversity card. He will just need to hire great bag designers though.

As much as I dislike changing designers around unnecessarily, Dossena and Ackermann would be good for Givenchy. Di Felice would too. A good eye for accessories would definitely be a key here.

it goes without saying that the house desperately needs an imaginative creative director who can capably set out an comprehensive vision for at least the next decade. the couture, the ready-to-wear, the accessories and the fragrances, the handbags and ads, the editorials - they must all coalesce to form one unique and coherent vision. but is arnault willing to relinquish that much creative control? having an all-encompassing creative director like galliano at dior seems almost unthinkable in 2023. but how long will the brand continue to suffer as a result of corporate mismanagement?

that arnault seems increasingly ambivalent toward givenchy these days is perhaps a positive indication that he might capitulate and hand over the reins, creatively speaking, unreservedly. i wouldn’t bet on it, though.

does givenchy even generate enough revenue for it to be profitable enough to keep it in LVMH’s stable? if they really don’t have a plan, why not just [gasp] sell it?

The concept of allowing such creative control is very Pinault and it has recently shown to have many flaws for a brand like Gucci (Kering's Louis Vuitton). That said, Arnault needs to admit that Givenchy no longer has the caché or the relevance to pull his typical methods on it. The brand needs a revamp with an distinct identity that can be built on. On the other hand, Givenchy is reputable enough to sell it off for a handsome amount, but the issue lies with the buyer. Under Kering or Puig, Givenchy has a good chance of success. Under Tapestry, it won't see the light of day again.

No, do not touch the logo or the packaging. That’s the only thing timeless and long-lasting of this house.

But Givenchy needs a strong vision.
Having a talented or capable designer won’t change anything if the designer doesn’t have a strong vision. The reality is that Riccardo was the only one with a strong vision and when I mean vision, it was really 360.

Even if his fragrances didn’t work, It was coherent and consistent.

But yes, they don’t know what to do with Givenchy a bit like Kenzo.

For me, Haider has a point of view and we know he is capable in menswear and womenswear but it’s a risk. If the vision is strong and supported by great accessories, it will be a success.

But tbh, Givenchy cannot have a voice in Streetwear today. Riccardo had that authority because he was the first one to jump into it 15 years ago. Now, you cannot compete against Louis Vuitton and Dior in that segment.
The twist of Hedi is that he is committed to his Rock aesthetic while selling merch to Streetwear-enthusiasts.

‘Regarding the beauty, a lot of fashion houses have their beauty department totally separated from the fashion. It’s not a problem per say…Vuitton, Dior, Chanel, Kenzo and others are not aligned with the beauty. But you need a strong institution of a brand to be able to do that because the time frame in beauty is different from fashion.

‘What Loewe did was great as Jonathan was able to redesign everything but the Loewe fragrances were very confidential before.

The good thing at LVMH is that CD can consult on beauty.

LVMH is so big that the semi-failures can be overshadowed by the major successes. But it also shows the fragility within the group. It’s weird to believe that not so long ago, Givenchy was bigger than Celine or that a brand like Loewe was seen as totally forgotten.

Comes to show how messy and uncertain the direction of smaller corporate houses tend to be. Kering had similar issues with Christopher Kane and Altuzarra before they were sold back. I don't think it's malicious, but it's definitely a trope of the suits having eyes bigger than their stomachs.

 

[Lola701]

Comes to show how messy and uncertain the direction of smaller corporate houses tend to be. Kering had similar issues with Christopher Kane and Altuzarra before they were sold back. I don't think it's malicious, but it's definitely a trope of the suits having eyes bigger than their stomachs.

It shows more than anything the importance of a good creative director/designer at a helm of a brand. And we must admit that Givenchy is quite a miracle. The brand is still selling products designed under Riccardo. The infamous boots were released in 2012, the bags are probably as old too and the brand has some sort of cachet for people to spend 500€ on tshirts or sweatshirts…

In business, it’s important to take risks, to take some bets creatively. Arnault bought Givenchy in 1995. It took him 10 years, the help of Mariacarla and Carine Roitfeld to bet on that unknown talent that was Riccardo when they had buzz worthy designers before like McQueen, Galliano, MacDonald, Boateng before. And when you look at that lineage, Riccardo was the only one with a vision.

‘The same happened with Pucci! They went with Lacroix and Matthew Williamson. Buzz worthy designers known for their work on color and prints…Pucci only experienced buzz, success and growth with someone who wasn’t really about that and even more, lesser known.

‘Sometimes the expected formula doesn’t work. The unexpected works and it’s maybe what they should understand.

KERING is different and tbh, I didn’t understand their strategy with Altuzarra or Kane…Even more with Giambattista Valli. They injected money but we didn’t see any results or vision. And there was no connection between the group and the designers…

Even if Marc Jacobs is a mess, LVMH invested in the namesake brand of it star designer and turned it into a very successful commercial monster that is giving them headache today.

LVMH invested in Nicholas Kirkwood…probably thinking that he could have been the new Christian Louboutin or Jimmy Choo. He had the potential to be that but there was no link with the group.

The shift into lifestyle brands, inspired by the model of Chanel and Hermes will become the norm as those brands will grow but it takes time to reach that goal.

 

[tourbillions]

if they want to go on with the streetwear look.. should consider Bünyamin Aydin

 

[perhydrol]

We did it guys, he's finally out!

 

[Salvatore]

FINALLY !
Who is going to take over ? Some said Alessandro, but I am not sure how I feel about that ...

 

[Kite]

My pick is Kim Jones or Sarah Burton.

 

[thiago:)]

It's too early for Sarah. Kering wouldn't let her do it that soon. I'd love to see her vision for Givenchy, though.

 

[DK92]

FINALLY !
Who is going to take over ? Some said Alessandro, but I am not sure how I feel about that ...

He's still under contract with Kering...

 

[Koibito]

Pretend to be shocked…

 

[Cocteau Stone]

Expected and I'm glad. But I won't get my hopes up for the future because who knows what fresh hell LVMH may bring in to take over from Matthew.

 

[Tchi]

Voices are running in praise since about a month about his replacement

 

[Lola701]

It’s funny to think that for 3 years this man designed clothes only for them to fill the Givenchy Outlets around the world.
I would love for LVMH to bet on a real talent for once like Haider or Martine Rose. Why not even Bruno from Lanvin.
But I feel like the job might go to Kim Jones even if I feel like his time is passing…

Michele needs to stay in Rome and go to Fendi. Who to replace Kim at Dior?

Sarah Burton has a non compete agreement. So no job for a year.

Alessandro’s contract might expire this month I guess. So he will probably be a free agent in January.

 

[Kimihiro]

But I feel like the job might go to Kim Jones even if I feel like his time is passing…

Michele needs to stay in Rome and go to Fendi. Who to replace Kim at Dior?

That’s actually sound. they could move Kim to Givenchy interim ala KVA Berluti and Alessandro to Fendi. Still dignity intact for Kim because even if Fendi stagnated he made LVMH happy. Martine could do Dior Homme—better.

If finally we are rid of Jones in womenswear Sarah Burton could do Givenchy. Only if LVMH wants a more boutique feel for it. I don’t see Sarah with something too commercial. That could be too much of a dream though. 3 years is long.