Omg, Gabriela didn't even try to disguise the fact that some PR firm wrote that caption.
Lola, over the weekend Evening Standard, already published a piece stating that Natacha's designs were too intellectual and not commercial enough and that she had no it-bag during her tenure and how that was such a bad thing because Chloe survives mainly on accessories. I thought it to be quite a damning piece. Who would want to hire her now, especially in this current economic climate? Poiret?
No doubt this pandemic has made brands more cautious with their hires, meaning ditch the graduates in favour of those who run their own brands or at the very least have proven some sort of commercial success. Gabriela, of course, has taken her brand into the Chinese market earlier this year and already have it-bags over there so I'm 200% certain that ended up counting in her favour because Richemont made Natacha do a resort line to court the Chinese and the reception was lukewarm at best. Their approach was all wrong. She supposedly targeted the maximalist, logo-obsessed type of Chinese shopper which is completely at odds with what Chloe is about. Instead of going in and saying 'this is
my it-bag. It's tasteful, meaning it doesn't
look like an accordion, so you won't look like a clown wearing it. Don't agree? Keep it moving'. It may sound arrogant, but a brand like Chloe must have a point of view. I'm convinced that this fumbled approach may have been the turning point for Richemont. They will now capitalise on Chloe's association with Gabriela.
You are 100% right but at the same time, the job of the suits is to support a vision. Choosing someone from Ghesquiere’s camp means wanting a more edgy approach but also that juice from the Vuitton success.
The problem I have with suits is exactly the following. They wants the talents and they wants them to do everything. I repeat it: The job of the executives is to support the vision of the creatives.
I totally agree about the bags. She had one good bag but they released it too later. The bags with the big C were tragic. Other than that, Chloé still served good boots and all the categories in RTW were covered: blouses, coats and flowy dresses.
I admit I love her Chloé because the houses finally moved out from that same very english aesthetic.
When I talk about executives supporting a vision, look at how LVMH is pushing Celine . You can’t say that they aren’t doing everything to make it work. Chloé’s PR is very late.
One thing is sure, Gabriela first job will be to deliver a It-Bag. And I think she can cover all the categories in RTW...
I’m much more confused in what it might be in terms of creative vision.
When it comes to Natacha, I can see her going back with Nicolas or even Julien or even go to Acne Studios. Chloé is not necessary her sensibility (she said that when she took the job) but I think she proved that she can be edgy and so strong commercial pieces.
The more I think, the more I would want her at Acne Studios!
Can she do' La Parisienne' something which is one hugely important factor in the popularity of Chloe? Can she do that light airiness that has been missing at Chloe?
But is Chloé still about « La Parisienne »? I think that overtime Isabel Marant, YSL, Vauthier, Sandro, Maje...etc have become the epitome of La Parisienne with Marant being the queen of the aesthetic.
That sort of Birkin-Romanticism was well interpreted by Clare. It was maybe boring but it was less cliché and more modern at times. Chloé needs to reinvent itself.
I find it weird that a house like Chloé does not have a permanent collection with a dedicated communication attached to it. All the designers created strong pieces. And the aesthetic language of Chloé is well known: blouses, Jeans, flowy dresses, brown bags...All of that with a 70’s flair.
But I agree with you, Chloé needs to be effortless, something Natacha did not always nailed.