Olivier Theyskens vs. Rochas

[mouko]

^ Fashion has always been about business. True creativity in my opinion is being able to express your vision and be financially successful doing so, otherwise it is pointless to be in the business of fashion.

If you wanted to just make beautiful clothes with no intention of making a profit, then there won't be any investors because the point of investing in something is to get somethihng back (i.e. turn a profit). Maybe he'll get an "angel" investor to keep his "art" alive, but I have a feeling he'll either disappear or smarten up and be more commericially friendly.

 

[tricotineacetat]

The clothes themselves are very 'commercially friendly', to put it in your own words.

As a retailer, I can tell you that women absolutely LOVED and also BOUGHT the clothes that he designed for Rochas (speaking of my own domestic market). There's by far more in the collection than just gowns and floorlength skirtsuits, and most of that was actually very wearable and easy to mix and match. At the same time, you can easily go and do the complete two-piece skirt- or pantssuit. The best sellers had always been the tiered skirts and tiny jackets with flounced hemline (especially in black with Chantilly lace detailing), the short coats with round shoulders, knits, the simple knee-length day/cocktail dresses, or a knee-length bias-cut little black dress. I might also need to add that I never, absolutely NEVER had any problems fitting a woman into the clothes, the proportions had been very customer-friendly and the cut was always flattering.

I won't deny that most of his pricepoints are very tough, but it's justified if you take into consideration the craftsmanship and the intricacy of the fabric, actually all of the supply they were using was exclusively designed for Rochas (thanks to having invested A LOT in textile-, leather- and technique-research). You simply cannot compare his product with, let's say, YSL or Lanvin because they buy theirs straight from the mills, instead of having them designed for themselves alone.

I am constantly seeing especially the guys in here praising Altieri or Poell clothing and noone ever questions the prices (which I hear, was the biggest deal for most people when it comes to describing the difficulty of Rochas clothing). Rochas under Olivier had been an entirely different market and niche, but I think there is a justification - and a customer to address - for a product like this on the market.

 

[williambrooks]

Rochas is clearly much better in every way... he
also isn't a copy-cat - anyone who has seen shows
in the past six years know what i mean.

 

[mouko]

I'm not implying that the clothes didn't sell at all, but did it sell enough to make up for the amount of money investors were putting into developing the collections? Doesn't seem like it.

Again, I'm not saying there was no justification in his work. It was amazing and he is an amazing talent. But what I've gotten from articles I've read about him, and the discussions we've been having in our fashion business class with guest lecturers from the industry about "Talent does not = success" is that he's a bit disconnected and not business savy.

Couple the fact that Procter and Gamble is very conservative in terms of what they make (we spoke with a videographer who worked with them on a shampoo ad and they axed one of his commercials because you could see the nipples. Keep in mind, the male figure in question was shot full length wide screen and in complete sillouhette) I don't think they were a good fit in the first place because I don't think they "understood" what he was doing.

 

[tricotineacetat]

I think you can't expect much to happen within a time of barely more than 3,5 years, which was exactly the time that Olivier was given until the end.

It simply is unfair to compare Rochas in terms of commerciality with such companies as Lanvin or Balenciaga, who are on the market for longer than Olivier was with Rochas.

This high-end luxe PAP market that everyone is trying to branch into is a tough business, and you cannot expect to turn a success, a recognizable must-have accessory in such a short time. Rochas as a brandname itself - and that has got nothing to do with the clothing collection - came from absolutely NOWHERE, it's been a dead brand that only old women would remember in terms of clothing.

The success was slowly growing and they were definitely getting the formula right with every season. However, and I think that's the most vital thing about having someone invest in a larger scale designer business, you absolutely NEED to have understanding and patient investors to build up a major brand name...!!!

 

[Pastry]

and the whole scenario is comparable to the story of dior homme...when slimane started, the only thing produced under DH were ties, right?

*anyways, i just wanted to say that it's not necessarily a bad thing that, say, YSL or Balenciaga buy directly from the mills. I'm sure, as a designer brand they don't just buy generic, and work closely with the converters too. Archival prints, things like that..

And yes, the fabric research at Rochas is clearly stellar. All the time, i remember hearing and seeing.."this fabric is exclusively made for rochas, etc., etc.
____
and i found an adorable photo of olivier in an old-ish magazine, i should post it.

 

[zamb]

I think you can't expect much to happen within a time of barely more than 3,5 years, which was exactly the time that Olivier was given until the end.

It simply is unfair to compare Rochas in terms of commerciality with such companies as Lanvin or Balenciaga, who are on the market for longer than Olivier was with Rochas.

This high-end luxe PAP market that everyone is trying to branch into is a tough business, and you cannot expect to turn a success, a recognizable must-have accessory in such a short time. Rochas as a brandname itself - and that has got nothing to do with the clothing collection - came from absolutely NOWHERE, it's been a dead brand that only old women would remember in terms of clothing.

The success was slowly growing and they were definitely getting the formula right with every season. However, and I think that's the most vital thing about having someone invest in a larger scale designer business, you absolutely NEED to have understanding and patient investors to build up a major brand name...!!!

i am really glad you were able to give a retailers' perspecrtive to this whole picture, as a lot of people talk and talk sometimes without proper knowledge.
i personally went to Barneys and saw the clothing that was there. there was nothing "un-commmercial" about them. the reality is that fashion is a difficult business. and somebody will fail for a myriad of different reasons. it just so happened to have been him. Matter of fact. he did not fail, as he was a huge success from an editorial stanpoint, anfd would have been an amazing financial success if the people at proctor were patient enough to allow the brand to reach its potential.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ since retailers are brought up, lets explore this from a economics standpoint
you cannot blame everything on retailers. high fashion is a monopolistically competitive market, and in order to be economically successful, you have to differentiate your products (through ads and such). the problem with rochas is that it seems that olivier did not want rochas to succeed, from a business standpoint (as mouko mentioned, he acts unmarketable). the only caviat here is that is this a bad thing? financial success is yes, but is it worth the compromise? in olivier's case, it wasn't. that's what i respect of him. a
as zamb says, "there was nothing 'un-commercial' about" his products. that may be true, but in the business world products are only half the game.

 

[zamb]

what would make you think that someone would spend thier time at a company, doing thier best work and not want it to success. his product were differenciated, he created clothes that looked like no other,
it is not up to him with respect to advertisment, as he is not the one writing the cheques. if the werent willing to aprove his fabric budget, why do you think they were willing to approve his money for ads.
i really dont know were this uncommercial and not economically viable stuff comes from.
the fact is we shouldnt read too much into media stories, as fashion journalist are not like news reporters. they are not accountable to telling the accurate truth. thier jb is to write a good story, and while what is said may be true it may be told in a way that gives the wrong impression.
how can one of the most talented young talents, who does not make unwearable, avante-garde clothing be viewed as uncommercial is beyond me!!!!!!!!!

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ i really don't mean to be rude, but take a econ class. once again, it is NOT his clothes that are necessarily uncommercial, it is his attitude. his whole statement about "I would like to stop global vulgarity", he totally slammed what Tom Ford did for Gucci and what many other fashion designers are doing. It's not that he doesn't want to be successful, because I'm sure he does, but it is simply that he was not willing to compromise what he wanted to do to feed financial success. I noticed on another thread that you said you turned down a high paying job because it was celeb-related. Why did you do that? probably because you thought it was more important to dedicate yourself to what you want to do and believe in, rather than feed the desires of others who although can make you successful, will force you to compromise your passion.

 

[zamb]

^ i really don't mean to be rude, but take a econ class. once again, it is NOT his clothes that are necessarily uncommercial, it is his attitude. his whole statement about "I would like to stop global vulgarity", he totally slammed what Tom Ford did for Gucci and what many other fashion designers are doing. It's not that he doesn't want to be successful, because I'm sure he does, but it is simply that he was not willing to compromise what he wanted to do to feed financial success. I noticed on another thread that you said you turned down a high paying job because it was celeb-related. Why did you do that? probably because you thought it was more important to dedicate yourself to what you want to do and believe in, rather than feed the desires of others who although can make you successful, will force you to compromise your passion.

well if you want to be rude i wont go there with you. i promised myself that i wont ever jostle with anyone on this site again.
actually i did take economics in college, and i know the whole thing about demand and supply. however, the world is a diverse place, and there is enough people in the world who would wear the kind of clothing that he designs than those who wouldnt.
or at least enough for him to have a successful business. the thing is him saying that, i dont understant how does it equate to being against what Tom was doing at Gucci, why? because it was overtly sexual and his work was demure.
well explain how Ralph lauren and Giorgio Armani are two of the richest designers in the world and thier clothing is nothing vulgar and far from what Gucci does. and how a designer like Julien mcdonald does really overly sexy clothing but cant seem to grow his business.
also, regarding the post ii made in the Sheryl crow thread, as i said, there is more to life than money. I am already successful ( if you know my background, where i am coming from as a kid and where i am now, even though i have a long way to go, you would know that i have achieved great success)
for me as a designer, the goal was never to make millions of dollars, this is my profession, what i do to find professional joy and fulfilment, not neccessarily to get rich (even though if thats the results of my hard work and dedication i have no problem with it)
every morning i get up i thank God to be alive and to be able to do the job i dreamed of doing, and being able to take care of myself from it.
the only role money plays is that it enables me to have the resources neccessary to continue and to develop new ideas.
when all is said and done the only thing that matters is that i gave it everything i had, that i tried to be the absolute best i could, whether that brings me fame or i never become known beyond the few that know and love me i can feel good that i gave it my all.
money is not all there is to life..............................

 

[uberQuirkiness]

how strange... i am taking an econ class too, and i kept on thinking about rochas. haha. i guess for theyskens...the marginal utility of making such high quality, expensive clothes was much greater than his want for money, (but, of course, not for proctor and gamble). olivier is a true lover of fashion! however, i do understand that companies do need to be more accessible, to have cheaper products, in order to survive.

 

[tricotineacetat]

however, i do understand that companies do need to be more accessible, to have cheaper products, in order to survive.

there's a felted wool knit coat, cut up like most of his small-shouldered 50ies couture coats, which in the shops costs 'only' 750€ and is of excellent quality and unique design. This along with a short jacket in the the same fabric series (around 550€) were just some of the goods that were popping up now and that are doing very well from a commercial point of view.

 

[MarryMeTomFord]

and i found an adorable photo of olivier in an old-ish magazine, i should post it.

PLEASE POSTTTT

 

[uberQuirkiness]

there's a felted wool knit coat, cut up like most of his small-shouldered 50ies couture coats, which in the shops costs 'only' 750€ and is of excellent quality and unique design. This along with a short jacket in the the same fabric series (around 550€) were just some of the goods that were popping up now and that are doing very well from a commercial point of view.

i hate procter and gamble.

 

[PetitLapinVegan]

Rochas vs. Nina Ricci

Which Olivier Theyskens collection do you prefer? What do you think are their defining differences? Similarities?