Phoebe Philo - Designer

Forums New posts
Creative said:
I understand all of what you are saying, but I think she chose the wrong path.
Click to expand...
I agree on that. I don't that building a luxury brand with the model of a DTC Streetwear brand was a good idea. I think that the brand would do better long term if she adheres to a more traditional model: 2 collections a year, seasonal campaigns, a narrow selection of luxury stockists. I don't think she needs to do shows or participate in fashion week at all, but establishing some level of formality would do her well, especially since she doesn't have that halo as a new, young, cool designer. A model like Loro Piana's would work perfectly.
 
Someone on Twitter highlighted the Glassdoor reviews of Phoebe Philo (the company) after Lauren Sherman's piece last week on the CEO departing, and they are brutal, even for a fashion house.

It's truly impressive an impressive feat to have every single review be 1 star.

1 STAR.png

Posting the majority of them below for posterity's sake. I now wonder if this brand will be around in a year from now.

1 Star - "Wouldn't even consider staying if they doubled my salary"
Pros Sadly, my genuine enthusiasm for the brand quickly faded upon joining, replaced by disbelief and anxiety so no pros.
Cons Abusive and humiliating behaviour from the tyrannical CEO, complimented by micromanaging and patronising HR practices. The management is shockingly confident in the brand‘s reputation, thinking it‘s not necessary to treat staff with respect. In addition to this poor behaviour, the inhumane environment is mandated by a rigid 5-day office policy (even during tube strikes), demanding nightshifts and weekends without any compensation or even a modicum of appreciation.
The absence of flexibility in working hours, coupled with the lack of company benefits or staff discount only adds to it’s ridiculousness. The start-up comfortably rides on Phoebe Philo’s reputation from Celine, relying solely on the past hype, rather than making sound business decisions and strategies.
Advice to management The CEO is a control freak, lacking any redeeming qualities and displaying an astonishing lack of common sense. If anyone needs to treat trust issues, it’s him. He needs to take a long hard look at himself instead of assuming a leadership position within a business bearing his wife’s name.

1 Star - "When Ego Meets Inaptitude "
Pros I got to work with really talented people, briefly.
Cons Extremely out of touch management that doesn't value their employees to the point of being hostile. Culture of fear is created from the very top. Being bullied or yelled at is a daily occurrence, very likely from trying to hide the lack of experience.
Advice to management Providing drinking water to your employees is a good start.

1 Star - "Arrogance and incompetence are a dangerous mix"
Pros This experience taught me not to take respectful and professional manner/behavior in a working environment for granted
Cons The CEO is under the impression that he knows everything and fosters a culture where people are constantly on the edge, as shouting and humiliation will await if things don’t go as planned. It wouldn’t be surprising if they are spying on their staff, too.
Instead of understanding the need to improve processes or addressing the impressively high staff turnover, the management responds constantly with jaw-dropping announcements. I’m actually amazed by the lack of concern for staff treatment, considering its widespread media coverage and hype. If you're considering applying here, please think again. Your health and dignity are more worth than having Phoebe Philo on your resume.
Advice to management Please keep in mind that your incapability causes your actually talented staff to go above and beyond to keep your business alive.

1 Star - "Avoid at all costs"
Pros It was a dream to work for Phoebe Philo but at what cost
Cons - Fashion is an unhealthy industry but this place is the worst. Not what it seems to be from the outside, would not recommend to my worst enemy. Was a dream to work for Phoebe Philo but such a disappointment on every level.
Advice to management LVMH SAVE US!

1 Star - "Sinking Ship"
Pros The company has a few good people.
Cons There are too many to list, it’s shambolic and the outside feels it as much as the people in the business. So many people have left because of the problems. As other review, working at PP brings no benefit in the job market. No real salary review or reward for achievements, inflation bump up shared as ‘raise’ this year
Advice to Management The two people in charge are not from the luxury fashion industry. This inexperience is sadly not tempered by any humility or willingness to work with the people who are knowledgeable. Arrogance is rampant, macho club, no sense of practicality or respect for good work. Huge obvious errors are made constantly, like watching a truck drive into a wall. Get better leadership in now, the poison is trickling down and no one will be left

1 Star - "Disappointing"
Pros A lot of the people are lovely to deal with and talented
Cons
Exploitative. The salary is based on a normal work day (and is low to begin with), however the working hours have no limit. Employees are required to stay im the office working into the evening/night/weekend, most don’t get a real lunch break either. This schedule is completely standard year-round. It shows the blatant disrespect for the workers, their life responsibilities/interests, as the demand for the full life sacrifice is compensated with the bare minimum. Such full commitment would come with a much greater salary in a normal world, but since PP have a way to work around this they are able to get a nice deal out of you, so why change?This the first company i see that feels as cold as it does in the way it’s run. Quite a soulless place - no company culture, benefits, or just anything other than coming in and putting in the cold hard working hours. You will hardly find an employee that is not resentful & planning a way out. Phoebe herself stays out of company life and doesn’t know most people working for her.You can see the effect of the system that’s in place by the extremely high turnaround rate of employees. The famous name allows new recruits to come in.
Advice to Management
As long as you keep demanding the maximum while giving the minimum, you will continue to have bad luck. A cheap person pays twice.

1 Star - "Avoid"
Pros No pros come to mind
Cons Everything about the working environment is negative. Low morale across all the business and comes from the top down.
The company is run by privately educated, incredibly privileged and out of touch loons. Because those at the top have had everything handed to them on a plate their entire lives, shouting and belittling is common, as they are not used to anyone saying no. Huge amounts of time, effort and money has been wasted due to poor decisions and no obvious strategy. Most staff last about 6 months before coming to their senses - this includes senior management in HR & Finance, so it has been impossible for anyone to make any kind of positive change. To top it all off, as publicised, there is obvious disregard for diversity across the business and clear examples of racism and sexism have been common.
Unless you are happy to be run into the ground, not have a say, be over worked and underpaid with absolutely no flexibility (even for those with families) or benefits - don’t be fooled by the name or reputation.
It’s a sinking ship that cannot last the way it currently is/has been for the past couple of years. It’s genuinely quite crazy that people like the owners/senior managers at this business actually exist but unfortunately there a few of them. They are finally starting to realise that people aren’t afraid of them and are starting to speak out and leave, just look at all the other reviews on glassdoor for more evidence.
Advice to Management
Step away from the business before it’s too late. Change everything, you’re not god’s gift

1 Star - "Worst place I've ever worked"
Pros The team (whatever is left of it)
Cons A brand purely riding on its hyped up name was soon diminished, and on the realisation of its toxic work culture there is not much that will keep you here. There’s no flexible working, requiring you to be in the office 5 days a week on the dot from start to finish, no discounts or benefits. There’s an uneasy environment of constant micromanagement and a lack of trust and respect for its employees. Even those with medical exceptions were still not allowed to work from home. HR is utterly useless and unprofessional.
Advice to Management Management needs to understand that everyone plays a vital role in the brands continued success and not to treat them like dirt. Not being compensated for taking on additional roles and responsibilities is not acceptable.

1 Star - "Unpleasant"
Pros Honestly none I can think of
Cons Really nasty work environment. A culture of fear with no respect for employees. You're expected to work long hours for underwhelming pay and no company benefits. I don't think I met one person who worked there that was happy in their role. The reputation the company has is awful. I see no benefit to working here at all.
Advice to Management Respect your staff.
Click to expand...
 
It's not that impressive when it's the same person writing them. Just look at the typing styles and efforts to spice it up. Same person.

Doesn't mean he or she is wrong. Clearly someone is pissed off and what is mentioned is textbook toxic environment. I don't doubt a new company has bottom of the barrel dynamics and next to no concern in changing them, let alone acknowledging them, because they're so desperate and financially insecure that they have other priorities and underestimate how these things can snowball.

That being said, if you're opening new accounts periodically just to talk s*it about a company, maybe you do belong there after all. At some point in life, we have all been 'wronged' by a s*tty team, and yes we all want to go to the top of a mountain (or as far as the internet takes us lol) and scream what a piece of worthless little s*its they are/stay away/don't buy/yaddayadda, and.. sure, but over and over? sounds like there's work to be done internally. Time to move on, go to therapy. No big company (let alone a company of that size) gets multiple 1-stars on GlassDoor, definitely not 4 in 5 days (11-15 February) and twice a month from then on. It just doesn't happen and in your wildest dreams will that happen in the luxury sector because people are oh so freaked out about burning bridges and are just so servile to their very core that even in the safety of a fake account and behind a computer, most of them will still only go as low as 3 stars. Multiple people going for 1? nevah.

My advice to the reviewer is.. war on toxic environments = very commendable, go you, but do better with fake profiles. 🥲
 

Phoebe Philo’s Founder SyndromeCan the beloved designer, who created boho chic and changed what women wore, successfully navigate startup growing pains?​

Phoebe Philo

Unlike at Chloé and Celine, Phoebe Philo has now endeavored to build her own company—taking on ample responsibilities that Richemont and LVMH once managed for her. Photo: Steve Eichner/WWD/Penske Media/Getty Images​

​

Lauren Sherman / Puck.news​

August 12, 2024​

​

A few weeks ago, a friend sent me a screenshot of a refund from PhoebePhilo.com that had just appeared on her credit card statement. The multiple items she purchased, which cost thousands of dollars, were returned last fall, shortly after the brand had launched in October. I asked a number of other people who had also returned things, and their own experiences were mixed. Some received their money within 10 days, others not so much. ​

The feedback, in some ways, highlighted the often totally unfair challenge facing Phoebe Philo, a startup brand founded by a world-famous designer. On some level, who cares if a refund takes months, not weeks: That’s typical startup stuff. The rollout of the British designer’s namesake line, following a tortured two-year development process, hasn’t been that much more dysfunctional than other newly launched companies, which are generally riddled with logistics muck-ups, frustrating customer service interactions, and wonky U.X. design. It’s just that most fashion startups can’t feel the weight of the industry on their shoulders. They don’t have a famous founder, and they aren’t backed by LVMH.​

​

While much of this criticism is unfair and sour grapes, it’s often a proxy for another observation. There’s no doubt that Philo has shifted the current fashion conversation with her strong sense of self and gut-driven designs. Consumers, after all, are hunting for real clothes—pieces that make people feel comfortable, but also competent and sexy—and Philo’s new offering fits the bill. The return of Philo also heralded the return of the designer. Since her debut, many of her peers—John Galliano, Sarah Burton, Haider Ackermann, Stefano Pilati, and Marc Jacobs—have been floated in conversations about jobs at big fashion houses. Just a few years ago, those jobs were going to resolute creative directors: people who may not be able to sketch, or drape, but know how to delegate. ​

And yet Philo, herself, may not have shifted the conversation as tectonically as many in the industry had projected. Her commercial impact is faint compared to her first two successes. At Chloé, in the early aughts, Philo surprised and delighted as an unknown sensation, succeeding and then surpassing Stella McCartney. Philo’s idea of boho chic was adopted industrywide, dictating the wardrobes of a generation of women who wanted to be given permission to pair brown and black. At Céline, where she released her first collection in June 2009, Philo reeducated women on how to dress and build a wardrobe. So much of that first collection, from the Crombie coat to creased trousers, continues to inform what’s sold in stores every season. ​

​

Sure, with her new brand, Philo is once again influencing the high street, reinforcing the return of the cargo pant as a fashion item, fueling Cos and the Frankie Shop for years to come. Popped collars, chalky yellow, and serif fonts are back. But there’s been no crash-bang moment akin to the Céline days, when the world realized Philo was it. Back then, of course, Instagram and TikTok did not exist. Today, there are a million tiny ideas floating around, which means the big ideas feel smaller, too. ​

Also, unlike at Chloé and Celine, Philo has now endeavored to build her own company—taking on ample responsibilities that Richemont and LVMH once managed for her. There have been unsurprising growing pains along the way. Managing director Patrik Silén, who was basically performing the duties of a C.E.O, left the business in late June, according to Companies House, the U.K. business registrar. In fashion, of course, the people who start a company are rarely the ones who help grow it, and almost never the ones who sell it. But Philo and her husband (and business partner) Max Wigram took their time choosing Silén, a longtime McKinsey guy who spent a couple of years working on strategy at Asos before joining PP. And Silén wasn’t just a hired gun. Philo and Wigram granted senior leadership—including Silén, Adam Anders, Joaquim Figueiredo, and Christiane Juergensen—equity in the business. (Besides the couple and these executives, a U.K. subsidiary of LVMH owned about a quarter of the company as of February 2024, according to a filing.)​

​

It’s no surprise that Silén left—whether he was fired (the word on the street) or simply found a new job. Early-stage startups are prone to conflicting visions and management styles. Philo is a visionary founder who understands and detests the shortcomings of the fashion system—the waste, the archaic design-to-retail process, the undermining of working mothers—but has never before worked outside of that system. LVMH is there to support and advise, but this is Philo and Wigram’s project—they are the ones making the decisions, for better or for worse. But looking back on the past year—the haute-filth imagery, the initial drop, the Bergdorf Goodman pop-up—it’s impossible not to wonder: Are they just getting started, or will they never really start? ​

​

​

​

​

​

The Long Game​

Early-stage fashion startups are always hard to scale. While Phoebe Philo has the financial support of LVMH, it does not have the hundreds of millions of dollars required to grow a medium-size house into a giant. (The cost of opening or remodeling one store alone can easily run to $10 million.) Everything is expensive, from design to marketing to human resources, and when you’re working outside of a luxury group’s ecosystem, and starting from scratch, it can feel impossible. ​

And then there’s distribution: There’s only so much product Philo can move by selling through her website and a single shop-in-shop. If Philo could go back in time, would she have employed a more traditional strategy of selling at department stores, and maybe even hosting some sort of Fashion Week event? ​

But it’s also fair to blame the company’s execution. It’s no surprise that Philo, who clearly covets control, chose to sell direct-to-consumer, via private appointments, before eventually creating one physical pop-up (inside Bergdorf, the only store in America where that would have made sense). It’s not dissimilar from the approach pioneered by Cristaseya, a brand Philo is said to have studied, or even Attersee, Isabel Wilkinson Schor’s fabric-driven essentials line, both of which owe a great deal aesthetically to Philo’s Céline. The difference is that these brands’ prices, while high, are perceived as downright gentle to anyone who regularly shops designer. With Phoebe Philo, there’s been so much hullabaloo over the pricing—the $8,000 handbags, the $9,200 gathered waist leather jacket, the too-expensive-to-list spangle dress. ​

​

To be fair, Philo is charging what most luxury brands are charging. But it’s a lot harder to justify the price when most customers—except those lucky enough to book private appointments or visit New York—are buying online, essentially sight unseen. Also, it’s not like the online experience or return process has been seamless. And it’s not as though the post-launch buzz around the brand has been deafening enough to justify those prices, either.​

Perhaps Philo is playing a long game, and remains confident that selling direct, and outside of the traditional calendar, is better for the business, and better for her. Perhaps, as we head into September, we’ll see some change in the strategy—one that allows her to better take advantage of her ability to shape the culture of clothes. Perhaps nothing will change. Either way, it seems like she and Wigram are learning an age-old lesson: Even for the famous, startups are hard. ​

​

​

 
i mean

everything is just so pretentious... to be pretentious and so sober and somber and charge a million dollars and have cos do it in a sweatshop a few months later, at least let us hear you treat your staff well and not that you hired a mckinsey soulless exec to run everything into the ground while pinching pennies idk man..
 
From the moment they released the logo, something felt really off. Like they did not know exactly what they were doing, everything so far feels improvised.
And those nightmare tales by her staff...poor people! Phoebe selling crappy tote bags for 4 digits; when she refuses to pay her team fairly. Phoebe taking time to rise their children years ago...when now she is unable to see that her team also have a family and a life beyond their jobs. What a big hypocrite she is!
 
Phoebe Philo the company reminds me of PR consulting which shared a similar working environment years ago, but the latter was being more well-organized and structured as well as being a household name in the industry at that time. Philo the company should at least wait untill its business success to exploit its employees as Phoebe Philo the name alone just doesn't have the halo effect to silent and brainwash people like those big conglomerates she worked for.
 
I won’t comment on the Glassdoor comments as they can be done by the same person anyway…
But I would likely believe that the working environment can be toxic as this is typical of a Start-Up culture.
When you choose to communicate under the « start-up umbrella », it tells me everything I need to know.

French laws are kind of strict in terms of labor so, some excess may not be possible.

What I’m the most surprised by is the fact that they called someone from McKinsey. Hilarious because I had the discussion recently about how those people are valued in the fashion industry despite their total lack of knowledge of the industry…
So why reviewing someone from McKinsey when they could have used the LVMH connections to get someone from one of the brand…The second in charge at Givenchy or at Fendi…Or even people who were part of the team at Celine under her creative leadership.

This story about Phoebe’s company and any types of stories like that will always reminds me of Tom Ford who sold his Warhol to fund the launch of his womenswear. Womenswear is a serious, tough business!

I like Phoebe’s work so I want her to succeed but I think they have underestimated the whole thing. They started e-commerce her last year at Celine.

Logistic is a tough job.
In retrospective, it’s easy to have solutions but I think that some points or options could have been anticipated.
Good for her, she has the kind of clientele who is willing to spend 8K online, on a blink of an eye.

However this strategy will not be it for the long run…
The downfall of the business will be the operations.

And yes, a show at PFW even on an Alaia model will be necessary. She can show during Couture or whatever but she needs to keep the momentum going.
 
Patrik Silen, the now allegedly fired CEO, came from ASOS. A rather strange choice indeed. At the very least you would expect the very basics of e-commerce to be covered (as in timely refunds, no bugs/ technical problems, timely delivery and emails).

They placed all their bets on their one e-commerce horse which seems to be the biggest mistake. A highly selective launch with maybe 10-15 global retailers would have been much better. They could have held events for the launch and their clients would have had an instant connection and feeling with the brand (or not) and the brand would be more ‘alive’.
Now there is no emotion or interesting storytelling, it’s all rather flat and one-dimensional. Only the d-t-c channel is simply not enough for such an aspirational priced brand. Even if the products would have been absolutely brilliant and incomparable to anything else on the market (which also they’re not really)
 
andrew said:
wait they had someone from mckinsey there? yeesh.
Click to expand...
You would be probably surprised to learn that a lot of those fashion companies/groups do consult people from McKinsey, which would never make sense for me because the fashion industry is very specific and you need a creative sense in order to anticipate trends in order to build strategies.
And I had that discussion recently.

Delphine Arnault went to McKinsey and that’s somehow their badge of honor but Delphine’s fashion sense is her asset. Unfortunately, that’s not the norm there.

We are having much more intelligent ideas on TFS regarding strategies than a lot of people at McKinsey can have.

The fact that they hired someone from ASOS, which can make sense as it’s a great platform with interesting facilities in logistic, when they have at their disposal people from LVMH, with the added value that now every brand on the group has e-commerce and set it standards regarding that.
 
McKinsey is such a snake oil salesman company with lots of smoke and mirror, their track record is so doggy, working there gets you access to the top of the club the powerful and corrupt the company make about 15 billion every year with basic stupid advice like firing people that company are willing to just use McKinsey as a excuse for getting rid of workers :

But much of the time, its bespoke advice is pretty straightforward; the firm reorganizes sales forces or designs by-the-numbers downsizing to reduce overhead costs. “Essentially, McKinsey is a firm that projects a huge amount of confidence to sell a frequently unremarkable product at sky-high prices, making them truly the Salt Bae of companies,” said Oliver. “You’ve had salt before, but have you ever had it from a douche?”

At one point, four consultants advising the FDA on drug safety were simultaneously working for Purdue on projects designed to persuade the FDA of the safety of Purdue’s products. McKinsey claims there was no conflict, “which is a little hard to take considering that they sold themselves to Purdue at the time with the notion that they had special insights into the FDA”, said Oliver.
etc etc
( from article:theguardian.com/John Oliver on management consulting firms: ‘They shouldn’t get to be invisible’ Oct 2023)

its insane a company that advies to push how to sell a opioid drug destroying the US at same time pretends to do good fighting the good fight on drug safety ...these are just the tip of the iceberg vile dealings of McKinsey consulting jobs no wonder they love to keep a low profile.
 
Being a Mckinsey consultant and Chief Strategy Officer at ASOS.com has nearly zero applicable skills for running a startup luxury brand like Phoebe Philo.

People like that are a better fit making turnaround plans for large corporations like DressBarn and Urban Outfitters.

She needs someone with a strong grasp of luxury and who is really invested in the vision for the long haul.
 
Wow, interesting discussion here. I don’t really trust the Glassdoor results as they seem written by the same person. It might be true, but literally in every team you will find people like that.

I do think they didn’t take the right decisions and it seems like a very poorly managed brand. I know some people from her Céline that were asked to join the brand and some of them did. As far as I know they are happy, but who knows.
 
rowjellies said:
Being a Mckinsey consultant and Chief Strategy Officer at ASOS.com has nearly zero applicable skills for running a startup luxury brand like Phoebe Philo.

People like that are a better fit making turnaround plans for large corporations like DressBarn and Urban Outfitters.

She needs someone with a strong grasp of luxury and who is really invested in the vision for the long haul.
Click to expand...
Yet fashion brands keep recruiting people like this. I CANT. They are usually super clueless and make zero sense.

I think it’s because the CEOs studied business in prestigious universities, they are straight and ended up in fashion because of their connections and not because they actually like it. Some of them have this inferiority complex and they wish they were working at a more serious business, so they like to get people from this kind of companies because they think they are more prepared and smart.

Ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

S
Phoebe Philo Wins Designer Of Year Award
Replies
7
Views
3K
stylegurrl
S
dodencebt
Phoebe Philo to leave Céline
2 3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
25K
Nymphaea
Nymphaea
K
Phoebe Philo Interview .
2
Replies
24
Views
10K
kit
K
S
She's Got The Look-Phoebe Philo Article
Replies
9
Views
2K
isupporthil
I
S
She's Got The Look-Phoebe Philo Article
Replies
9
Views
2K
isupporthil
I

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
211,801
Messages
15,164,334
Members
85,691
Latest member
theseaswell

Share This Page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->