from the Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6f87c86e-67f3-11d9-a11e-00000e2511c8.html
Prada’s designer cuts and runs into fashion test case
By Vanessa Friedman
Published: January 16 2005 19:36 | Last updated: January 16 2005 19:36
Jil Sander's men's wear show held on Sunday in Milan, a procession of the house's signature blend of luxury and minimalism, was notable as much for what did not happen as what did. For the first time since Ms Sander started her house in 1973, a designer did not appear for the traditional post-show bow.
Ms Sander resigned for the second time in November “for personal reasons”, having left in 2000 over creative and strategic differences before returning in 2003. With her departure, Prada Group, which has owned Jil Sander since 1999, decided not to replace her with a single designer but to use her creative team to carry on her vision and name.
As a result, the Jil Sander company has become a test case for the industry, which is reassessing a tenet of the business since the mid-1990s: that to be a star brand you need a star designer.
The issue was raised by Tom Ford's departure last year from Gucci and his subsequent replacement by a trio of unknown, but named and heavily promoted, in-house designers. But the Jil Sander case is more significant for three reasons. First, after Ms Sander's earlier departure, Prada replaced her with a single designer, Milan Vukmirovic, with disastrous results. Second, unlike Mr Ford, she bears her company's name, and thus much of its identity, as demonstrated by its resurgence on her return: 2004 sales are said to be up 15 per cent to over €140m ($183m). Third, by replacing her with an anonymous team Prada is suggesting not only that brand does not need a star designer but that it does not need a single designer at all.
“Design teams can be extremely effective solutions sometimes,” says Michael Bororian, the managing partner of Sterling International, a Paris-based executive search firm. “It's really a question of the lifecycle of a brand; whether it has yet made the leap from signature to brand.”
Jacques-Franck Dossin, European luxury goods analyst for Goldman Sachs, said global brands such as Louis Vuitton, Hermès or Chanel, could survive without a figurehead because people bought the brand rather than the designer. “But smaller labels are more dependent on a person. It's hard to build a brand universe, and the corresponding customer loyalty, without one,” he said. Gian Giacomo Ferraris, chief executive of Jil Sander, said the company was focused on maintaining continuity in the brand.
“I spoke to a lot of customers the day after the announcement was made, and they all said they were very sad, but the main thing they said was, ‘Please don't change the image of Jil Sander' and we don't intend to. We won't start a second line, or do licences, or lower our prices; and all the people Jil put in place before she left are still here.”
Still, as Mr Bororian says, “her team doesn't have her eye that yes or no instinct” and there will be differences in operation. In May, a cruise collection will be launched for the first time, and there will be increased attention to accessories, which currently make up only 15 per cent of the brand's sales but which Mr Ferraris hopes to increase to 30 per cent in the next two years. Though there have been rumours that Prada, which at the end of 2003 had net debts of €675m, may consider selling the brand if it becomes profitable, Mr Ferraris denies this.
And, while most observers feel financial success is possible for Jil Sander, there remains a question whether a designer-less brand can be commercially successful and creatively cool.
Traditionally, this tightrope has been impossible to walk. Brands such as Moschino and Hugo Boss have lost their figureheads, usually because they died rather than resigned, and gone on to great financial success, but have never managed to retain their media profile or consumer ties. On the other hand, Martin Margiela, the Belgian designer whose wholesale business increased by 24 per cent in 2004, never appears at the end of a show and refuses to give interviews or be photographed. His very refusal to play the game has created an identity for himself and his brand. Mr Ferraris says he can have his “egg and chicken too”. Whether he succeeds will be an industry test case.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6f87c86e-67f3-11d9-a11e-00000e2511c8.html
Prada’s designer cuts and runs into fashion test case
By Vanessa Friedman
Published: January 16 2005 19:36 | Last updated: January 16 2005 19:36
Jil Sander's men's wear show held on Sunday in Milan, a procession of the house's signature blend of luxury and minimalism, was notable as much for what did not happen as what did. For the first time since Ms Sander started her house in 1973, a designer did not appear for the traditional post-show bow.
Ms Sander resigned for the second time in November “for personal reasons”, having left in 2000 over creative and strategic differences before returning in 2003. With her departure, Prada Group, which has owned Jil Sander since 1999, decided not to replace her with a single designer but to use her creative team to carry on her vision and name.
As a result, the Jil Sander company has become a test case for the industry, which is reassessing a tenet of the business since the mid-1990s: that to be a star brand you need a star designer.
The issue was raised by Tom Ford's departure last year from Gucci and his subsequent replacement by a trio of unknown, but named and heavily promoted, in-house designers. But the Jil Sander case is more significant for three reasons. First, after Ms Sander's earlier departure, Prada replaced her with a single designer, Milan Vukmirovic, with disastrous results. Second, unlike Mr Ford, she bears her company's name, and thus much of its identity, as demonstrated by its resurgence on her return: 2004 sales are said to be up 15 per cent to over €140m ($183m). Third, by replacing her with an anonymous team Prada is suggesting not only that brand does not need a star designer but that it does not need a single designer at all.
“Design teams can be extremely effective solutions sometimes,” says Michael Bororian, the managing partner of Sterling International, a Paris-based executive search firm. “It's really a question of the lifecycle of a brand; whether it has yet made the leap from signature to brand.”
Jacques-Franck Dossin, European luxury goods analyst for Goldman Sachs, said global brands such as Louis Vuitton, Hermès or Chanel, could survive without a figurehead because people bought the brand rather than the designer. “But smaller labels are more dependent on a person. It's hard to build a brand universe, and the corresponding customer loyalty, without one,” he said. Gian Giacomo Ferraris, chief executive of Jil Sander, said the company was focused on maintaining continuity in the brand.
“I spoke to a lot of customers the day after the announcement was made, and they all said they were very sad, but the main thing they said was, ‘Please don't change the image of Jil Sander' and we don't intend to. We won't start a second line, or do licences, or lower our prices; and all the people Jil put in place before she left are still here.”
Still, as Mr Bororian says, “her team doesn't have her eye that yes or no instinct” and there will be differences in operation. In May, a cruise collection will be launched for the first time, and there will be increased attention to accessories, which currently make up only 15 per cent of the brand's sales but which Mr Ferraris hopes to increase to 30 per cent in the next two years. Though there have been rumours that Prada, which at the end of 2003 had net debts of €675m, may consider selling the brand if it becomes profitable, Mr Ferraris denies this.
And, while most observers feel financial success is possible for Jil Sander, there remains a question whether a designer-less brand can be commercially successful and creatively cool.
Traditionally, this tightrope has been impossible to walk. Brands such as Moschino and Hugo Boss have lost their figureheads, usually because they died rather than resigned, and gone on to great financial success, but have never managed to retain their media profile or consumer ties. On the other hand, Martin Margiela, the Belgian designer whose wholesale business increased by 24 per cent in 2004, never appears at the end of a show and refuses to give interviews or be photographed. His very refusal to play the game has created an identity for himself and his brand. Mr Ferraris says he can have his “egg and chicken too”. Whether he succeeds will be an industry test case.
...test 'case'...
