rach2jlc said:Good points, Faust. I guess that I naturally think of their menswear first... since that is with what I've had the most contact.
John
yea, so do I. I had to bend my mind to womenswear for that post.
rach2jlc said:Good points, Faust. I guess that I naturally think of their menswear first... since that is with what I've had the most contact.
John
kanzaki said:Part of an article cut-out.
Following lead in other companies in a popular trend of large labels to absorb as many other fashion houses as possible, Prada took on large debts to take on the financially floundering Rome-based house of Fendi in the early 1990's. Prada shared shares in Fendi with the Louis Vuitton Moet Hennesy (LVMH) company. Prada was unable to turn around/support the money losing Fendi label, and sold its shares to LVMH. Prada is still to recover from this debt.
fashionista-ta said:I read an article somewhere (Suzy Menkes???) that took the position that the sole reason for these two acquisitions was to "eat" the competition. From that perspective, it's no surprise that Lang and Jil have been "killed off" and their own names presumably unusable by them ... (if it were me negotiating the contract, I would have the name revert to me when the label had been dead x number of years)
If true, they were acts of cowardice, and probably ultimately short-sighted, because the growth (rather than constriction) of the minimalist genre favors all its members. Rarity is all very well, but after that comes extinction
faust said:You don't buy your competition to run them into the ground - you buy your competition to make money off of them.
Mr-Dale said:And with that you ban competition out, because you just make the competion your own and enlarge your market share. So in a way, competition is ran into the ground.
faust said:You don't buy your competition to run them into the ground - you buy your competition to make money off of them.
And no sane lawyer would give you a contract you are describing. A corporation is a going concern, meaning it can not just die - unless the owner chooses to dissolve it. And why would Bertelli do that?
fashionista-ta said:It's actually quite a common practice to buy and kill competitors. But I'm not going to get into a head-butting contest over this. Perhaps an important point to bear in mind is that every truth is a paradox. Anytime you hear anyone shouting "I'm right and you're wrong," generally they are shouting a half-truth at best
hmm...i think they already are...faust said:Not in a monetary way, which is the bottom line. Do you think a Helmut Lang customer will now turn around and buy Prada to fill the void? I don't think so.
softgrey said:hey you guys...
we have had this discussion here ad nauseum...
why not agree to disagree......
we will never actually know the 'truth'...
it's ALL speculation...even on the part of suzy menkes...
cause she's not in bed with bertelli...
Mutterlein said:Well regardless of what their business strategy was Prada now has a rather exspensive problem on their hands. I doubt anyone would touch the brand without Helmut Lang aboard. The only other way I could see making Helmut Lang desirable without actuallly having Helmut Lang there is if they had a similar, well known designer at the helm. However we have yet to see how that idea will turn out as for all we know Raf Simons could suck balls at Jil Sander. Once Art is up and going there are going to be some REAL issues. I mean I would never buy "fake" Helmut Lang if the actual designer had a different line.
butbeautiful said:ha u can't blame them though. majority of the Singaporean wear sh*ts and don't appreciate the avantgardism.
and i think there are rare pieces of helmut langs at club21 boutique only.
anyway where was it by the way? hilton shopping gallery? and is issey miyake stilll there? haven't visit there for ages.
morgan38 said:But let's look on the bright side guys...at least we have Beyonce.