Rochas to close

[fashionista-ta]

they were inspired by manga , what do you expect?

Yep, noticed that ... they didn't seem at all the kind of thing to appeal to the Lanvin woman ... perhaps they're chasing a younger audience?

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ i think many of us here are young and none of us seem to be attracted...

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ i think many of us here are young and none of us seem to be attracted...

My point was more along the lines of why are they doing it, rather than is it working ...

On topic, has Olivier said anything about this (publicly, that is, I'm sure he's said something )?

 

[Ameera]

In terms of marketing, it's well known that launching a campaign would meant an even bigger investment into the brand... I do ask myself if it would have been worth it, would it have helped to sell an expensive skirtsuit? an evening dress? There's always been a lot of pressure on the couture/evening gown market as well, so getting your share at the Oscars or somewhere else... it's hard to compete against those big players. Key is to have the brand represented in the important shops, where they do good selections (I dare to say mine had always been nicer than in many other shops where Rochas often looked stuffy and sugar-y).

.

I do agree with you in terms of the Marketing being a bigger investment. i work in Marketing and i know that what you spend is NEVER what you get back. But on the long run you get double or even tripple as a result. Rochas could've done something so much simpler than coming up with a campaign. i always wondered why they never did what the other designing houses did and give some of the socialists such as Nichole Richi and Paris Hilton some of their dresses to wear. Not some ALL! these girls are like walking advertisments! anything they wear is in the news the next day with extra double exposure and double the effect of any marketing campaign that they would've came up with. I reckon the financial loss was way too deep for any marketing campaign to save the brand! I also wonder why it wasnt sold off instead of shutting it down for good. Investcopr ( a company here) bought Gucci before Tom Ford joined and sold the company because it wasn't generating enough money and look how that turned out! i'm starting to get sadder the more i talk about it! haha

 

[tricotineacetat]

i always wondered why they never did what the other designing houses did and give some of the socialists such as Nichole Richi and Paris Hilton some of their dresses to wear.

This idea makes me shiver...

I don't think they would be the right people to advertise for the house of Rochas... they would much rather alienate the customer that would potentially feel attracted to the clothing... Rochas had been a brand that's never been about seasonal trend, it's been about consistancy and timelessness and a tasteful sense of beauty. I think it's probably a mature, more pragmatic person that would feel linked to this aesthetic. I don't think that woman would want to associate herself with a trashy Paris Hilton image... neither are the clothes the ones she would be able to "bring alive".

 

[Ameera]

I don't think that woman would want to associate herself with a trashy Paris Hilton image... neither are the clothes the ones she would be able to "bring alive".

that i would have to agree with!

 

[softgrey]

from wwd...

i just saw this myself...!!!
too bad we won't get him ...
...

that would have been too cool...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

This idea makes me shiver...

I don't think they would be the right people to advertise for the house of Rochas... they would much rather alienate the customer that would potentially feel attracted to the clothing... Rochas had been a brand that's never been about seasonal trend, it's been about consistancy and timelessness and a tasteful sense of beauty. I think it's probably a mature, more pragmatic person that would feel linked to this aesthetic. I don't think that woman would want to associate herself with a trashy Paris Hilton image... neither are the clothes the ones she would be able to "bring alive".

There was an attempt to grab that celebrity appeal. Jennifer Aniston wore a Rochas gown to the recent Academy Awards. Rochas would pop up everynow and then on the red carpet but rarely on anyone with a large presence. And without magazine ads it was simply "the designer no one ever heard of" to non fashion people. Rochas is going to become a case study in marketing problems and brand development, unfortunately a study only in what not do.


This all makes me wonder how Lanvin is doing financially, I'm assuming well but you never know...

 

[yoitslove]

ok what is going on ... this is weird what's up with everyone closing?

 

[tricotineacetat]

There was an attempt to grab that celebrity appeal. Jennifer Aniston wore a Rochas gown to the recent Academy Awards. Rochas would pop up everynow and then on the red carpet but rarely on anyone with a large presence. And without magazine ads it was simply "the designer no one ever heard of" to non fashion people. Rochas is going to become a case study in marketing problems and brand development, unfortunately a study only in what not do.


This all makes me wonder how Lanvin is doing financially, I'm assuming well but you never know...

Jennifer Aniston did wear it a couple of times... I remember her wearing a look from the first, F/W 2003 collection and a second time, in a black lace column. Kirsten Dunst wore it lately as well, as did Sarah Jessica Parker and a few other actresses/socialites in the near past... so in that regard, it was just about to become a steady business for them to dress celebrities.

I'd find it a bit rude to say it was the Rochas team's failure why this brand could not be turned into a profitable company after only 3 (!) years of building the brand. I said it before and I'll do it again, but it takes far longer until you can establish a name on such a high level... Balenciaga is such a case, they are barely in the black now that the merchandise mix of strong showpieces, capsule collections and accessories/handbags/footwear collections is complete... and they DID have financial supporters that understood to develop a line... unlike Rochas.

Lanvin is being owned by a very, very rich Taiwanese women but I don't know how profitable it really is. Honestly, you can't tell just from the market positioning and hype that defines a brand... even Chloe wasn't a turning profits until further money had been invested in the brand name. And that was by the time when Phoebe had already been the designer of the house.

 

[Meg]

tricot, I completely agree about the time frame. My first post in this thread is about how three years is nowhere near enough time to develop a line. Stella, Gucci, McQueen were all given three years to raise money and they are already well established.

 

[Pastry]

Lanvin is being owned by a very, very rich Taiwanese women but I don't know how profitable it really is. Honestly, you can't tell just from the market positioning and hype that defines a brand... even Chloe wasn't a turning profits until further money had been invested in the brand name. And that was by the time when Phoebe had already been the designer of the house.

a point worth mentioning!
i believe the woman is the owner of a newspaper?

i'll say that Lanvin sells pretty well where i live right now. but i've never been able to find out if it actually turns a profit.

 

[tricotineacetat]

There's huge investment involved when you build up a brand - showrooms, catwalk production, keeping up a shop space, PR, advertising... the list goes much further than that. you should better sell the product well, but it's still not a guarantee that it evens the investment.

 

[Pastry]

^yes. zamb made us a list in Theyskens vs. Rochas thread (i think)...

not to mention the essentials:

pattern makers (probably the most crucial to quality!)
sample makers
etc..

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I'd find it a bit rude to say it was the Rochas team's failure why this brand could not be turned into a profitable company after only 3 (!) years of building the brand. I said it before and I'll do it again, but it takes far longer until you can establish a name on such a high level... Balenciaga is such a case, they are barely in the black now that the merchandise mix of strong showpieces, capsule collections and accessories/handbags/footwear collections is complete... and they DID have financial supporters that understood to develop a line... unlike Rochas.

I don't blame the creative team at Rochas, I think they had bad business managers. But I mean, who is to blame for the clothes not selling?

It certainly does take time to develop a brand, but I don't think Rochas did any of the right things to accomplish this besides making beautiful collections. Unfortunately you need a lot more than nice clothes to gain appeal. It's too bad, but they simply didn't do (or weren't willing to do) what needed to get done. Any of us interested in fashion can learn from this I'm sure.

Balenciaga's financial success is due large in part to Ghesquire's collections being more democratic. He's not sending spacesuits and ocean creatures down the runway anymore, they are clothes that can translate into a marketable and sellable line (i.e. the capsule collections and accessories). And they had the right public awareness and advertising to actually market it. Having an "it" bad doesn't hurt either. I think Rochas' issue, at least what I saw in stores, is that their offerings weren't anything women wanted to buy. The gowns and suits were all nice of course but man...there were some terrible and exspensive things on the racks. Olivier and his team are talented people, no one can deny that, but apparently that alone wasn't enough.

A business has to be ran, not an atelier.


I've mentioned this book several times already but "The End Of Fashion" by Terry Agins really spells it all out. I highly suggest it to everyone on this board.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

There's huge investment involved when you build up a brand - showrooms, catwalk production, keeping up a shop space, PR, advertising... the list goes much further than that. you should better sell the product well, but it's still not a guarantee that it evens the investment.

The problem is that none of those investments are worthwhile if the clothes aren't even selling. I think that's why they bailed out of the fashion business with Rochas. I really hate to to be the debbie downer in this thread but I'm sure, as most companies do, P&G hired a firm to investigate Rochas's long term potential. They analyzed the exspenses to make it profitable v.s. what they stood to gain (or lose). The numbers didn't add up so they shut it down. It's simple economics and even talented designers are not immune to this.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

^ simple economics should have told p&g not to own an uber expensive fashion line in the first place

i was thinking that instead of closing the entire line down, p&g should have done with what prada did with alaia
i'm pretty sure that rochas is at least more profitable than alaia as it is right now

 

[Deleted member 7575]

^ simple economics should have told p&g not to own an uber expensive fashion line in the first place

i was thinking that instead of closing the entire line down, p&g should have done with what prada did with alaia
i'm pretty sure that rochas is at least more profitable than alaia as it is right now

They didn't purchase Rochas exclusively, it came with Wella's portfolio among various cosmetic labels and fragrances.

And this wasn't a decision dictated by P&G alone, Wella still worked independently despite its new ownership.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

rochas rtw started up under p&g
and by refering to simple economics, p&g should know high fashion is monopolistic competition, not your simple perfect competition (microeconomics 101). by it's innate nature, monopolistic competitive industries are not very profitable, they should have known...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

rochas rtw started up under p&g
and by refering to simple economics, p&g should know high fashion is monopolistic competition, not your simple perfect competition (microeconomics 101). by it's innate nature, monopolistic competitive industries are not very profitable, they should have known...

So you are saying they shouldn't have bothered to hire Olivier in the first place?

P&G acquired its majority shareholder position in Wella in September 2003, Theyskens had already put out a collection under Rochas in early March, almost two months before P&G (rather a german subsidiary of P&G) made their initial offer to Wella. Wella's management's plans to revive the RTW were well underway before P&G took an interest.

I think this is a total shame, but it's a good lesson, not every dusty label can or needs to be revived. And bad management (or disinterested management) can cripple a talented designer's efforts, no matter how much acclaim he gets.

And I don't think it was simply a matter of Rochas not making a lot of money, you are right, a lot of smaller labels don't, I think it was the debt and drain on Wella's other resources that caused P&G to close it down. That however is just my own speculation. And to be honest, it was probably the same people at Wella who opened the RTW that gave it the final axe.