To be fair, "less budget" does have an impact on the output. Teasing you here, but it's very suit-y to go "there's no money so just have ideas look at Jacquemus!! xo"
At times, there's literally not the money (allocated) to make one's expected output happen.
My point is more to say that THEY (execs) chose these people. If one's not too dumb, one sees where are the weaknesses in their project and therefore they (execs) should act to surround their CD with people good enough to compensate and create a smoke screen of "(insert CD) is so creative!!". Get a good design director, get good marketing, image and so on. You can make a terrible collection look great if you get a good advertising campaign done and displayed the right way. If your CD has no vision, put money in hiring some art director who will bring the vision. It's not that complicated.
In my opinion, their failed plan was to get "young talents (or people who wouldn't have dreamt to get that position)" to get more control over how the brands were operating. A bit "you owe me this so do as we ask". Look at Kering's choices of nominations with Ancora that bit them is the a**, McGirr as well, and I'm sure this is what will end up with BV... Obviously that schtick of "a new era of talents" is not limited to Kering and look at the results...
Absolutely agree, but back then (which wasn't that long ago when you think about it...) when they used to hire CDs with an actual vision for a brand. When they hired Creative Directors, and not just glorified designers. That's why a recently named CD (I'm sure you know) has been requested to have no say in LGs for now, the RTW proposal having been (already) deemed to weak internally and that they weren't sure where this was going to end up going.
Mmmm, don't get me wrong: my actual wish it a change of generation of execs who will understand that in my opinion, the key is differentiating your brand not only from a product perspective but also by how the brand is presented to the public, allowing an actual CREATIVE output (from those with a vision) that will bring back clients. Now you look around and 95% of what we see is either the same or abysmal. Because it's either awful, half-a**'d, or something you literally get somewhere cheaper.
I agree with you regarding the Burberry & Ferragamo. Although, I must say I do think that the original mistake was to try to make them become brands that deep down they aren't. As ugly as I find Burberry's communication, at least it's somehow more honest with what people are expecting from them. Search for vintage trench coats are booming while they didn't sell their "new" Burberry. Go figure. But it's always the same: they should have known that when you put that guy there (and heavens knows it's not like one could be oblivious to it), he's going to want full control over everything and therefore change everything, which goes against what they are as a company / their corporate culture.
To put it short: if people with no vision hadn't been named by idiots with equally big egos who look only at numbers instead of how they can make their brand different on the market, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Side note on AI. I agree because many fashion CEOs I've spoken to to sees (unfortunately) sees it as the holy grail of cost cutting and complete control... We'll go through that era, it will crash and burn, and I'm sure we'll be around to see an interesting revival of this industry. Fingers crossed I'm not too hopeful
