Tom Ford : Life after Gucci #2

^^
I think that he will present it for the next Baselworld. So maybe March 2018.
I believe he wants his timepieces line to be more like the Dior Homme chiffre Rouge line than the Gucci "fashion" timepieces line.

That last interview is interesting even if he said what he usually says about his movies.
He should reconsider his views on fashion because good clothes last forever and watching a fashion show manytimes can gives me as much emotion than a movie. Fashion is much more powerful because it impact our lives .

Yes Tom, you should do what you do best. That's what we wanted from the beginning. The pumps he did for Gucci SS2001 are everywhere this season and as we are living in a very 90's/early 00's nostalgic era, his work is much more copied than before.
His best collections under his own name (FW2012, SS2013, SS2015 & FW2016) were the ones were he revisited his past while adding a new touch. I'm glad to read the words "new way" coming from him. I think he should work less & less with Carine and give a new perspective to his work.

I want great clothes to wear everyday, i don't care about Redcarpet TOM!
 
THE NEW MADISON AVENUE STORE NOW OPEN

Bridget Foley’s Diary: Tom Ford Moves on Madison
Tom Ford talks about his next show, Halston's socks, school moms' yoga pants and his shiny new store on Madison Avenue.

By Bridget Foley on June 29, 2017

“I have never been meek.”
Never mind that those words could be Tom Ford’s personal manifesto and, when the time comes (many years hence, knock on wood), his epitaph. On Monday morning, he stated the obvious by way of contextualizing the powerful design of his new New York store, at 672 Madison Avenue.
Ford spoke on the phone from London, the base from which he’d been weighing in daily — his staffers might say constantly — as workers readied the space for its soft opening today. The official opening will be marked with a cocktail party on Sept. 7, the day after Ford’s spring 2018 show.
Our Monday morning, conversation followed a walk-through of the store, a field trip that more than supported the designer’s antimeek declaration. It also displayed an interesting degree of activity — merchandisers filling shelves and racks despite the last-minute construction work under way; some ceiling coverings — mirrors, stainless steel, a portion of a high-tech, reflective fabric — remained uninstalled. On Wednesday, a minor mirror mishap caused WWD’s shoot to be pushed back just a bit, 30 minutes or so.
Even almost finished, the space pulsed with urbane chic of a sort very different from that of Ford’s first retail outpost, up the avenue a bit at 70th Street. That store (closed permanently after business hours on Sunday) was modeled after the designer’s London Mayfair home and paid homage to gentlemanly British elegance. This one, all black, white, gray and silver, flaunts an audacious modernism informed by late-Seventies glamour, the results every bit as impressive but more gender-neutral than the original.
A grand staircase, its balustrade a thick spiral of black fiberglass, anchors the double-height entry. Beyond, a series of salons is proportioned for graceful intimacy: women’s handbags immediately past the entrance; to the right, fine jewelry, to which watches will be added when that collection launches early in 2018; further back, ready-to-wear and shoes, the latter anchored by a white marble fireplace beneath a commissioned abstract art piece, a combination of clay and plated silver. Finally, a mirrored, marbled jewel box of a space houses beauty, fragrance and eyewear.
Upstairs, the VIP room with off-white sueded walls overlooks the entrance, its long curtains affording privacy without blocking the ample natural light. The second floor also features men’s wear — luggage, sportswear, shoes, perfumery, shirting and suiting, the last featuring tony Macassar ebony wardrobes and a second fireplace. In time for today’s opening, a workroom with a full-time staff of five tailors was set to be fully operational.
Throughout, various marbles play against granite flooring, chrome, mirrors and stainless steel, achieving multiple degrees of high-impact reflection.
Here, Ford reflects on his move down Madison, as well on other fashion matters.

WWD: Ten years after opening on Madison Avenue, why change locations?
Tom Ford: There is completely different traffic at [the new] location. You get not only the traffic of our customers who live uptown, but you also get a completely different group. Let’s be real, we’re across the street from Barneys and that means a lot. But that’s not the only reason. The very first store was built in 2007. At that time I didn’t have women’s, and it was built as a men’s store. We adapted it for a women’s store, but it never really functioned properly for both men’s and women’s.
WWD: This store feels visually powerful yet more feminine than the first store. Maybe “more feminine” is the wrong way to say it. The other store looked more traditionally masculine.
T.F.: Because it was built as a men’s store; [the original store] was very Macassar [ebony] heavy. It’s beautiful. In a lot of ways it kind of broke my heart to leave it and to see all that demolished. But it was also heavy compared to where our store design is today. So it was three reasons: location, space and then a fresher design, more to the design of our Miami and Los Angeles stores.
WWD: What elements have you retained from the first store?
T.F.: There’s a little bit of Macassar in this store. And certain things, building the rooms around fireplaces, which we have always done; certain pieces of furniture, certain fixtures, the gray metal cases for the clothing, certain things that are us and our signature and that you try to hang onto because they give you your identity as a brand.
WWD: Why the fireplaces?
T.F.: The very first store on Madison was really a copy of my house at the time, in Mayfair, in London. We copied my mirrors, my urns, my sofas. I literally went through and pulled out pieces of furniture and lamp fixtures and things I had designed myself and replicated it in that store. That’s where that came from, the grouping around fireplaces.
WWD: The new aesthetic is very different from that of the first store, more modernist versus sumptuous classic. How did you get from one to the other?
T.F.: The Gucci stores were a copy of my Neutra house in Los Angeles — the Vladimir Kagan sofas, the lines. So I suppose when I set about designing the first Tom Ford store, I was very aware of what I had done at Gucci and then later at Saint Laurent, Bottega and all the other [Gucci Group/Kering] stores, and I wanted to go away from that. Now that the brand is established, perhaps I’m more comfortable in coming back to what my actual true, innate aesthetic is, which is toward a certain minimalism and modernism.
WWD: You worked with architect Bill Sofield again, right?
T.F.: I worked with Bill on all of those stores. My God, Bill and I have worked together on Gucci, Saint Laurent, Bottega, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, we have worked together on literally hundreds of stores, which is amazing. We met, I think, in 1994 and we have been working together ever since.
WWD: What spoke to you about this space?
T.F.: First of all, location, that is the number one. And then the double-height entry so that it could feel somewhat grand as you walked in. When you then go into the other spaces, the ceilings are not ridiculously high, which works to create that residential feel. It’s a residential building.
WWD: And how does this store differ from the aesthetic of Miami and Los Angeles?
T.F.: We’re in New York, and instantly that sets up a different vocabulary. The lacquered stairs as you walk in, which isn’t really lacquer but that beautiful black stair and the mirrored ceiling.
It’s very glamorous. I tend to constantly be drawn back to that very glamorous, late Seventies period of architecture. If you look at Halston’s offices at the Olympic Towers, he was way, way, way up. I believe he had red carpeting, but the walls were just folding mirrored screens. And I believe there was even a mirrored ceiling in some of those rooms. So it was all that reflection. We mirrored the ceiling. The reflection and slick surfaces are a nod to where we are, New York. I like that slick aspect of New York.
wwd/tomford.com
 
WWD: So, a Halston connection.
T.F.: He was also obsessed with orchids, which I am as well, and he had tables full of orchids and folding mirrored screens and chrome everywhere. It was very glamorous and very much of the period. In fact, the sofas with the round bolsters, which I have used over and over ad nauseam in my houses and in all the stores, they have become a kind of signature of my stores. They came originally from the gray sofas in Halston’s town house on 63rd Street, which was done by Paul Rudolph. There is a famous picture of him sitting in a gray outfit with red socks on, in one of those gray chairs in his living room.
WWD: Not a vague connection — a direct Halston inspiration?
T.F.: Direct inspiration, for years, from Halston. I think Bill and I both share that inspiration. Well, definitely we share that period in New York. We had mutual friends in college. Our influences and cultural references are identical.
WWD: This store is mostly about the slick surface with new artwork you commissioned for the space. But it’s all integrated architecturally — none of the major artwork of the first store.
T.F.: The original store had my own artwork in it. It had a Calder in it; it had an Arp in it; it had a Fontana when you walked in the door. It had a Lalanne crocodile table.
WWD: What will become of that Lalanne table? It was such a focal point.
T.F.: The Lalanne table is where it belongs — in my house. And so is the Arp and so is the Calder and so is the Fontana. They were kind of on loan to get the store open.
WWD: The staircase makes for a major, glamorous statement. I don’t want to use the word imposing…
T.F.: Well it is imposing. I mean, I suppose I can’t help myself with that. I have never been meek. I want you to walk in and go, “Oh my God, look at that!”
WWD: How is your approach to opening a store different today than 10 years ago, when social media and e-commerce were in a very, very different place.
T.F.: It has not changed for me. I think a store, especially a store in New York, is still an incredibly important statement for your brand. You can shop online, and we have a beautiful web site where we do a great business, but walking in a store and being greeted by people in the store and the service that you receive, the store is a completely different experience…and service, service, service is so much a part of what we do. Our men’s business is almost 30 percent made to measure, made to order.
WWD: Really?
T.F.: Yes. People come in and they want to look through swatches, be measured, sit down, have a coffee, talk about which fabric do you like, or your wife or your husband or someone with you, and order a suit, yes.
WWD: How is the women’s shopper’s mentality different from the men’s?
T.F.: They are totally different. Your male customers are loyal. They come in, they find a suit that they like, they have a shape that they like, they find a pant that they like, they come back, they come back, they come back, they come back, they come back, they come back. A woman — maybe you have her for a couple of seasons if she finds something she wants and she identifies with you. But if she is a woman who consumes fashion, she is looking [around] and she goes wherever what she wants at that moment is.
WWD: How do you build a loyal women’s clientele given that reality?
T.F.: If you’re lucky, a lot of women identify with what you’re doing. A lot of women identify with what we do, which is great. But it’s also sometimes challenging [creatively], when you have a loyal customer base, to break out of what you’re known for. If certain things sell over and over and over, your stores want to just keep buying them and buying them…so it’s tricky. That’s something I’m going to address in my September show.
WWD: Speaking of which, your September show, which is not see-now-buy-now-wear-now…
T.F.: No it is not. It is see now, buy in five months.
WWD: Where and when?
T.F.: At the Park Avenue Armory, Wednesday at 7 p.m.
WWD: You mean the first Wednesday, after Labor Day, right?
T.F.: I think it’s good because people have come back. They’ve had two days to settle in from the long weekend, they’re still tan, they’re still happy, they’re not burned out yet, they’re not tired of everything. It’s not nine at night, it’s seven at night, and then you can go out to dinner, whatever. I thought it was a good slot.
WWD: You’ve always shown early in the season.
T.F.: I like to start or finish.
WWD: Back to the balancing demand for the known with newness…
T.F.: [Retailers] want the same thing because it sells. Especially in today’s world, everyone is terrified, and so they want a sure thing. I’m lucky in this way, I have a few key items that the moment they get into the store they sell. So the [danger] is that if you keep doing that [too deeply], you don’t evolve. I’m going to ignore [the expectation of repetition] and present what I want to present in September and see what happens.
WWD: What always sells for you?
T.F.: Oh my God, a sequined dress with a zipper, a sequined dress with a zipper, a sequined dress with a zipper. I mean, there are lots of other things, but that’s the one. I mean, every variation and mutation of that.
WWD: Where do you see the women’s business developing over all?
T.F.: I find what’s happening in women’s wear really bizarre. Women don’t wear day clothes anymore. I don’t understand the concept of day clothes. I had to really think about this. I had to think, well, why don’t I understand the concept of day clothes? And the reason is women don’t wear day clothes anymore.
[My son] Jack’s school in L.A. — I watch what everyone wears in the morning when drop-off happens.
WWD: Yoga pants.
T.F.: They’re all wearing casual clothes, yoga pants, T-shirts, jeans. You see those same women at lunch, and all they’ve done is they’ve slipped on a pair of great shoes and they’ve popped on a jacket over their T-shirt. So they’re wearing jeans, a T-shirt, a jacket and shoes, that’s it. But at night, they get completely dressed. It seems to be the same in New York from what I can tell; I don’t spend enough time there. But in L.A., no one dresses.
So Jack’s school here — we’re back in London for the summer, and school goes through the end of July — all of the women at drop-off are wearing the exact same thing [as in L.A.]: yoga pants, a T-shirt ans trainers or jeans, a T-shirt and trainers. I see those same women at lunch, what have they done? Fancy shoes, popped on a jacket, still the jeans, still the T-shirt. I see those women out at night, totally dressed. Women aren’t wearing day clothes in the way that they used to.
WWD: From a fashion-business perspective, how do you deal with that?
T.F.: Drop day. You just drop it. You make great jackets. You make things that you can break apart. You show it all together. You make potent pieces, you make a potent jacket, you make potent shoes, you make potent items that — with your jeans, your T-shirt and your trainers, or a great pair of shoes with your jeans and your T-shirt — say, “I’m cool, I’m great, I consume fashion.” You make great items. And then you make evening.
WWD: Evening sells?
T.F.: Evening dresses, $25,000 is no problem. Our buyers often say we need more; we sell them like crazy. Like crazy. I mean, you don’t have to sell those like crazy. You sell two and you’ve had an amazing day in a store.
WWD: I would think.
T.F.: We can easily sell four of those on a key weekend in awards season in Los Angeles. We sold two last year that were $50,000. Now, there are very few [of those] customers, but we know who they are and they come back to us.
WWD: Back to day, I think our increasingly casual lifestyle is a major issue for fashion today, one the traditional luxury market is struggling to deal with.
T.F.: Women really do dress high-low….As I said, it’s about producing those very potent items. That amazing jacket, the amazing pair of shoes, those things that you’re going have in your closet 20 years later, you’ll pull it out and put it on again over a T-shirt and jeans and it’s going to look amazing. And then evening, beautifully constructed eveningwear or leather. Beautifully constructed items like that, no one can touch those.
WWD: You’ve really thought about this.
T.F.: I’ve thought about it. I have to say it upsets me because, again, I’m of a certain vintage that I remember how people took such care to dress when they got on an airplane. People today don’t do that.
Spending time in Los Angeles this year has made a huge difference in how I see clothing, for women in particular. London is a bit of a bubble where both men and women still do dress in a throwback to another time, at least many women and men who have a lot of money. Obviously, there’s great young style here and people who don’t have a lot of money, who are ultra stylish and fabulous, but London is a highly bourgeois city where women and men [who have money] still dress in a way that [developed] many years ago.
That is very attractive to me. But it is artificial. You could live here and you could start to think, “This is how you dress when you go to lunch, and this is how you dress [for other situations].” And in London, at a certain level, you do. But in the rest of the world, that’s gone; people don’t do that anymore. Living in Los Angeles, I feel excited about this season because I feel like someone shook me a bit, and I’m a bit more awake.
WWD: Interesting.
T.F.: So it’ll be interesting to see if I can put that on the runway.
WWD: Back to retail. Are there any stores upcoming?
T.F.: Not at the moment. We have…I think, this is 128 stores. I own 28 of them, and some of the others are franchised and some are shops-in-shop in department stores. But I think we’re pretty much covered in most major markets where we should be. So at the moment, no.
WWD: You’re covered in major markets, and content with that scope. Another issue for the industry now is the constant drive for growth, growth, growth. At some point, the concept is antithetical to that of luxury.
T.F.: It’s absolutely true, without then having to broaden your distribution, lower your price point and compromise potentially the long-term power of your brand. That’s why I am so happy that I am a private company and in control, because if I were a public company, I would be pushed to be doing things that I don’t necessarily believe in.
WWD: “Brand.” Back when, fashion companies were “houses.” In a world in which everything and everyone is a brand, does the word mean anything?
T.F.: I hate that word. I have always hated that word. I hated that word at Gucci, I hate that word at Tom Ford. I hate that word. Brand and branding, I hate that more. Although the word I hate the most right now is disruption.
I just want to — every time I read that word I just cringe. [Laughs] Oh what she’s doing is so disruptive. Oh, we want to disrupt the blah, blah, blah market. I hate it.
WWD: I’m with you. What I like is, “what I’m doing is so disruptive.” I mean, let others be the judge of that. Discretion — not a modern concept.
T.F.: The people I follow on Instagram, the daily photo of themselves in front of something. Don’t you remember the time when you would be embarrassed to even have a picture of yourself out in your house? You just wouldn’t do that. And now people are so comfortable, even quite sophisticated people, taking pictures of themselves constantly. I find it so bizarre.
WWD: Let’s not end with “ugh.” Is there anything else you’d like to add about the store?
T.F.: Does it look expensive?
WWD: So expensive.
T.F.: Oh good, I love that.
same source
 
Tom Ford: What's Next
With his brand on track to hit nearly $2 billion in retail sales in 2017, the designer is on a quest for global dominance. Next up? New York Fashion Week.

NEW YORK, United States — “****ing Fabulous.” It’s a bang-on description of the designer Tom Ford, but also the name of his latest limited-edition fragrance, set to launch exclusively at the brand’s directly owned retail stores just in time for his Spring/Summer 2018 runway show in New York on Wednesday evening.

“You hear [****] on television all the time. In a way it’s lost its edge, but nobody had put it on a bottle of perfume,” Ford laughs. It’s Labour Day in a makeshift office in the Park Avenue Armory, where the 56-year-old designer will debut his latest collection in T-57 hours. The room, scented with his own “Tobacco Vanille” candle, is fully furnished in black, tables accented with clusters of blush-pink cymbidium orchids. It’s as if Ford was a pop star who had included demands for such backstage flourishes in his rider. “I don't actually need as fancy as they always provide for me,” he says, reclining in a moleskine-covered chair, full suit and white shirt buttoned down to there. “I’m actually simpler than people think.”

Perhaps. But at this point in Ford’s 30-plus year career, which has encompassed the mid-1990s revival of Gucci, an overlapping stint at Yves Saint Laurent, the formation of the Gucci Group with longtime business partner Domenico De Sole, a turn as an Oscar-nominated filmmaker and, most importantly, the architect of his namesake brand, he is very much a celebrity in his own right. (The kind that can’t go shopping at Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills during the day because too many people stop him for pictures or to chat about lipstick.)

But back to the fragrance — and that name. “You know, one day I said, ‘Oh my god, this is ****ing fabulous.' And I thought, ‘Why don’t we just call it that?’”

Ford, unsurprisingly, is fully cognisant of the potency of such a marketing message. (In fact, he uses the word “potent” several times over the course of our conversation to describe everything from a handbag to an advertising campaign.) “Even if the fragrance was not good, our customer is looking for a gift at Christmas for somebody who has everything... it worked in a lot of ways,” he says. “And it is a good fragrance. It is ****ing fabulous.”

There’s something inherently straightforward and, really, American about Ford and his brand. Sexy, sharp, unwavering. No waffling here.

And that may be truer than ever, as Ford lays out his ambitious plans to become one of the top five luxury brands in the world, with annual retail revenue — encompassing all categories — on track to hit nearly $2 billion in 2017, according to market sources. “I've never understood people who want to do something and be number two, or number four or five or 47.”

Step No. 1: Own New York Fashion Week

Since launching women’s ready-to-wear in 2010, Ford has experimented with presentation format, releasing a video starring Lady Gaga one season, showing in Los Angeles the next. “We jumped around into all sorts of things,” he admits.

For the first go around — Spring 2011 — he banned social media from his intimate runway show. “I think it was misunderstood because I blacked out the phones. It wasn't because I was trying to be elitist and that I didn’t believe in the internet,” he says. “It was because I was trying to do a — what is it? — a ‘see now, buy now’ collection. I wanted to hold the images back until it was available in the stores and then we could flood everything.”

The effort was certainly memorable. The season’s backstage model board, populated with headshots of muses Beyoncé, Lauren Hutton, Julianne Moore and others, is burned into the brains of fashion’s most ardent followers. However, when Ford made a more structured shift to “see now, buy now” — he cringes at the idiom — for his Autumn 2017 runway show, the experiment fell short of expectations.

“It did not work,” he says flatly. “I still think the concept is right, but the show calendar does not align with the retail calendar. So we lost — which I knew we were going to — six weeks of selling by not putting the fall clothes on the floor until September 7.” Ford believed the bump in sales around the show would supplant the loss. And it did, he says, for the first three or four weeks. But then it levelled out. “And, of course, we lost all editorial.”

The fact is, Ford’s core female customer does indeed shop for fall clothes in August, and continues to scan print magazine editorial for inspiration. “I have a very loyal customer who has followed me from Gucci,” he says. “They were in their thirties when I was in my thirties. They’re now in their fifties, approaching 60. That customer? She still reads magazines. Yes, she’s on Instagram and she’s contemporary and she lives in an urban world, but she still likes to hold a magazine.”

So Ford is giving his customer what he believes she wants: a runway show, in New York City, with the opportunity to order pieces from the collection five months ahead of time at a trunk show in his Madison Avenue store the following day. Oh, and a full-on after party. (Virgil Abloh is DJing.) “I haven’t done anything exuberant in a long time. I used to give these hedonistic parties at Gucci. Alcohol-fuelled — and in many cases, drug-fuelled — these big parties that people used to love. My life changed a lot when I quit drinking, quit doing drugs, quit smoking, quit all of these things, and it does make you more sober,” says the designer, who stopped it all eight years ago. “It made my clothes more sober. It took me a while maybe to be able to get back to being able to be joyful and silly without alcohol.”

He also plans to stay on the New York calendar for at least a few seasons. After living primarily in London with husband Richard Buckley for the past two decades, his family has mostly relocated to LA, where his four-year-old son recently enrolled in school. Ford also moved his women’s design studio to the West Coast, taking over Hedi Slimane’s old Saint Laurent studio in the space that formerly housed the famous Regen Projects art gallery. (Ford’s men’s design studio remains in London.)

“I thought it was really important to have a proper show during a Fashion Week,” he says. “And I’d like to remain in to New York, at least for a few seasons, so that people know, ‘Oh, okay, Tom Ford. He’s on the calendar. He shows then.’ That’s important from a business standpoint, to try to have that consistency that I have lacked.”

Step No. 2: Woo the Next Generation

“What do I hope this show will do for us? I hope it brings in a younger customer,” Ford says. “It’s a departure. It’s a bit more modern.”

While Ford says he can sell anything with an exposed zipper or a pile of sequins, his women’s collections have struggled to deliver a brand vision that captures the heart strings of the new luxury shopper — the one buying lots of Gucci, his old stomping ground. Once upon a time, designers more often than not told a new story each season, with an aesthetic thread holding it all together. Today’s most successful designers — Gucci’s Alessandro Michele, Vetements’ Demna Gvasalia — tell the same story over and over, only tweaking it ever so slightly each season.

“When I left fashion in 2004, what I showed on the runway was exactly how I wanted women to look. The hair that I thought was right for the season, the makeup that I thought was right for the season, the clothes that were right for the season, the shoe of the season and the bag the season,” he says. “I think now, in a show, people look for items and everything is so exaggerated that it often almost looks like costumes, but when you break it down there’s a great jacket or a great bag. Women are buying items that are very potent and concentrated that can give them the feeling of the season. I have to hand it to Alessandro, who used to work with me at Gucci. He’s so talented, and some of those bags are incredible. All you need is that.”

It’s high praise, and indicative of a certain inherent modesty in Ford that is unexpected given his unabashedly assertive public persona. But it’s clear he has learned something from Michele’s success, and is applying those lessons to his own strategy.

“I love Alessandro. I’m so happy for him, I’m happy about what he’s doing. It took me a long time to get to that place because I felt...being at Gucci was not a pleasant or positive thing, and it took me a long time to get over it,” he says. “A long time. Alessandro, doing what he's doing now, has helped me with that because I am genuinely happy and think he deserves it. I’m impressed when I see what he does. So that’s nice.”

Ford has also been thinking quite a lot about the 1990s, a decade that he helped to define and is currently a point of reference for the next generation of consumers. It’s been 22 years since Ford’s Autumn 1995 collection for Gucci hit the catwalk. As goes with the trend cycle, those low-slung hip-huggers and open-neck satin blouses that entirely shifted the direction of fashion for the next decade are interesting once again.

“It was the right thing at the right time, which is what fashion is all about,” he says. “I suppose this collection, for me, is a bit of a throwback in a way to the spirit of my collections at Gucci in the '90s. I’ve been watching this '90s revival and I thought, ‘Well, I should do that.’ Your tendency, once you’ve done something, is to move on. But then when you realise, okay, that’s kind of back in the air again, then maybe I should go back in that direction a bit.”

And yet, trends mean something different than they used to. Today, the market is highly fragmented. For a designer like Ford, who was trained on Seventh Avenue, it’s an entirely new way of thinking. “Everything is popular at the same time, and you can wear vintage of anything, so there isn’t one trend anymore. If you have an amazing '60s jacket or an amazing 80s jacket, you can wear it,” says Ford, who has been building his own archive since leaving what was then known as the Gucci Group in 2004. (He paid $90,000 for a beaded dress from his final Yves Saint Laurent collection.) “Before, once you knew what the trend was, you could jump ahead of it. Now, it’s so hard because everything is out there.”

But it’s not only about how today’s customer puts together looks, it’s also about what she actually wears. While suiting remains a major driver of sales for Ford’s men’s customer — 11 percent of that business is made-to-measure — he readily acknowledges the casualisation of culture and has shifted the way his collection is merchandised to reflect that.

“Women’s daytime clothes have evaporated,” he says. “Women do not consume or wear day clothes anymore: they wear jeans, a t-shirt, a cool jacket and a great pair of shoes. Evening, however — in LA, in New York, in London — is mega, because it’s red carpet, it’s a charity event...what used to be a day suit for me is now evening for people.”

Step No. 3: Maintain Freak-Level Control

While Ford says his women’s business is profitable and growing, it still only constitutes 30 percent of the company’s overall apparel revenue. He would like it to be split down the middle between women’s and men’s, although it’s not that easy. “The problem with having core products that sell and sell and sell” — he’s talking about the zippers and the sequins — “is that your buyers are going to buy them. It's hard to break out of that and to expand.”

In order to do so, Ford is keen to maintain a direct relationship with his consumer — the majority of his apparel sales are through his own stores, not wholesale partners — with a focus on service. “With so many of our women’s sales, we go to their houses. Our stores do private appointments after 6pm. We have one person per sales person,” he says. “We can not only control the way the store looks, but we can provide a level of service that you can't get in a specialty store. That level of service to me is the thing that will keep stores relevant for us and give us an edge.”

What has also given Ford an edge is the control he maintains over every aspect of the brand. While Ford declined to comment on specifics, public records indicate that, as a majority stakeholder in Tom Ford International, he owns 63.75 percent of shares, while longtime business partner, current chairman and former Gucci Group chief executive Domenico De Sole owns 11.25 percent. The remaining 25 percent is owned by Ermenegildo Zegna chief executive Gildo Zegna (who owns 15 percent) and Américo Amorim Group, which sold part of its stake to Zegna in 2013. The fragrance and beauty licenses with Estée Lauder Companies and eyewear license with Marcolin are controlled directly by Tom Ford’s personal holding company.

All of this means Ford has the final word on every decision. He designs the clothes, yes, but he also shoots the ad campaigns and manages the licenses Estée Lauder, Marcolin and now, watches with Shinola founder Tom Kartsotis’ company, Bedrock Manufacturing, with which Ford partnered to develop Swiss-made timepieces that will launch in the spring of 2018. (An announced men’s underwear line has been delayed.)

“I’m part of the team and they are part of my organisation,” Ford says of such partnerships. “They’re not some licenses where I say, ‘Go and do some lipsticks.’ As silly as it sounds, I put the lipsticks on: Is it too sticky? Do I like the smell? Do I like the taste?”

To be sure, part of the reason Ford can be so exacting is that he began his business on fragrance and eyewear instead of jumping head-on into apparel.

It’s a strategy that has worked. Tom Ford sells about 1.6 million pairs of eyewear a year, and in Estée Lauder’s latest fiscal year, sales of the Tom Ford fragrance and cosmetics businesses combined were up 52 percent. While the beauty conglomerate does not break out sales of Tom Ford product, industry sources indicate that his beauty and fragrances lines will generate $500 million in net sales in 2017.

“It’s very rare to see someone successful in men’s, women’s and beauty in such a short time period. When you think of the legacy of the great designer brands that have become so famous globally, most of those took 30-70 years to establish. Tom Ford has been able to accomplish that in 10,” says John Demsey, executive group president at the Estée Lauder Companies. “Quite honestly, what Tom has been able to do along with Estée Lauder is unprecedented.”
businessoffashion
 
continued...
“I had the name recognition from Gucci and Saint Laurent to be able to go backwards,” Ford says. “At the time, to be honest, I thought that maybe that was all I was going to do. I was pretty burnt out when I left Gucci. I was doing 16 collections a year and as you know, fashion designers now burn out all the time.”

Of course, he eventually did make clothes — not to mention feature films — which have rendered him one of the few fashion talents whose name flows naturally in the cultural conversation, worthy of Jay Z song titles. Would he ever sell to one of those conglomerates in order to further amplify that star power? Globally, there are already 49 directly owned freestanding stores and 77 shop-in-shops. Total retail sales of the Tom Ford brand — including eyewear, fragrance, cosmetics, ready-to-wear, men’s and women’s accessories — are on track to hit nearly $2 billion in 2017.

And yet, the support of a larger company, or a private equity firm, could make it easier to grow to the heights of an Hermès or Chanel, which generate upward of $5 billion in net revenues annually.

“I don't see European conglomerates moving on Tom Ford. LVMH typically buys brands with a long heritage. Kering decided to part ways with Tom long ago, and I doubt they'd reverse this decision now,” notes BNP Paribas luxury analyst Luca Solca. “Private equity may be a different story — they have ventured into apparel and high-end fashion already…After all, private equity [invested in] Roberto Cavalli and Versace. Why not Tom Ford?”

For now, Ford is adamant that he is not interesting in selling a majority stake. “You know, never say never. Who knows? But right now, absolutely not. I enjoy being a privately owned company,” he says. “At Gucci, I had my share of shareholder meetings and sometimes we had to make decisions that weren't in the best interest of the long term business just to make sure that our quarterly earnings and that the stock stayed at a certain place. I did not enjoy that. The pressures of a publicly traded company are incredible. And the nice thing is, I make the decisions. I also can't be kicked out.”

Which brings us back to the Armory. And show time. “If you're not in the game, you can't win the game,” Ford says. “I've tried all sorts of different things. I need to come back to shows and compete. It will take me a few seasons and maybe it won’t ever happen. But my goal is still to build one of the top five or 10 luxury brands in the world.” ****ing fabulous.
businessoffashion
 
He should shut up about himself for at least a year.

Work Tom.

Just work.
 
^ Well the beauty of it seems to be that he manages to work AND talk about himself without one or the other dominating too much of his time. Multitasking, I believe, is what they call it.
 
Tom’s New York Days

Tom Ford’s gone vegan (with a side of sugar), is rethinking fur, and loathing red carpet politics. And — oh, yes — he’s about to stage two fashion shows within 48 hours, beginning with his men’s show tonight.
By Bridget Foley and Jean E. Palmieri on February 6, 2018


It has been a solid decade since Tom Ford launched his men’s wear collection, but, with the exception of a formal show to mark the opening of his London store, he has opted to present his men’s collections in intimate presentations. Until tonight, when Ford’s men’s wear hits the runway at the theater he has installed in the Park Avenue Armory. The collection has evolved significantly from its tailored roots to encompass a full lifestyle range, which Ford wants to showcase in its entirety. On Thursday, his women’s wear will get equal time.

In a wide-ranging phone interview on Friday afternoon from L.A., Ford explained why he chose to do two shows rather than go coed. He addressed other topics as well, some industry-centric (fur; diversity on the runway); some not (his dietary shift). Talk time with Tom is never dull.

WWD: Hello, Tom. There are two of us here, so you’re on speaker.
Tom Ford: Speakerphone is really intimidating. It feels like a live transmission, like you can’t screw up.

WWD: You could have opted for Skype, but happily you didn’t. You’d be sitting in judgment on my messy office.
T.F.: Do you remember on “The Jetsons,” because that’s our generation, they had that television phone thing, and they would hold up a fake mask to talk, and one day the mask fell off and both women looked like hell? That’s what we all need – a fake avatar of ourselves for FaceTime and Skype. Then I’d do it all the time.

WWD: I need the avatar of myself and an office avatar.
T.F.: You could just set the whole thing up. Actually, that’s a really good idea.

WWD: It is a good idea. In the meantime, let’s turn to your men’s show. Why did you decide to show men’s in New York? Why now?
T.F.: First of all, it’s been 10 years since I launched men’s. I have done presentations with men that were like miniature shows, meaning the guys would come out one at a time, one at a time to roomfuls of people, over and over throughout the day. I also had a small, just-men’s show in my London shop when we opened there. And then, of course, I put men on the runway with women when we did our New York buy-now/see-now/wear-now — whatever it was called.

But it’s been 10 years, and our men’s wear has evolved. A lot of people think of us as tailoring, and we certainly are one of the fashion companies that dominate tailoring. When men think about their ideal suit, hopefully they come to us. And they do; our business is very strong. But over the last maybe five years, we have also broadened quite a bit. We offer every product a man needs — more casual clothes, jeans. The collection has evolved, and I wanted to show that on the runway so that people were aware of it. Also, I’ve been showing women’s in New York and living in Los Angeles. I thought, what a great thing to be able to tag men’s to the very end of New York Fashion Week: Men’s, and then show women’s at the beginning of New York Fashion Week: Women’s. It just made perfect sense.

WWD: You’ve said that living in L.A. has influenced your approach to women’s. Is that true for men’s as well?

T.F.: I’m showing some tailoring because tailoring is important and one of the things that we do best. Our suits have 35 hours of handwork in them. It’s very hard to find clothes that are made that way.

But living in Los Angeles, everyone knows that the L.A. lifestyle is more casual than London, where I lived for the last 20 years. It starts to change your aesthetic regarding color and, possibly, a bit more flamboyance. Things work in Los Angeles that don’t necessarily work in London, which in men’s wear, at least the kind I do, is quite a traditional city. I think more and more, the [rest of the world] lives more the way people live in Los Angeles than in London. I love London. It’s a traditional place; it’s like a throwback to another time. My few favorite restaurants in London, you have to wear a jacket and tie when you go. I love that. I love that tradition. Maybe I wish I still lived in that period but I don’t. I live in 2018 and the world, whether we like it, don’t like it, is more and more casual. So living in Los Angeles is making my clothes, both men’s and women’s, more relevant in terms of my ability to dress a global customer instead of just these pockets where men, in particular, are very traditional. You have that pocket in New York. You have it with Hollywood agents. If you go to the CAA building, everyone is wearing a suit and tie. And you have it, of course, in Milan and you have it in London. Much of the rest of the world, they want luxurious pieces but they are dressing in a more casual way.

WWD: Do you have any personal views on New York Fashion Week: Men’s, and how it stacks up against other cities?

T.F.: I’m really happy about New York Fashion Week: Men’s. I investigated possibly showing there, I think, as long as a year ago, when it was first starting, maybe two years ago. And I’m very happy that it’s landing right at New York Fashion Week: Women’s.

I’ve shown men’s and women’s together on the runway. I think I might even have started that in the mid-Nineties at Gucci. You know, I had a red velvet suit on a man walk right past the red velvet suit on a woman, and I used to always put men in my women’s shows and I’ve done it before.

I think some brands do it very well, where there is a unified image between men and women. [For me], there is a slightly different vibe to my men’s wear than to my women’s wear. While they may be the same couple, it isn’t necessarily exactly the same rhythm, vibe.

WWD: Talk about that. How does a coed show impact the design process for each collection?

T.F.: They do have to work on a runway together, so it affects how you design. Men’s wear is usually what suffers because you have to pump it up to hold up on a runway next to the women’s wear. Men’s does not swing radically from season to season in the way that women’s fashion does. Putting men on the runway next to women — it forces you, because it’s one show, to pump it all up. One brand that I think does this very well is Gucci. I think Alessandro [Michele] mixes the men’s and the women’s together beautifully because it is one thing. But his men’s wear customer is very different than my men’s wear customer.

WWD: Positive words on Gucci!

T.F.: I have to say, I love Alessandro. I love what he’s doing. It took me many years to get over that [the ugly departure form Gucci]. Actually, Alessandro helped it because I think he is terrific and what he’s done with the brand is amazing. Somehow that has made me feel better about the whole thing than when I didn’t think that they were doing such a great job. So I’m happy for him. I’m happy for the brand, and I think he does a terrific job. I think he has an amazing vision.

WWD: He certainly does. About Gucci, do you still have then some sort of a sense of…

T.F.: A proprietary sense?

WWD: Yes, a proprietary sense.

T.F.: It’s a proprietary sense, absolutely. There was no archive when I arrived. It was a cardboard box with some pictures in it. I bought the Gucci Cadillac and I bought the Gucci Lucite piano and I assembled all of that. Dominico [de Sole] and I put all of that together. We bought all those brands, and Gucci was my life for 14 years. So I’m much happier seeing Gucci thrive than I was seeing Gucci flounder.

WWD: That’s impressive. When you put men and women together on the runway at Gucci, why did it work then?

T.F.: The very first breakthrough show I had for Gucci wasn’t women’s; it was men’s, in Florence. It was velvet pants and car-paint patent Gucci loafers. Then the following season I continued that for women, and there was a very, very definite link between the two. You know, the Gucci guy and the Gucci girl, a lot of people took pictures of them together, holding hands. I think there’s one in my book of Kirsty Hume and a guy, and they’re holding hands wearing his-and-her clothes. It was a unified look. That’s what I also wanted to say at that moment: This is the Gucci look for men, for women. It’s a world. I mean, Ralph’s men and women would go together, too, because it’s a world. Certain brands, there is a world.

What I do for men is more traditional, classic men’s clothes. What I do for women is fashion. My men are more the boyfriends or husbands of the women in my show, rather than they are cut from the same mold and are exact counterparts. So when I put them together on the runway, I guess it was a year-and-a-half ago in New York, I had to try to bump some of the men’s patterns up a bit so they could hold up with the women’s. It’s a different thing. You have to consider it. They are different solutions, but it is a considered thing.

Men’s wear buyers and editors, they’re excited by a change in the lapel. They are excited by a change in a shoulder or by the use of a new fabric, by very subtle things. That doesn’t excite the women’s wear editors and buyers; they are excited by a dramatic change. I would never say never, so who knows, maybe one day I’ll show them together. But for the men’s show now, that’s what I want people to be looking at — the details. It’s a different industry.

WWD: You show men’s on Tuesday and women’s on Thursday. Advantage or a disadvantage to be doing two shows so closely together?

T.F.: From a financial standpoint it’s a huge advantage. I build that fashion theater, I use it once and then 48 hours later, I use it again. [Laughs.] I’m using it twice rather than building two different theaters in two different places at two different times. So from a financial standpoint, it’s a huge advantage.

WWD: Does it bother you that the “big reveal” for the set is at men’s rather than women’s?

T.F.: I have never liked the concept of a gigantic set, a complicated set. I think it just masks weakness in the clothes. I like showing on a simple runway, always have, under a spotlight, one thing at a time, very traditional. My men’s runway is just like my women’s.

WWD: The runway is the same, but you said the industries are very different.

T.F.: It’s night and day. They are totally different worlds. The editors are different, magazines are different. Everyone in men’s wear works just as hard as people in women’s. But because things move more slowly, I think there’s less disposability. I don’t even know how to phrase this. When you’re in an industry where things move so fast, sometimes maybe it affects your behavior, it affects your boredom threshold; it affects the need to see more, consume more, throw things away, toss it out, “Oh that’s old, oh that’s new, oh get that, oh go there.” Whereas men’s is – I hate to use the word genteel, but it is. It is still a more genteel industry.

WWD: Do you like it better?

T.F.: No, I can’t say that. There are advantages to both. I have a pretty low boredom threshold, and I think if I only did men’s – which is why I came back to women’s – I wouldn’t feel creatively satisfied. I like something that moves and changes and is dramatic and it’s got flash and power. But I also like making clothes that I want to wear.

I suppose my men’s collection is more organic in that I started it because I couldn’t find anything that I wanted to wear. I thought, “OK, if I can’t find this, then there are other men in the same position.” And so I designed things for myself. Or — and we have talked about this before — I design things for the hypothetical six-foot-three version of my 27-year-old self. But it’s a different thing. I don’t know if I answered your question.

WWD: In some ways, the industry seems set in its ways and in others, it’s progressing very quickly. Fur, for example. After years of fur all over the runways, suddenly, two major proponents, Michael Kors and Gucci, just stopped. Where do you stand?

T.F.: Oh my God! The fur question! There’s no way to answer this fur question without getting in trouble with somebody. I was attacked by PETA at a Women’s Wear Daily event. Do you remember this? A woman came up and started to talk to me, and I thought, “Oh, she wants to ask me a question.” She reached in her handbag, and I could tell by the look on her face that she was reaching for something. I thought it was a gun. It was a giant container filled with tomato juice, which came flying out of her bag, all over me, all over my clothes, all over everything. It wasn’t that I was upset that I was standing there dripping with tomato juice, but it was one of the most violent, frightening things that has ever happened to me. It made me very cautious and very wary when anyone is coming up to me, and I see a hand move in any direction. I’m always quite aware. I know PETA doesn’t act in that way any longer, at least I hope they don’t.
wwd
 
...

WWD: Your stance on fur?

T.F.: This is a hard question to answer because I have recently become vegan — within the last year.

WWD: Really? Do tell.

T.F.: I’ve been vegan for about the last year. When you look at how most of our meat, our animal products, are raised, from a health standpoint, I didn’t feel that I should eat those things anymore.

The fur thing – of course, is a natural thing. [Going vegan] starts to make you question that. I have started using much more fake fur. I’m not yet ready to say that I’m fur-free. Now, however, I have limited the fur in these collections and going forward to food byproducts, which does not sound very sexy. “I’m selling you a food byproduct!” That means cowhide, it means shearling, it means not doing fur that is raised purely for its pelt.

WWD: So no mink?

T.F.: No mink, no fox. I have used a lot of fake fur this season. I’ve also used some shearling and what is called pony in the industry but it is not pony, it is cowhide. There’s longhaired cowhide and shorthaired. So I have been very conscious of using animal skins that are food byproducts. Because whether I’m consuming meat or not, other people are, so these are things that are collected.

I’m also very torn about this because fake fur is terrible for the environment. People think of fake fur as a disposable thing. They buy it, they wear it a few seasons, they throw it away, it doesn’t biodegrade. It’s a petroleum product. It is highly toxic. And then, you could argue that tanning leather is a highly toxic process. A fur coat gets recycled. People wear them for 30 years, they give them to their kids, then they turn them into throw pillows. So I don’t know the answer to that. I’ve been very honest, and it’s probably going to get me in all sorts of trouble with everybody, but I don’t know the answer.

WWD: Was the decision to only use food byproduct fur the result of a single epiphany or a process?

T.F.: It is something that I’ve slowly moved toward, just as my diet has evolved. Yes, it’s been a gradual process. I don’t know. It’s a very hard thing to answer.

Also, I have a customer who is very used to wearing leather and fur; it’s a part of our business. It was certainly a big part of our business at Gucci. By the way, Gucci is a leather goods company. I know they’ve banned fur, but they’re making a lot of leather handbags, I think. I don’t know what the answer is. I would like to hope that we could all have a discourse about it without running the risk of having someone reach into their handbag and douse us with some sort of red liquid, or [do] something even more violent.

WWD: Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could have discourse about a lot of topics?

T.F.: It’s the environment we live in in today’s world, not to be too political, where it’s become acceptable to not show respect to people who don’t necessarily share your point of view.

WWD: Back to the dietary evolution…

T.F.: I think the nail in the coffin was a film called “What The Health.” I had already been thinking about it and tapered off consumption of animal products. I watched that film — by the way, it’s very one-sided but very well-done — and I just thought, you know what? I just don’t feel like eating animal products anymore.

WWD: When we talked six months ago, you had a box of doughnuts in your store and you swore you’d just eaten several.

T.F.: OK! I do cheat with baked goods. That’s true. I will eat a baked good that clearly has some eggs in it. But I don’t eat eggs and I don’t drink milk; I use almond milk. And I don’t eat any animal flesh, I don’t eat fish, I don’t eat chicken, I don’t eat meat. But yes, I do cheat with some baked goods, because most vegan baked goods just don’t do it like a box of Hostess doughnuts. And I still eat a lot of sugar.

WWD: You still eat sugar?

T.F.: I mean, I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. Now I don’t eat any meat. I’m essentially vegan. But, yes, sugar.

WWD: Overall, you feel better?

T.F.: I do, actually. I feel physically better being vegan, or eating a plant-based — because “vegan” sounds sort of pretentious – eating a plant-based diet. I feel much better.

WWD: Let’s go back to the runway.

T.F.: Yes. Yes, let’s do!

WWD: There’s nothing negative in saying, “I’m eating healthily.”

T.F.: I’m kidding you. It’s fine. It’s very funny when you become well-known and you’re doing an interview and you realize that people actually care what you eat. It’s fascinating. But anyway…

WWD: There’s so much going on in fashion on so many levels today. One conversation is about diversity on the runway.

T.F.: I have always been incredibly racially diverse on my runways, always, always, always, always.

WWD: Now diversity also means body type.

T.F.: There is a practical reason that most models are the same size, and that’s called a sample collection. You make a sample collection [according to] a standardized selection of measurements for models. One reason people show one size on a runway: I can’t, eight hours before the show when I’m in a fitting and I decide to use a certain girl, custom make an outfit for her. My clothes are made. They are all made in the same size.

This is an industry thing. Whether we all decide to start making all of our clothes in the next size up, that’s a different thing. But there is practicality, there’s a reason models are a standard size. They have always been a standard size. Go to any era; models were a standard size, and the clothes were made in that size. And in today’s world, models are a standard size. You make your collection and the girls come in, they put them on, if they don’t fit the clothes, they don’t get the job. I’ve used very curvy girls and thinner girls, but somehow they managed to fit in the clothes when they come in for their fitting. I don’t know whether that’s answering your question.

WWD: Ashley Graham has looked gorgeous on several runways. But she is one person. No other really curvy models have broken through on the runway.

T.F.: It’s so funny to hear you talk about this stuff because I think this is very insider stuff. I’m sitting here thinking, I don’t hear all the same things you hear, because I wasn’t even aware there’s a discussion about diversity of size on the runway. I didn’t realize that it had become anything that would warrant quotes from me in an interview. So I’m fascinated.

WWD: It’s not so insider. Once a topic hits social media, everything is an issue.

T.F.: Well, everything is an issue. That’s a different subject. So yes, maybe I’m foolish to not have thought that this would be an issue. Everything is an issue, that’s true, yes.

I’ve done shoots with girls who are [not skinny]; if you hire somebody for a shoot, you have time to make her something. And I’ve certainly dressed women of different sizes. So it isn’t that I’m obsessed with just a certain size girl. But the practicality of it is, you have a sample collection and it gets used in the showroom, it gets used on shoots, it gets used on the runway. It’s all the same size and girls need to fit into that if they want to model.

WWD: Another major topic in fashion: cultural appropriation. While everyone is aware of the need to be respectful and informed on references, some designers decline to go on the record with an inspiration, or even stay away from certain motifs they’d like to explore, because they’re fearful of backlash.

T.F.: I don’t know where all this is going to go. I don’t know what we’re going to be able to do in our culture anymore, or say. Yves Saint Laurent spent a lot of time doing collections inspired by North Africa. I did an African Saint Laurent collection because it’s part of the history of the house. I don’t know. I do think we have to leave ourselves a little bit of room to be expressive and creative and…

WWD: Usually, when a creative person looks to another culture for inspiration, it’s because he or she finds something compelling about it.

T.F.: Of course! Of course! Of course! Why would you build a collection on something that you didn’t find beautiful? And why, if you’re one race, can’t you find the fashion, the style, the culture of another race beautiful? I mean, in a way, we should be celebrating that.

WWD: A couple of CFDA things. The Health Initiative has been expanded into the Health, Safety and Diversity Initiative. It encourages, among other steps, that designers seek out venues that allow models privacy while dressing.

T.F.: Yes. I’ve always done that. I’ve always thrown out all photographers, all press when we start to get the girls dressed. I’ve always been very aware of modesty — not even modesty, but propriety, backstage. We give all the girls robes, and we throw every single photographer out and don’t allow any cameras or Instagram, anything, when the girls are getting dressed.

WWD: That’s good. What about the guys?

T.F.: The same.

WWD: What do you think about the notion of some New York designers showing in December and June? Alexander Wang first went public with the idea, and [CFDA chief executive officer] Steven Kolb seems very interested in it.

T.F.: I think it’s fascinating. I have to say I would love it. Doing four collections? It’s crazy. In men’s, we do two collections and we break apart our buy into three deliveries. So we show one season, we show spring, but it’s really spring one, spring two, spring three. And we show fall and it’s fall one, fall two, fall three. We don’t do pre-collections. I would love it if that was the way women’s, if your pre-collection and your [runway] were mixed and shown at the same time. By the way, I don’t show [women’s] pre-collections. The reason is that pre-collections were always meant to be the very wearable clothes, what people might even call basic, but [still] were representative and containing the DNA of the brand. Those things don’t necessarily mean much on a runway.

WWD: The CFDA apparently only floated the idea selectively, apart from Alex, mostly to those who have left New York for Paris – Rodarte, Proenza, Joseph Altuzarra, Thom Browne. Were you approached?

T.F.: No. I wasn’t approached. But again, it requires a re-fit of the business. Just like see-now/buy-now/wear-now, whatever it was called, I think that could work, too. But it requires the entire industry to rethink and reorganize and unite in a certain way. I don’t think you can kind of throw it together in one season. Maybe you can. I don’t know.

I would have to really plot out the logistics of what it would mean for us as a company in terms of when sketches get done and when fabrics have to be [delivered]. But the idea of it? Because it’s unsustainable now — four major collections a year that have to be presented to the press and sold, it’s unsustainable. There is no downtime. The fact that everyone’s hiring separate teams for their pre-collections? If you’re a designer, how do you have a separate team? I can’t have a separate team. Otherwise, why should I put the Tom Ford label on it? Because if I’m going to be involved in it, I’m going to do it. What does a separate team mean? I’m the one there doing it. So how does that work? It has become unsustainable, the cycle.

WWD: To the women’s show. Will it be, as we discussed last season, casually oriented for day with pieces and then very glamorous at night?

T.F.: It’s like we talked about last season. Day clothes are evaporating, so it’s about a potent jacket, a potent pair of shoes, a pair of jeans and a T-shirt for day. And then at night you’re done up; at least my customer is. You might wear some of those evening pieces mixed in with something very casual in the daytime.

WWD: When you only need one potent item for day, what is the ramification for the business?

T.F.: It means every single thing you design, at least in the luxury sector, has to be potent. I’m not saying basics don’t mean anything, as we were talking about earlier, “pre-” used to be about that. But it has to be the most beautiful cashmere sweater ever known. It has to be the most amazing thing. No one needs just another black skirt, unless it’s got an interesting cut or an amazing fabric or something about it that means something. For my customer — this will sound terrible in print — I get calls from our store managers all the time saying we need more things that are more expensive. When [they] say more expensive, they mean more special.

We sell incredible, almost one-of-a-kind, almost-couture for women more than men. Men — our suits are $5,000 off the rack, and up if you have them made-to-measure. Our made-to-measure business is terrific, one of the fastest growing areas of what we do with men’s.

WWD: Really?

T.F.: It’s about customization — it’s about making something that not everyone else has, it’s about coming in and being involved in choosing the lining, the fabric, the cut, the shape, the size, the buttons. It’s part of that need for something special. A luxury customer does not need anything – they have everything. So it’s an emotional purchase. It has to be something that moves them, it has to be something that excites them, it has to be different, it has to be amazing. And it has to be something they’re going to keep. Which means that the things have to be potent.
wwd
 
...

WWD: Speaking of potent – the red carpet. How has this red carpet season been different for you?

T.F.: It’s different for me because almost every single actress has a contract, so there are almost no actresses to dress. I don’t do [contracts]. I make the clothes, I give them the clothes, they wear the clothes and then I usually get them back because I archive them. I keep an archive of all the things of mine celebrities have ever worn. But I don’t pay celebrities to wear my clothes, and almost everyone this season — Best Actress, Best Actor, Supporting — they almost all have a contract.

WWD: Whether there’s a cash payment or an actress is “just” getting a free dress, whether to return or keep, what do you think of the concept of, “Don’t ask me who did my dress. I want to talk about something more important?”

T.F.: I don’t dress those people. If I give you a free dress and someone asks who it is, you need to say who it is. Otherwise, why am I giving you a free dress?

WWD: Good for you.

T.F.: If I’m giving you a free dress, it’s an ad. So if someone says, “What dress are you wearing?” you should say, “Tom Ford. And he’s great. He made this for me, and we had a conversation and I love yellow and he made me a yellow dress.” I don’t know. That’s kind of the idea.

There was a time when actresses went to the Oscars in clothes they bought. Remember that? Back in the Seventies? Actually, you had a lot more personal style. There’s some things in my women’s show you’ll see next week, and I thought, “If someone had the guts, this is what they should wear on the red carpet.” But nobody’s going to wear it because they want a strapless thing with a built-in corset that fits them at the waist and is in a pretty color and they can put their jewelry with it, that they’ve got the jewelry contract for, and they’ve got to do their hair in a little chignon at the back and it’s got to have just so many little pieces sticking out. It’s just – ugh. I’m getting to the point where I actually hate dressing individuals for the red carpet.

WWD: So the red carpet is becoming like weddings for you? I know you hate doing weddings.

T.F.: Yes, I do! And it is. Because now, you’re not only working with an actress. You’re working with a stylist and then the agents are looking at it and then their husbands and boyfriends are looking at pictures and everyone takes a picture of it and da, da, da, da, da. “Do we like it?” and, “But what does it mean if she wears pink? What does that say about her? Does that say she’s an ingénue? She shouldn’t be an ingénue, she’s got that film coming out; we need to portray her in a more grown-up way. So let’s do her in navy blue.” Oh, my God! I mean, I don’t know why people need designers anymore for a red carpet.

WWD: Whatever happened to falling in love with a dress?

T.F.: Some people still do, and some people still have guts and some people wear clothes very well. And I love dressing those people. Although a few of them this season have contracts with other brands and I can’t.

WWD: Will you name some that you love dressing?

T.F.: I always love dressing Gwyneth. Not that many people would have walked down that runway in a cape before everyone was wearing capes [2012 Oscars] and stood that way and held herself that way and been proud and moved. She is not afraid. She’s great. She has presence and knows how to wear clothes. There are others, but I don’t want to get into a list. And as I said, there are some that I would love to be dressing but they’ve got contracts.

WWD: Would you consider doing a contract with anyone?

T.F.: No. A, those contracts cost almost as much as a fashion show. I mean, are you really getting enough bang for your buck? I don’t know. And B, no, I just [don’t like the idea].

WWD: I find it odd that major brands often agree to do dresses that have nothing to do with their brand identity.

T.F.: Because red carpet clothes — they’re frozen in their own red-carpet zone. They don’t have anything to do with what goes on in the real world in terms of fashion anymore. Nothing at all.

WWD: Tell us something more about the men’s show.

T.F.: I’m launching underwear and watches in this show.

WWD: And?

T.F.: [The underwear] — I think they’re very sexy. They’re very real, but I also think they are very sexy.

WWD: Men’s only, right?

T.F.: Yes, for the moment. Although if you’re a woman and you want to wear men’s underwear you can certainly buy them.

WWD: And the watches?

T.F.: I love the watch, it’s incredible. I’m very, very, very, very happy with it.

WWD: A single watch design?

T.F.: It’s a single watch design. Right now, it comes in two different sizes and in different finishes and different colored faces. But it is a watch; it is the Tom Ford watch. This watch has given me the vocabulary to now do another one, but it isn’t like I’m going to have 50 watches. I may ultimately have five models.

Great watch brands, which is, of course, what I’m aspiring to be — Hermès has what, five, six, seven models? Rolex, they have very few but they’ve done an incredible amount of business; Cartier the same. I’m not competing with Cartier and Rolex; that’s a much higher price point. I would say I’m more directly competing with the price point and the target customer of an Hermès watch. I’m very excited about it because it’s a very simple concept that no one has ever done, and is, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the market. It’s something I have wanted for years, and never understood why somebody didn’t do it.

WWD: Only men’s?

T.F: There are two sizes. I don’t necessarily believe in a woman’s watch and a man’s watch. A Cartier Tank is a Cartier Tank, and you buy it in different sizes. An Hermès Arceau is an Hermès Arceau, and you buy it in different sizes. Maybe it’s a different strap.

WWD: Any other new projects, whether definite or swimming around in your head?

T.F.: I could certainly get into home furnishings. I make cosmetics and fragrance and men’s grooming, and I’m working on a women’s and men’s skin-care collection, which I’ve done incredible research on for the last two years. I’m not ready to talk about [it] yet, but that’s a completely different segment of cosmetics. I’m also launching an entirely different collection of cosmetics called Extremê, which is exactly what it sounds like: products that are more extreme and more daring, which will appeal to still a luxury customer, but maybe a slightly different luxury customer. It’s amazing.

WWD: When is that launching?
T.F.: I’m debuting it at this women’s show. We have so many products lined up for launch in Tom Ford Beauty, Fragrances. I’m very involved in that and I love it. And then I have eyewear. We sell 1.8 million frames a year, so that business is very robust. Our men’s wear, our men’s accessories, men’s shoes, women’s wear — I suppose women’s underwear might be next, but I pretty much make most things now.

WWD: How does your brand break down between men’s and women’s?
T.F.: At this point I am probably 60-40, but 60 men’s, 40 women’s, which is, of course, kind of the reverse of what most brands are. But I started men’s in 2007. I didn’t start women’s until 2011. And I’m very established in the men’s market.

WWD: Is there anything that we’ve left out that we should discuss?
T.F.: Oh my God, I don’t think so. Should we talk about my childhood and my sort of upbringing? My mother and my relationship with my siblings and how that made me feel?

WWD: Are you mocking us, Mr. Ford?

T.F.: I’m teasing. Teasing is different than mocking.

WWD: Yes it is. We appreciate that. We’ll save the sibling talk for next time. See you next week.
wwd
 
^ Thank you so much for posting the entire interview, and to everyone else that posts. I LOVE his interviews, it's never boring, ever!
 
Does anyone else remember a video interview Vogue uploaded on Youtube between Tom and Andre? It was whilst he was at Gucci and Tom was wearing Jeans, a White Shirt and A Blazer? and I remember they discussed how Tom loved Denim and how he was sat at a meeting at Gucci in his favourite pair of jeans and didn't have underwear on and flashed everyone in the room because there was a rip in the crotch? I can't find it on Youtube and wondered if anyone had it?
 
Tom..wearing JEANS (designer jeans, obviously) enough x's to warrant a hole in the crotch? That's about as believable as Donatella showing up in flats.
 
Does anyone else remember a video interview Vogue uploaded on Youtube between Tom and Andre? It was whilst he was at Gucci and Tom was wearing Jeans, a White Shirt and A Blazer? and I remember they discussed how Tom loved Denim and how he was sat at a meeting at Gucci in his favourite pair of jeans and didn't have underwear on and flashed everyone in the room because there was a rip in the crotch? I can't find it on Youtube and wondered if anyone had it?

Here for you

https://vimeo.com/63210062
There are also episodes with Karl, Nicolas, Miuccia, Helmut...
 
Anybody knows when his next show will be ? I can't find any news online
 
Tom Ford on Melania Trump (and the Future of American Fashion)
March 20, 2019
On the Runway | By Vanessa Friedman

The new chairman of the Council of Fashion Designers of America never said that thing about Melania Trump — and says American designers must look outward.

Tom Ford at Vanity Fair Oscars party in February.Danny Moloshok/Reuters
On Tuesday the designer and filmmaker Tom Ford was the second-highest trending topic on Twitter for a reason that had nothing to do with the actual news he was making.

He was trending because of a quote that had been attributed to him stating Melania Trump was a “glorified escort” and that he was refusing to dress her. His office, however, was quick to point out that he had never said any such thing. Rather, in a 2016 interview on “The View,” he said that (at one pre-campaign time) he had been approached to dress Mrs. Trump, but he declined because she wasn’t “really his image” and besides, he believed the first lady should wear American and wear affordable — and his clothes were neither of those things.

This matters not so much because it is yet another example of the nefarious ways false information spreads over the internet (though it is that) but because on Tuesday Mr. Ford also became chairman of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, the industry lobbying group, watchdog and, occasionally, scapegoat.

That makes him the effective face of the industry. And that means that what he says, or what he is said to have said, and what he stands for, will become even more fraught, because he no longer simply speaks for himself, but for American fashion. He succeeds Diane von Furstenberg, who held the post for 13 years, making her the second longest-serving leader in the group’s history (her predecessor, Stan Herman, lasted 16 years).

“People keep saying to me, ‘Why did you agree to do this?’” Mr. Ford said on a call from Los Angeles, where he is based. “The answer is: Out of a sense of duty, I guess. At a certain point in your life you’ve learned enough and done enough, you should share what you know. I think that sense of giving back is very American. It’s certainly much less a European thing. I think I can do a good job and I think I have a vision for it, so why not add it to my list of things to do?”

It’s an interesting time to add the CFDA to a to-do list that includes women’s wear, men’s wear, beauty, accessories and filmmaking. The lack of racial diversity at many fashion brands is still very much an issue; Calvin Klein, once a tent pole of American style, just announced it was closing its designer-led Collection line; there’s a general sense of an identity crisis at New York Fashion Week as young designers jump ship for other cities or decide to sit seasons out; and everyone is worried about the future of department stores, once the style conduits to the country. Not to mention the fact that fashion still has a somewhat fractious relationship with the current presidential administration.

“Diane approached me and then Anna approached me and then Steven approached me and then Diane approached me and then Anna approached me and then Steven approached me,” said Mr. Ford, referring to Ms. von Furstenberg; Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue and artistic director of Condé Nast; and Steven Kolb, chief executive of the CFDA.

“I was courted for awhile,” Mr. Ford said. The hard sell reflects both the seriousness of the job and the complications of taking it on at this time. They put a heavier onus on what could be a ceremonial position, and mean it will be incumbent on Mr. Ford to articulate some sort of way forward for the industry and the CFDA’s 495 members.

As to what, exactly, that way forward might be, however, he declined to go into detail until his term officially starts in June, after the organization’s annual fashion awards (nominations were just released, and the fact that Sander Lak of Sies Marjan is in the running for women’s wear designer of the year, when last year he won emerging designer, reflects the general confusion). What Mr. Ford would say was that he felt his international background — his years as creative director of Gucci and, later, Yves Saint Laurent from 1990 to 2004, his time based in London with his own brand from 2010 to 2016 — would inform his message.

“I think the key to the future of American fashion is to become more international and more global,” Mr. Ford said. “Having recently returned to America, one of the things that struck me the most in every industry and in American life was how isolated America was and how inward looking. I’ve always thought of myself as an international designer, designing to a global market, and I think that American fashion needs to think that way. Even if you’re just starting a business you have to be immediately thinking about what’s going to help you be marketable to the world, and not just to America.”

And even more than that — not just to New York. Although the CFDA is based in Manhattan, Mr. Ford, who has been a member since 2000 and has won seven CFDA awards, including the lifetime achievement prize in 2014, has no plans to move, or to be in the city more than the “four or five times” a year he currently visits. He also has no plans to make himself an example of a designer who recommits to New York Fashion Week on a long-term basis.

“I have a global business and sometimes I may need to show in another country,” he said (he has shown in London and Los Angeles). “Sometimes I may need to show in Asia; I may need to show in Europe. I was very honest and upfront about that. But I think the CFDA is an American thing and not so much a New York thing.

“Arguably New York is the center of a certain America, and I realize part of the CFDA is organizing and — I don’t want to say policing — New York Fashion Week. But it is also encouraging American designers to be successful and part of that is embracing the fact we live in a big world,” he said.

It’s an interesting statement, and one that verges on the political in a time when the fight over a border wall has been one of the defining discussions of the year. Under Ms. von Furstenberg, the CFDA lobbied for greater intellectual property protections for designers, embarked on a model health initiative, raised the volume on the conversation about diversity and inclusion, and brought new American designers to Paris for a fashion week showcase. Now it is up to Mr. Ford to choose his issues and decide how to direct his new cast.

“I’m pretty steel-willed,” he said.

source | nytimes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,473
Messages
15,186,262
Members
86,346
Latest member
zemi
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->