Why Do Some Fashion Brands Last While Others Fade?

[nationalsalt]

Daniel Roseberry: Everything but Schiaparelli.
Pieter Mulier: Alaïa made of cardboard.
Casey Cadwallader: Mugler as a sex-shop
Matthieu Blazy: Desperately wanting to replicate Daniel Lee success at BV.

Oh damn

May I ask who you're a fan of?

 

[jeanclaude]

Oh damn

May I ask who you're a fan of?

Still working designers I like John Galliano,Haider Ackermann,Olivier Theyskens and Ralph Rucci...but from the new ones...nobody!

 

[donyan]

My question would be, why do we not have any really interesting new designers anymore? Weren't McQueen, Chalayan, AF Vandevorst, Anne Valerie Hash all at the same time? I can't think of anyone today that I'm excited about or whose clothes I actively look out for in a store.

 

[visvim2001]

The latest crop of designers that rose to prominence in the past decade or so are more interested in exposure rather than aesthetics. They’re often wacky (JWA, Daniel Lee), banal (offwhite, rhude, Matthew Williams), or lowbrow-turned-highbrow (Wales-Bonner). Either trying too hard to be faux-intellectual by pushing social commentary down the runway or reviving some awful, awful era in fashion.

I think great designers are cranky, difficult people, bordering on arrogant. They’re uncompromising and fully committed to their design ethos. Ralph and Armani, they are very wearable, yet unmistakable in their styling. They have mastered ‘the look’. Hedi says f*ck you to inclusivity and democracy - If you don’t fit into my clothes, wear other brands. Rick is unapologetically avant garde. So is Dries, Yohji. People who wear these clothes and walk down the street more often than not project a kind of devil may care attitude. I love that.

 

[MulletProof]

My question would be, why do we not have any really interesting new designers anymore? Weren't McQueen, Chalayan, AF Vandevorst, Anne Valerie Hash all at the same time? I can't think of anyone today that I'm excited about or whose clothes I actively look out for in a store.

2008-2010 was the beginning of the end of independent design, it is a shift in fashion towards an exclusively corporate direction and they used its democratization to indoctrinate every new enthusiast and potential consumer into assimilating corporate fashion as fashion. They don't understand it any other way. Just look at how members here see something good and immediately respond with some 'she/he would be good for [insert old fashion house]' almost like a knee jerk reaction. It's also why people are fascinated by endless discussions on Richemont, Kering, LVMH and their 'star' designers. That, and not design (let alone independent design) is the be all end all for them and what TRULY means you made it as a designer.

The new hyped designers are not really being remotely abstract, challenging or experimental because besides not having any competition or pressure in a unique field (because there is hardly a field of independent designers with its own dynamics of rivalries and similarities), they're auditioning. They're not trying to be too interesting, but instead sit in the waiting room and present multiple evidence on how they could generate numbers for a big house that will, hopefully, sooner or later, call and finally 'validate' them as proper designers.

 

[LadyJunon]

2008-2010 was the beginning of the end of independent design, it is a shift in fashion towards an exclusively corporate direction and they used its democratization to indoctrinate every new enthusiast and potential consumer into assimilating corporate fashion as fashion. They don't understand it any other way. Just look at how members here see something good and immediately respond with some 'she/he would be good for [insert old fashion house]' almost like a knee jerk reaction. It's also why people are fascinated by endless discussions on Richemont, Kering, LVMH and their 'star' designers. That, and not design (let alone independent design) is the be all end all for them and what TRULY means you made it as a designer.

The new hyped designers are not really being remotely abstract, challenging or experimental because besides not having any competition or pressure in a unique field (because there is hardly a field of independent designers with its own dynamics of rivalries and similarities), they're auditioning. They're not trying to be too interesting, but instead sit in the waiting room and present multiple evidence on how they could generate numbers for a big house that will, hopefully, sooner or later, call and finally 'validate' them as proper designers.

I think that a huge factor in the mindset of the current generation of independents is the lack of example. Because of the mass exodus of numerous indie brands that would've be 20 to 40 years old today, there's a huge generational gap between century-old heritage houses and three-year-old labels that operating out of a squat. To add to that, a majority of the brands left in that gap happily threw away their identities in favour of courting the Philophiles that Hedi alienated. Therefore, corporate houses are seen as the way up. However, the core difference between playing that game in the 90s and 00s vs today is that they're competing against design directors and senoir designers that hold more weight as candidates due to their corporate experience and extensive resumes.

The 10s really damaged the independent scene in terms of it being extremely homogenised. It started with a whole generation of designers folding or leaving their own moderately successful personal lines in favour of taking up huge gigs: Julien Dossena, Glenn Martens, Jonathan Saunders, Anthony Vaccarello, Bouchra Jarrar, and eventually Demna Gvasalia. Even Jonaathan Anderson's eponymous label is eclipsed by Loewe. Then we had a almost a whole decade of "traditional" designers being forced to compete with mass-appeal, merchandise-heavy streetwear brands and designers dropping off the show schedule (ie: killing their main source of industry PR), selling off to a group, severely downsizing or just shuttering completely.

 

[Drusilla_]

^ yeah and you can see it in how small the number of independent designers who are considered semi-established/still-relevant today, is compared to 2008.

 

[donyan]

I think it's safe to say that there's literally no-one left. London used to be such an inspiring pool of talent but there seems to be no-one at all right now. Or is there?

 

[Drusilla_]

^I think Simone Rocha is doing well in her niche, her aesthetic isn't universal but she doesn't lack a pov and there's definitely a demand for what she does (and she does it better than NYC hyped girlie designers like Sandy Liang etc). She also has a good accessory offering as an entry point into her stuff, which is smart.

Beyond the question of mindset, let's also not forget that retailers/wholesalers collapsing can sometimes take down an entire indie brand and as a domino effect, the factories that produce their clothes (e.g. MatchesFashion, Barneys).

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I wanted to write something else, but I also want to say in regards to RO... he is so bold putting the full procession of his collections on his website. I cannot imagine being him looking over his oeuvre from start to finish and not feeling PAIN ... mf got hit with the financial/midlife crisis combo in tandem with the social media boom.

 

[Lola701]

I was thinking recently about how many designers who seemed all the rage a decade or so ago have lost a fair amount of lustre / downsized their labels - or gone out of business entirely.

Zac Posen, Christopher Kane, Proenza Schouler, Thakoon (remember Anna Wintour hyping him up in The September Issue?), Mary Katrantzou, Peter Som etc. An abundance of creativity, yet the harsh realities of business have come for several of them already.

But still, other relatively young labels like Rick Owens, Thom Browne, Off White and Vetements have ridden the wave and seem (for now at least) to have cemented their status as global brands.

Is there a secret to the latters' success? Or is it just a combination of luck and finely tuned business sense?

I think that talent is not enough to create a brand. And even beyond Anna Wintour, you have designers who created their Fashion houses and they are nowhere to be found today: where is Halston? DVF? DKNY? Jean Colonna? Jean Louis Scherrer? Or even my beloved Sonia Rykiel? Montana?

I think it’s a combination of many things: talent, innovation, a sense of pragmatism in understanding the environment but also, great business sense or power.

Some designers have the talent and some great business partners. When you look at the history of YSL, nothing would have been possible without Pierre Bergé because YSL struggled to be a commercial success for years. And everything that has turned out to be his design language really made sense in the late 70’s/early 80’s.
There’s this fine tension between building yourself as a designer and building a business.

It’s very difficult to be known for something (Mary Katrantzou, Zac Posen), having a kind of instant success (critical or commercial), being able to evolve into it, change but also build a universe around it. The idea of a universe is the most elusive aspect of it because that’s what will make it possible to introduce categories of products and create a brand.

The reality of the career of a designer is that they only have build a legacy when they either stop, retire or become insanely repetitive. But in order to get to that phase, there needs to be time, development, accident.

I think Rick Owens or Thom Browne have a clear sense of their identity as designers but they also have evolved overtime. RO follows somehow the same ethos of his work as it was introduced to the mass in 2002 but I guess it’s slightly different from what it was in the 90’s. The same for Thom Browne.

Katrantzou became the print girl. But from the moment her work became kind of mainstream, it was time for her to move on to something else. Kane became lost at some point too. The same for Giles Deacon and others. I can tell you that I don’t see a lot of brands today survive in 20 years.
Off White and Vêtements are like canvas in a way. They are brands rather than Fashion houses. A brand, a name can always be reinvented.

The person I think who is very interesting is Jacquemus because he build a brand. And I mean a brand in a marketing sense. Jacquemus is a name, a mood, a color scheme and of course some it products but he is probably the only one besides Thom Browne and Tom Ford, who came with a brand first. And in a way, it allows him to play in a frame already set up while others are creating are trying to create a frame while building a body of work.

But what is interesting in his case is that he had 3 breakthrough collections but still hasn’t solidified his status as a designer whereas a lot of other talents have that legitimacy and that respect in the industry.

But I think that a lot of brands are on life support nowadays: from Kenzo to Marc Jacobs, from Simone Rocha to Alyx.

 

[nationalsalt]

I think that talent is not enough to create a brand. And even beyond Anna Wintour, you have designers who created their Fashion houses and they are nowhere to be found today: where is Halston? DVF? DKNY? Jean Colonna? Jean Louis Scherrer? Or even my beloved Sonia Rykiel? Montana?

So true, it is quite sad to see the state of their legacies - or lack thereof. At least DVF had the good sense to marry a billionaire, which I'm sure hasn't exactly hurt her business in the long run.

But I think that a lot of brands are on life support nowadays: from Kenzo to Marc Jacobs, from Simone Rocha to Alyx.

I know a lot of brands may have seemed like this at one point or another, but it REALLY felt like Marc Jacobs was going to become a forever staple of luxury during his peak when he was basically the King of NYFW.

Where did it all go wrong...?

 

[Lola701]

So true, it is quite sad to see the state of their legacies - or lack thereof. At least DVF had the good sense to marry a billionaire, which I'm sure hasn't exactly hurt her business in the long run.

A lot of them are rich anyway. Nathalie Rykiel
Is not struggling from the devaluation of her mother’s brand. A lot of them sold their brands.
I think it’s a question of resilience too. And some got really lucky. Mugler and Gaultier comes to mind. Launching their fragrances was a bold move and it paid off. Montana never had that luck even though in the 80’s he sold a lot more clothes than both.

Azzedine Alaia is a story of resilience. A strong POV, a design language that he managed to expand in 10 years. Almost a disappearance for 8 years and then, he rebuild everything in 6 years with then a real sense of branding.

I know a lot of brands may have seemed like this at one point or another, but it REALLY felt like Marc Jacobs was going to become a forever staple of luxury during his peak when he was basically the King of NYFW.

Where did it all go wrong...?

Maybe that’s where the issue is: Marc Jacobs was never luxury.
In France, we had that category: créateurs! It was about designers, creation rather than status and luxury. Because historically, luxury was for Couture houses or RTW lines of Couture house.
In NYC, there’s 5th and 7th Avenue buy since everybody is evolving into the frame of American Sportswear, there are blurred lines.

Marc Jacobs never had a signature. I think the people who follows closely his work understands his design language/codes but that’s it. Marc Jacobs was always the cool kid.
So it has helped in creating an aura for his brand but not so great to have a loyal fan base. Are the people who were buying the stinky rabbit line, the vans collab aspiring to Marc by Marc? maybe. Are those same people aspiring to Mainline and Louis Vuitton? Probably. But has the brand build that kind of identity that could lead someone aspiring to something get it years after? No. Marc changed from seasons to seasons. He had great ideas and concept but at some point sacrificed it for I guess the well being of the company.
The cool kids were buying Marc by Marc because that’s what they could afford. And if they wanted the highest form of expression from Marc Jacobs, with the status symbol, they had Vuitton. Unfortunately, when Marc left Vuitton, he did some great collections but never build a universe around it. His clothes didn’t have a signature however his bags did and the logo jeopardized everything.

But I also think that in terms of brand building, that question of knowing « what’s too big » is essential. Not everybody needs to be a Ralph Lauren or a Calvin Klein or even a Tommy. Sometimes, it’s good to be an ODLR or a CH and it’s good to ask yourself the right questions (in terms of expansion).

 

[mdmmxl]

The person I think who is very interesting is Jacquemus because he build a brand. And I mean a brand in a marketing sense. Jacquemus is a name, a mood, a color scheme and of course some it products but he is probably the only one besides Thom Browne and Tom Ford, who came with a brand first. And in a way, it allows him to play in a frame already set up while others are creating are trying to create a frame while building a body of work.

But what is interesting in his case is that he had 3 breakthrough collections but still hasn’t solidified his status as a designer whereas a lot of other talents have that legitimacy and that respect in the industry.

I'm wondering: Could it be that therein lies the secret of the modern fashion house that is able to survive? - Jacquemus is not about a new design proposal, there is no interest in being a designer in the sense of innovation etc., it is about a product that is fulfilling customers demand, something that is already there and not created by him. Therefore, the company (because thats what it is, not some creative bohemian from the south of france sewing up raffia skirts by hand) can focus on other strategies esp. the person-focused marketing, that can reach most demographics willing to spend money on a mid-range product. Sad for creativity and integrity but pretty smart business wise. He did, what lots of other young brands were not able to do because he really has a money first mindset - and it pays off.

It would be interesting to see how somebody like HL would fair today. I always feel that he had the perfect synergy between business and creativity, even more so than Jil. There were great products you could buy from his stores without knowing anything about design but they still had a very specific POV and the fabrication was always unmatched, yet he really pushed certain unconventional ideas and never really bowed to customers demand, but created it. Even the Jeans-Line, more comparable with Jacquemus etc. in price, was very specific yet commercial. But maybe that is just nostalgia talking.

 

[mdmmxl]

Almost all of the people here were and still are regarded as talented designers. How many of them still have their label? How many are even designing anymore? It's really tough out there.

 

[Lola701]

I'm wondering: Could it be that therein lies the secret of the modern fashion house that is able to survive? - Jacquemus is not about a new design proposal, there is no interest in being a designer in the sense of innovation etc., it is about a product that is fulfilling customers demand, something that is already there and not created by him. Therefore, the company (because thats what it is, not some creative bohemian from the south of france sewing up raffia skirts by hand) can focus on other strategies esp. the person-focused marketing, that can reach most demographics willing to spend money on a mid-range product. Sad for creativity and integrity but pretty smart business wise. He did, what lots of other young brands were not able to do because he really has a money first mindset - and it pays off.

It would be interesting to see how somebody like HL would fair today. I always feel that he had the perfect synergy between business and creativity, even more so than Jil. There were great products you could buy from his stores without knowing anything about design but they still had a very specific POV and the fabrication was always unmatched, yet he really pushed certain unconventional ideas and never really bowed to customers demand, but created it. Even the Jeans-Line, more comparable with Jacquemus etc. in price, was very specific yet commercial. But maybe that is just nostalgia talking.

You know, I wouldn’t say that. Jacquemus is a designer. He is interested in designing but he is better at building a brand.
In a way, he has created a frame that allows him to be more than designer, aka a CD. So it’s about the idea of the south of France, that constant feeling of vacation, warm colors, tongue and cheek attitude but also naivity in design (that kind of swift under the rug a lack of techniques) has helped him.

See someone like Alexandre Mattiussi. He created a brand, is a designer but is also a good designer. But I think the purpose was different. Ami is a fantastic brand but Alexandre is still seen as designer and not so much as a creative director because the best advocate of his brand is his work, not the elements that elevates it.

I think that designers have a different sensibility of what is creative to them but I also think that Jacquemus is a product of his environment. He has a sense of branding because he was bombarded by that and he became a leader of the pack because he understood that.

For me the problem with Jacquemus is not creativity but quality. And quality comes with a focus on design.
I don’t think that Helmut Lang was the most creative designer of his time but the quality of execution was perfect and so his ideas were credible. Because let’s be honest, making a shift dress in plastic or having seatbelts details on clothes can look gimmicky at best or foolish.

And that’s the thing with Jacquemus: the packaging is great, the concept too but the product doesn’t look achieved.

Almost all of the people here were and still are regarded as talented designers. How many of them still have their label? How many are even designing anymore? It's really tough out there.

View attachment 1330552

Unpopular opinion: they weren’t all at the same level of talent beyond what nostalgia could make us think.
I think the most ambitious was Hedi. The most achieved as a designer was Junya. I’m not sure Adrover (who I loved actually) and Chalayan had that much to offer and im
not sure Viktor and Rolf really had a proposition. They build a brand, had that H&M collection and had that perfume. They are the anomaly in that crowd.
I think Steele, Branquinho and Vandervost could have had a better outcome with their own brand (and for Steele I think he had it in him to take over a house even if he is at ASPESI today).
I think Nicolas and Hedi made the better career choices and they are the ones with Watanabe that are household names today.

 

[donyan]

You know, I wouldn’t say that. Jacquemus is a designer. He is interested in designing but he is better at building a brand.
In a way, he has created a frame that allows him to be more than designer, aka a CD. So it’s about the idea of the south of France, that constant feeling of vacation, warm colors, tongue and cheek attitude but also naivity in design (that kind of swift under the rug a lack of techniques) has helped him.

See someone like Alexandre Mattiussi. He created a brand, is a designer but is also a good designer. But I think the purpose was different. Ami is a fantastic brand but Alexandre is still seen as designer and not so much as a creative director because the best advocate of his brand is his work, not the elements that elevates it.

I think that designers have a different sensibility of what is creative to them but I also think that Jacquemus is a product of his environment. He has a sense of branding because he was bombarded by that and he became a leader of the pack because he understood that.

For me the problem with Jacquemus is not creativity but quality. And quality comes with a focus on design.
I don’t think that Helmut Lang was the most creative designer of his time but the quality of execution was perfect and so his ideas were credible. Because let’s be honest, making a shift dress in plastic or having seatbelts details on clothes can look gimmicky at best or foolish.

And that’s the thing with Jacquemus: the packaging is great, the concept too but the product doesn’t look achieved.


Unpopular opinion: they weren’t all at the same level of talent beyond what nostalgia could make us think.
I think the most ambitious was Hedi. The most achieved as a designer was Junya. I’m not sure Adrover (who I loved actually) and Chalayan had that much to offer and im
not sure Viktor and Rolf really had a proposition. They build a brand, had that H&M collection and had that perfume. They are the anomaly in that crowd.
I think Steele, Branquinho and Vandervost could have had a better outcome with their own brand (and for Steele I think he had it in him to take over a house even if he is at ASPESI today).
I think Nicolas and Hedi made the better career choices and they are the ones with Watanabe that are household names today.

Would it be possible to take a similar photo today? Who would be today's generation of designers? I'm finding it difficult to answer that question tbh

 

[blueorchid]

Would it be possible to take a similar photo today? Who would be today's generation of designers? I'm finding it difficult to answer that question tbh

10 Sabatos

 

[Lola701]

Would it be possible to take a similar photo today? Who would be today's generation of designers? I'm finding it difficult to answer that question tbh

I think it’s possible.
I don’t know if they would be to your taste though (but we have the designers we deserves).
I think about the Martine Rose, Maximillian Davis, Mathieu Blazy, Daniel Lee, Mathieu Blazy, maybe the girl from Diotima and others.
It would be interesting to see the talents according to the trajectories. Some promises in the original photo weren’t fulfilled. Roberto Menichetti was still at Burberry and the rebrand was slightly working a little bit. Unfortunately for him, his successor made history at Burberry and him disappeared despite having his own line.