The actual issue behind it all is that publicly held companies are not good for the specific type of creative business and life cycle that luxury fashion involves. At this point the amount of growth demanded of brands is creating dilution & destruction through poorer quality in an attempt to gain margin, dumbed down “commercial” product like Gucci’s recent fare or relaunching LV X Murakami which feels like a lazy cash grab, confusing marketing for brand identity, and the constant churn of creative teams as a band aid for each BUSINESS (not creative) flop. There are just too many short sighted bland brands that don’t really stand for anything aside from their current marketing deck and growth at all costs.
You make a really strong point! The pressure for constant growth in publicly held luxury brands often leads to creative compromises, over-commercialization, and an over-reliance on nostalgia-driven cash grabs. The industry’s focus has shifted from long-term brand integrity to short-term financial performance, which is why we’re seeing more homogenized products and revolving-door creative teams. It raises the question: is there still room for independent, creatively led houses to thrive, or is consolidation and mass appeal the only way forward? I guess it depends on what the brands in question are after
Thanks! It’s really hard to say. A big part of the issue lies in the crazy production style that has been normalized. I’ve had a few people approach me to start a brand (20+ years as a designer mainly in NYC), and when I tell them how much capital they should have to start depending on the business strategy - they are shocked (at least 1 million USD). Unfortunately these days producing a few great garments really is not enough to create a lasting business - the sampling and production, the marketing, shipping and warehouse costs, and the need to be able to float without profits and support a team for a few seasons is incredibly expensive. Then keep in mind you might manage all that and produce something great only to have fast fashion knock you off and drain the possible profits. It’s tough out there, but it explains why we don’t see a lot of independents breaking through on their own now.
You're absolutely right — it’s an incredibly tough landscape for independent brands. The barrier to entry is so high, not just in terms of capital but also in navigating the complexities of production, marketing, and distribution. The fast fashion cycle makes it even harder for smaller brands to sustain themselves, especially when they’re up against companies that can replicate designs at lightning speed and lower costs. It’s frustrating because there’s so much talent out there, but the system isn’t designed to support long-term independent success!
Fully agree. It’s increasingly rare to see brands give time (and trust) to creative directors so they can develop their vision. When new collections are not immediately successful, patience from CEOs and investors runs thin (as in the case of Sabato de Sarno at Gucci). The fact that we keep seeing the same big names cycling around fashion houses is also concerning, as brands are less and less willing to invest in new talent and tend to prefer directors with an established track record of success. I’ve also written a few thoughts on this, leaving it here :) https://open.substack.com/pub/whyyoushouldcare/p/creative-director-shuffle?r=laov1&utm_medium=ios
Great points! The pressure for instant success is definitely stifling long-term creative growth, and it’s frustrating to see brands prioritising short-term gains over true artistic evolution. The constant reshuffling of the same names also makes it harder for fresh perspectives to break through.
Also, loved your take, especially the reshuffle recap graphic! (Though at the rate things are going, I bet the floating heads will need updating/replacing soon)
The actual issue behind it all is that publicly held companies are not good for the specific type of creative business and life cycle that luxury fashion involves. At this point the amount of growth demanded of brands is creating dilution & destruction through poorer quality in an attempt to gain margin, dumbed down “commercial” product like Gucci’s recent fare or relaunching LV X Murakami which feels like a lazy cash grab, confusing marketing for brand identity, and the constant churn of creative teams as a band aid for each BUSINESS (not creative) flop. There are just too many short sighted bland brands that don’t really stand for anything aside from their current marketing deck and growth at all costs.
You make a really strong point! The pressure for constant growth in publicly held luxury brands often leads to creative compromises, over-commercialization, and an over-reliance on nostalgia-driven cash grabs. The industry’s focus has shifted from long-term brand integrity to short-term financial performance, which is why we’re seeing more homogenized products and revolving-door creative teams. It raises the question: is there still room for independent, creatively led houses to thrive, or is consolidation and mass appeal the only way forward? I guess it depends on what the brands in question are after
Thanks! It’s really hard to say. A big part of the issue lies in the crazy production style that has been normalized. I’ve had a few people approach me to start a brand (20+ years as a designer mainly in NYC), and when I tell them how much capital they should have to start depending on the business strategy - they are shocked (at least 1 million USD). Unfortunately these days producing a few great garments really is not enough to create a lasting business - the sampling and production, the marketing, shipping and warehouse costs, and the need to be able to float without profits and support a team for a few seasons is incredibly expensive. Then keep in mind you might manage all that and produce something great only to have fast fashion knock you off and drain the possible profits. It’s tough out there, but it explains why we don’t see a lot of independents breaking through on their own now.
You're absolutely right — it’s an incredibly tough landscape for independent brands. The barrier to entry is so high, not just in terms of capital but also in navigating the complexities of production, marketing, and distribution. The fast fashion cycle makes it even harder for smaller brands to sustain themselves, especially when they’re up against companies that can replicate designs at lightning speed and lower costs. It’s frustrating because there’s so much talent out there, but the system isn’t designed to support long-term independent success!
Fully agree. It’s increasingly rare to see brands give time (and trust) to creative directors so they can develop their vision. When new collections are not immediately successful, patience from CEOs and investors runs thin (as in the case of Sabato de Sarno at Gucci). The fact that we keep seeing the same big names cycling around fashion houses is also concerning, as brands are less and less willing to invest in new talent and tend to prefer directors with an established track record of success. I’ve also written a few thoughts on this, leaving it here :) https://open.substack.com/pub/whyyoushouldcare/p/creative-director-shuffle?r=laov1&utm_medium=ios
Great points! The pressure for instant success is definitely stifling long-term creative growth, and it’s frustrating to see brands prioritising short-term gains over true artistic evolution. The constant reshuffling of the same names also makes it harder for fresh perspectives to break through.
Also, loved your take, especially the reshuffle recap graphic! (Though at the rate things are going, I bet the floating heads will need updating/replacing soon)
Thanks! And yes lol, I had to change that graphic three times already while I was writing the article :)