September 11, 2007
Valentino Without Valentino
By Tom Ryan
Valentino Garavani’s surprising announcement last week that he plans to leave his namesake design house in January shocked the fashion community and left some speculating about the future of the Valentino brand. In a report in Women’s Wear Daily, some analysts argued that the label’s strong link to Valentino himself could spell trouble for any successor.
The exit of Valentino, as well as his longtime business partner, Giancarlo Giammetti, follows the sale of the fashion house to UK-based equity firm Permira. The fashion world had expected Valentino, who is 75, to exit in July during celebrations around the 45th anniversary of his founding the fashion house, but sources only two months ago said the two were on the verge of signing three-year contracts with the new owners.
Fashion observers were particularly disheartened that Valentino seems to be leaving the house on bad terms and without a clear-cut successor. The article implied that new owners weren’t willing to give the designer as much control as he wanted and wished to place some restrictions on his extravagant spending habits.
In a statement from Valentino House, the designer said, “I realize that the maison that bears my name will change, but I hope that the creative team that will design the various lines where my assistants work will know how to continue my work in a way that will make me proud.”
Sources told WWD that Alessandra Facchinetti, former women’s designer for Gucci, will take the spot.
Armando Branchini, president of Milan-based luxury goods consultancy Intercorporate, stressed to WWD that it’s critical that any moves to update the brand’s image or look would have to be done on a gradual basis.
“If you do something too dramatic, you run the risk of both losing the customers you already have and not gaining any new ones,” he said.
But Mr. Branchini deemed Ms. Facchinetti a sound choice in terms of updating the brand’s image.
“I think that it will be easier for her to take on Valentino’s ready-to-wear than it was to take over from Tom Ford at Gucci,” said Mr. Branchini. “The challenge at Gucci was to strip away the Tom Ford influence and create a whole new aesthetic for the ready-to-wear market. At Valentino, it’s a question of gradually updating the image, and not just in two seasons.”
Another Milan-based consultant was less bullish about the transition ahead, since
the Valentino brand is so intricately linked with the couturier himself, much
like Yves Saint Laurent and Gianfranco Ferré.
“It’s not an easy situation,” he said.
Discussion Question: What you think of the challenges Valentino’s new owners face in transitioning to a new head designer for the Valentino fashion house? Will the brand be diminished by Valentino’s departure? What can be done to avoid dilution of the brand in this case and others where a brand is so closely tied to an individual?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Chanel is well and thriving and Coco passed on a few years back. Creative talent is drawn to these great fashion houses in droves. There is no shortage of talent and I am sure Valentino will continue to prosper–even without Valentino. Couture is not an industry but as state of mind. All of the great houses exist based on the efforts of many, the leadership of a few and a vision of excellence. Valentino’s vision will remain intact.
How do the consumers feel about current Valentino designs? How loyal have they been in the last year or two? What are they looking for? Being able to answer those questions about the consumers can allow the new owners/designers to move forward.
Versace survived (of course his sister took over). There’s no question the brand can survive. The question ought to be, how does it change? You can build brand equity but you can’t clone creativity and innovation.
If, as the article suggests, Valentino and his partner are leaving earlier than planned due to stresses with the new ownership then I think it may have a big impact on the top end of the brand name at least for the designer’s lifetime. Valentino aficionados are loyal to the core to this man, and if they feel he has been disrespected in some way they will definitely have qualms about patronizing the new owners. If Permira’s plans are to significantly change the “look” and change the customer base of Valentino by exploiting the famous and recognizable name to make it more ubiquitous, then losing the old customers’ patronage may matter less to them. But messing too much with the image of Valentino could prove disastrous, in my opinion.
I did some work as a financial writer for Women’s Wear Daily 30 or so years ago. I was always amazed at the intensity of discussion surrounding the comings and goings of fashion people.
It really is a fascinating business. However, brands survive behind their founders. Chanel is still a benchmark against which other fashion houses are measured. Perry Ellis survived its namesake as did many others in everything from haute couture to girdles.
Valentino is a powerful name and I have no doubt the man will be missed. However, he and others have built up organizations made up of incredibly talented experienced and young designers who will carry on the name. The interesting thing in this business is the constant motion. People come and go, fashions go in and out of favor almost as rapidly as they can be produced. Yet it all survives and flourishes nicely–sometimes!
There may be a parallel in the case of Liz Claiborne, where the company survived and thrived for many years after the retirement of its founder and “face.” In this example, the company grew by paying attention to the core customer of its legacy brand and by diversifying into other brands and categories.
The couture business will be a bigger challenge, especially in a case like Valentino where the designer has a high profile and enjoys the visibility of runway shows, fashion weeks, and so on. There are a few designer houses (think Dior and Chanel) with a strong legacy and the ability to thrive under new fashion leadership, but Valentino may not have the same status.
Since Richard mentioned Liz Claiborne, I just have to make one more observation. This is a case where the instincts of the founder were far better than her successors in management.
Liz left the business because she felt management was overextending and diluting the brand. Turns out she was right and after shedding numerous divisions, the company is returning to the founder’s original vision.
Couture is a loss leader that’s subsidized by the ready to wear and licensing businesses. The strength of the Valentino brand can readily be measured by RTW and licensing sales. 75% of Valentino sales are Hugo Boss. Part of the 25% remainder is Marlboro Classics, so the Valentino brand itself is not the core value of the company.
I’d be curious to find out what the actual Valentino customer base looks like. I have no direct experience with the brand; my perception as someone who sells designer RTW and couture is that many of Valentino’s couture ladies are older, and that the brand may not be attracting new customers as fast as it’s suffering attrition.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Chanel is well and thriving and Coco passed on a few years back. Creative talent is drawn to these great fashion houses in droves. There is no shortage of talent and I am sure Valentino will continue to prosper–even without Valentino. Couture is not an industry but as state of mind. All of the great houses exist based on the efforts of many, the leadership of a few and a vision of excellence. Valentino’s vision will remain intact.
How do the consumers feel about current Valentino designs? How loyal have they been in the last year or two? What are they looking for? Being able to answer those questions about the consumers can allow the new owners/designers to move forward.
Versace survived (of course his sister took over). There’s no question the brand can survive. The question ought to be, how does it change? You can build brand equity but you can’t clone creativity and innovation.
If, as the article suggests, Valentino and his partner are leaving earlier than planned due to stresses with the new ownership then I think it may have a big impact on the top end of the brand name at least for the designer’s lifetime. Valentino aficionados are loyal to the core to this man, and if they feel he has been disrespected in some way they will definitely have qualms about patronizing the new owners. If Permira’s plans are to significantly change the “look” and change the customer base of Valentino by exploiting the famous and recognizable name to make it more ubiquitous, then losing the old customers’ patronage may matter less to them. But messing too much with the image of Valentino could prove disastrous, in my opinion.
I did some work as a financial writer for Women’s Wear Daily 30 or so years ago. I was always amazed at the intensity of discussion surrounding the comings and goings of fashion people.
It really is a fascinating business. However, brands survive behind their founders. Chanel is still a benchmark against which other fashion houses are measured. Perry Ellis survived its namesake as did many others in everything from haute couture to girdles.
Valentino is a powerful name and I have no doubt the man will be missed. However, he and others have built up organizations made up of incredibly talented experienced and young designers who will carry on the name. The interesting thing in this business is the constant motion. People come and go, fashions go in and out of favor almost as rapidly as they can be produced. Yet it all survives and flourishes nicely–sometimes!
There may be a parallel in the case of Liz Claiborne, where the company survived and thrived for many years after the retirement of its founder and “face.” In this example, the company grew by paying attention to the core customer of its legacy brand and by diversifying into other brands and categories.
The couture business will be a bigger challenge, especially in a case like Valentino where the designer has a high profile and enjoys the visibility of runway shows, fashion weeks, and so on. There are a few designer houses (think Dior and Chanel) with a strong legacy and the ability to thrive under new fashion leadership, but Valentino may not have the same status.
Since Richard mentioned Liz Claiborne, I just have to make one more observation. This is a case where the instincts of the founder were far better than her successors in management.
Liz left the business because she felt management was overextending and diluting the brand. Turns out she was right and after shedding numerous divisions, the company is returning to the founder’s original vision.
Couture is a loss leader that’s subsidized by the ready to wear and licensing businesses. The strength of the Valentino brand can readily be measured by RTW and licensing sales. 75% of Valentino sales are Hugo Boss. Part of the 25% remainder is Marlboro Classics, so the Valentino brand itself is not the core value of the company.
I’d be curious to find out what the actual Valentino customer base looks like. I have no direct experience with the brand; my perception as someone who sells designer RTW and couture is that many of Valentino’s couture ladies are older, and that the brand may not be attracting new customers as fast as it’s suffering attrition.