http://www.businessoffashion.com/2008/04/the-business-of-fashion-talks-to-vogue-korea.html The Business of Fashion is the daily must-read for fashion creatives, business professionals and entrepreneurs in more than 150 countries around the world. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:26:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.businessoffashion.com/2008/04/the-business-of-fashion-talks-to-vogue-korea.html#comment-275 Victor Vargas Tue, 20 May 2008 02:03:45 +0000 http://www.businessoffashion.net/2008/04/the-business-of-fashion-talks-to-vogue-korea.html#comment-275 This is a response to another comment which questioned whether the role of the designer will die out. I don't think great designers are in any danger of being extinct. Strong fashion houses become successful because there is a sense of direction and identity behind the brand. This is often the sensibility of designers such as Lagerfeld, Ghesquiere and Elbaz. If design teams or collectives were able to do that, surely the big houses would suffer dilution which is to say they would become weaker and less people would patronize them. Since the beginning of time, we have had leaders and followers and designers are the creative leaders of their design houses while design teams tend to have a head designer or leader. Design by committee does not work well and is not necessarily a smoother road since the committee would be made up of creative people. A better suggestion is to have CEOs and designers develop a better understanding of each others roles at a company. This is a response to another comment which questioned whether the role of the designer will die out. I don’t think great designers are in any danger of being extinct. Strong fashion houses become successful because there is a sense of direction and identity behind the brand. This is often the sensibility of designers such as Lagerfeld, Ghesquiere and Elbaz. If design teams or collectives were able to do that, surely the big houses would suffer dilution which is to say they would become weaker and less people would patronize them. Since the beginning of time, we have had leaders and followers and designers are the creative leaders of their design houses while design teams tend to have a head designer or leader. Design by committee does not work well and is not necessarily a smoother road since the committee would be made up of creative people. A better suggestion is to have CEOs and designers develop a better understanding of each others roles at a company.

]]> http://www.businessoffashion.com/2008/04/the-business-of-fashion-talks-to-vogue-korea.html#comment-276 Anjo Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +0000 http://www.businessoffashion.net/2008/04/the-business-of-fashion-talks-to-vogue-korea.html#comment-276 Great interview, here are some of my thoughts: first, the 'revolving door' is a natural consequence of the evolution of the role of fashion designer from someone who was everything to a company- both designer and CEO, as were Dior and Chanel to their businesses- to a role within a company that will live beyond any one individual. Like it or not, designers are now just another employee, with the exception of a handful of small houses like Isabel Toledo, Rick Owens and Alaia, where the designer is still the heart and soul of the company. This leads me to wonder if the era of the designer is coming to an end. If fashion business on a small scale is increasingly difficult, to the point where most young designers would prefer to work for someone else because starting their own business is just too hard, how long can it be until the role of the designer dies out completely, to be replaced by staffs of forecasters and merchandisers? After the the most recent Christian Dior show, someone on Cathy Horyn's blog questioned whether Dior really needs a designer at all. It's such a huge company with so many ranges of product, why preserve the illusion of the 'fashion genius' any longer? Galliano's job is a bit of an anachronism and an anonymous design team could probably meet the bottom line just as well, without the creative agony. Here's my big question about the LVMH (let's just call it that) model: How long can these brands last? How long can they keep the public's attention? Hypothetically, if they keep recruiting the right talent, they could go on forever. But marketing experts say that a brand's lifespan is about 30 years, and after that it's on borrowed time. Clearly Dior and Chanel are exceptions, but that doesn't mean their owners should get too comfy, thinking they have the creative end of things sewn up. Galliano could get tired of his head-merchandiser position at Dior. Lagerfeld will kick the bucket sooner or later and then they will have some very large shoes to fill. CEOs evidently have trouble finding designers who can meet the demands of the modern business, which obviously has to do with why so many have been fired. Or maybe it's that CEOs simply don't have the patience required to let a designer do his or her work- the thing with Isabel Toledo being a case in point. Sorry if I wrote too much. Final questions: what's new with Balmain, and have you heard anything about the Schiaparelli revival? Thanks! Great interview, here are some of my thoughts: first, the ‘revolving door’ is a natural consequence of the evolution of the role of fashion designer from someone who was everything to a company- both designer and CEO, as were Dior and Chanel to their businesses- to a role within a company that will live beyond any one individual. Like it or not, designers are now just another employee, with the exception of a handful of small houses like Isabel Toledo, Rick Owens and Alaia, where the designer is still the heart and soul of the company. This leads me to wonder if the era of the designer is coming to an end. If fashion business on a small scale is increasingly difficult, to the point where most young designers would prefer to work for someone else because starting their own business is just too hard, how long can it be until the role of the designer dies out completely, to be replaced by staffs of forecasters and merchandisers? After the the most recent Christian Dior show, someone on Cathy Horyn’s blog questioned whether Dior really needs a designer at all. It’s such a huge company with so many ranges of product, why preserve the illusion of the ‘fashion genius’ any longer? Galliano’s job is a bit of an anachronism and an anonymous design team could probably meet the bottom line just as well, without the creative agony. Here’s my big question about the LVMH (let’s just call it that) model: How long can these brands last? How long can they keep the public’s attention? Hypothetically, if they keep recruiting the right talent, they could go on forever. But marketing experts say that a brand’s lifespan is about 30 years, and after that it’s on borrowed time. Clearly Dior and Chanel are exceptions, but that doesn’t mean their owners should get too comfy, thinking they have the creative end of things sewn up. Galliano could get tired of his head-merchandiser position at Dior. Lagerfeld will kick the bucket sooner or later and then they will have some very large shoes to fill. CEOs evidently have trouble finding designers who can meet the demands of the modern business, which obviously has to do with why so many have been fired. Or maybe it’s that CEOs simply don’t have the patience required to let a designer do his or her work- the thing with Isabel Toledo being a case in point. Sorry if I wrote too much. Final questions: what’s new with Balmain, and have you heard anything about the Schiaparelli revival? Thanks!

]]>