Esteban Cortazar

Cortazar Leaves Ungaro (Vogue.com)
“Following a lengthy period of less than emphatic denials and weak shows of unity between Ungaro and the label’s ceo, Mounir Moufarrige, the decision has been taken to dissolve the relationship, WWD reports. It is expected to be formerly announced later today that the separation is by mutual agreement.”

Amazon to buy Zappos (Drapers)
“Amazon is set to buy US footwear website Zappos.com for around $927 million (£561.6m).”

Italian luxury consumption seen stable in summer (Forbes)
“Consumption of Italian luxury goods is seen stabilising in July and August from falls in the two previous months as the crisis sapped demand for jewellery, accessories and designer goods, an association said.”

Fashion Rio and the casual lifestyle (The Japan Times)
“While there are some bumps to get over, interest in Japan seems to be readily increasing for some in the Brazilian fashion industry.”

It’s turning out to be fashion magazine week on the Business of Fashion.

A couple of months ago, Dominic Sohn, a newly appointed Fashion Editor at Vogue Korea, contacted me to get some thoughts on the revolving doors for designers at major fashion houses. This was before Lars Nilsson was turfed from Gianfranco Ferre (just days before his first runway show) only to be replaced by Tomasso Aquilano and Roberto Rimondi of 6267 and before Paulo Melim Andersson was sent packing after three seasons at Chloe, making way for Hannah MacGibbon. Dominic’s questions were timely indeed.

Excerpts from the interview have just been published in an article in the May 2008 edition of Vogue Korea, along with the reflections of Sally Singer of American Vogue. It was such an interesting exchange that it’s posted here for BoF readers.

Vogue Korea: Even though there’s a case of Yves Saint Laurent at the helm, following Monsieur Dior in the 50s, the current issue of designers entering and leaving famed houses has never been as apparent as it is  now. Why and when do you think this trend of marrying houses and young talents began?

BoF: There have been two trends driving this phenomenon.

First, it’s only in recent years that we’ve really seen a wave of designers at the helm of major fashion businesses move into retirement (YSL, Valentino, Ungaro) or pass away (Versace, Ferre), which is why the trend is so noticeable today. In the past, when designers moved on, they may not have been leaving much behind: the businesses tended to be smaller, more localised and lacked real branding that would enable another designer to design under the name.

But today, when someone like Valentino or Ferre is no longer around to lead the design, they leave behind large global business infrastructure with shareholders, licensees, and customers to please, as well as a real brand (not just a name), that has meaning and aspiration embedded within it.

Second, there has been an influx of interest in fashion as an investment opportunity. Many of these investors (from both within and outside the industry) are trying to revive dormant brands, and one key part of this kind of strategy, other than financial investment, is to re-energise the brand with an appropriate creative talent.

BoF: I believe this is partially due to the Luxury conglomerates, but also the fact that fashion is now a business more than anything else – and the business must go on even after the original designer is no longer there — even if it is not part of a conglomerate. For example, what will happen to Armani (which is not part of a conglomerate) when Mr. Armani is no longer able to design?

BoF: All three of the ones you have mentioned are stellar examples of an excellent match between the designer and the brand. Ghesquiere, Elbaz and Simons are really leading the way of taking each of their brands into the 21st century.

I also love the marriage between Bottega Veneta and Tomas Maier, where Maier has successfully managed to build a multi-category luxury and fashion business from a leather goods base. The only other real benchmarks with this kind of success are Louis Vuitton and Hermes – this bodes very well indeed for Bottega.

Finally, looking to the future, I have very high hopes for Riccardo Tisci at Givenchy. Over the past few seasons he has successfully honed in on a way of taking the incredibly rich history of Givenchy and layering his own creative ideas on top, respecting the codes of the Maison all the while. This is a union that seems to be working well and is about to take off. His last collection in Paris was stunning.

BoF: It’s my understanding that several designers were offered the role, but they either did not feel a good fit with the brand or did not respond well to the existing management.

BoF: I don’t think it’s either the press or headhunters alone that should play this role, though they may have valuable opinions that can be considered as part of a larger discovery process.

Creative issues aside (and these are, of course, crucially important), at the end of the day it comes down to healthy relationships, open communication and mutual trust between the parties that will have to work together on a daily basis. It’s as much a decision about personal fit as it is a decision about creative fit.

I think this personal fit tends to get underemphasised in the decision-making process. And, when the personal fit is not there, the collaborations are bound to fail regardless of how talented the designer is.  Just look at recent experience at Ungaro which has lost several designers in recent years due to disagreements with management.

So, while external influences may play a part (fashion critics and headhunters are experts after all), the final call should be made by those who are going to have to live with the decision – that’s the designer and the CEO. They must agree in advance on a strategy to pursue.

In addition, designers could also get much better professional advice when considering these collaborations to ensure their interests are defended and to make sure they ask all the right questions before signing on the dotted line.

BoF: As it’s harder and harder to build fashion businesses from scratch today. If a designer can find a good fit with an existing brand, the structure and financial resources of such a brand can allow them to explore their creative ideas to their full extent, without severe financial constraints. On the other hand, it’s only when a designer is working under an eponymous label that they have the complete freedom to explore their creativity, completely unbound by the constraints of someone else’s brand.

If negotiated properly, these kinds of collaborations can be very lucrative indeed for the designer — they just need to know what their value is and how to prove it.

It’s inevitable that this kind of designer and brand matching will continue into the future….otherwise, who will keep great brands like Chanel, Dior and Yves St Laurent humming in the future when their current designers move on?

Image courtesy of Vogue Korea.

Amongst the most anticipated collections this season in Paris were the debuts by new designers at the helm of established brands — Stuart Vevers for Loewe, Estaban Cortazar for Ungaro, and Alessandra Facchinetti  for Valentino. Each brand has faced its own unique challenges in finding the right creative spark to sustain brand awareness and business performance.

While many fashion companies are practically clambouring to establish a presence and gain legitimacy in the lucrative leather goods category, Loewe has a long, rich history in beautifully-crafted leather goods, including a strong link to the  Spanish Royal family. But despite its enviable heritage and high quality, Loewe has had a hard time breaking into the younger fashion mainstream. Enter Stuart Vevers, who has a luxury heritage all his own, with stints at Louis Vuitton and most recently at Mulberry, where he helped put the British brand on the global fashion map.

Vevers’ leather goods for Loewe hit all the right notes — so right, that one glossy pink exotic skin bag was actually stolen during the presentation. He took classic Loewe shapes and updated them for a younger, more fashion-savvy clientele. The standout was a pony hair bag with an animal spot pattern by Fleet Bigwood, a print specialist who teaches at Central St Martins. Stuart told us that everything was designed from scratch, including the fun padlock and lightbulb heels that added a bit of irreverence to the collection.

While the industry nodded understandingly when Vevers came to Loewe, what with his CV of A-list fashion names and a strong connection to London’s cool fashion clique (Giles Deacon made a stop in to support his friend), Esteban Cortazar’s appointment at Ungaro raised a few eyebrows, including our own. While he had 5 years of design experience for his own label, the 23-year old Cortazar had no experience in a big house and could have crumbled under all the pressure.

He didn’t. We did not attend the show, but it was generally well-received, with fashion critics giving the young Cortazar points for his youthful energy and for keeping things straightforward. The soft draping made for a more playful Ungaro than what some might have expected, but it seems the industry is willing to give this young talent a chance to grow into his role.  We hope the Mounir Moufarrige, the brand’s CEO, does the same. (Several major talents are said to have turned down the Ungaro role due to unfavourable reactions to Mr. Moufarrige.)

Perhaps the biggest shoes to fill were those of Valentino Garavani, who after 45 years at the helm of his eponymous label, stepped down after the couture shows in January. Facchinetti delivered a collection that was "respectful" to Valentino, according to several observers who seemed to choose the same word, one which was neither adulatory or outwardly critical. The collection itself was quite beautiful, and apart from a few stylistic choices, Facchinetti didn’t veer too far away from the Valentino formula that has worked so well, albeit with a more relaxed approach.

This is always the big choice a designer makes when taking over a label. What balance should they strike between sticking to the house’s DNA and putting their own stamp on the label? Riccardo Tisci has been given space to toy with this during his first few seasons at Givenchy (and hit the nail on the head this time), partially because the brand was being re-launched almost from scratch. But our headline aside, Facchinetti’s debut wasn’t technically a revival – the Valentino business is strong and growing. Thus, Facchinetti was under the high-intensity business of fashion microscope. Too extreme a turn, and it could seriously impact profits.

In her review, Cathy Horyn made a valid point that Facchinetti (and Permira, Valentino’s new owners) may want to consider carefully. While she has several seasons yet to put her mark on the brand, if she does not try to say something of her own, she may be considered irrelevant from a design perspective, even if buyers are happy that she has not alienated the core Valentino clientele. This strategy may not sustainable over the long-term as the brand may begin to feel stale.

Incidentally, Cathy also confirmed a rumour that Valentino himself would have preferred very talented Jack McCullough and Lazaro Hernandez to take over from him. Prior to Permira’s acquisition of Valentino, its parent company, Valentino Fashion Group, made an investment in in Proenza Schouler last summer, at a surprisingly low valuation, leaving observers wondering why they would have agreed to this. It would make sense that they would take a lower valuation if they were going to also take on a lucrative design role at Valentino that also linked their futures more closely to the the Group.

We trust that Cathy has a very good source on this, so are comfortable in reporting it here now. Actually, on second thought, she probably heard it straight from the horse’s mouth.

Valentino and Ungaro photos courtesy of Style.com

Yesterday’s post on Esteban Cortazar’s appointment at Ungaro garnered quite the response from all sides of the issue. Not only was our inbox quickly filled with emails, several comments also came through, including one that could be from someone connected to Ungaro, accusing Cathy Horyn of censorship. Fashion Inc also posted a response on her blog in defense of Mr. Moufarrige, given his reasonably short tenure at Ungaro and the fact that he actually didn’t hire 3 previous designers at Ungaro (though this article seems to suggest that he was already very much in the picture when Dundas was hired at the end of 2005).

We normally don’t respond to emails, comments and other blogs directly in a new post, preferring instead to engage with readers one-on-one or via the comments function, but given the volume of responses today, we’re happy to engage in the dialogue to address three key questions that have come in throughout the day:

• Why did so many designers turn down such a plum post?
• Does Cathy Horyn have the right to comment on designer appointments?
• Shouldn’t we give Esteban Cortazar a chance?

Why did so many designers turn down such a plum post?
One well-known fashion insider sent a message saying that they were in complete agreement with Cathy Horyn’s apparent view that this was another poor choice by Ungaro, and wondered why Marios Schwab turned down the job. Anjo asked the same question in her comment, wondering what it is about Moufarrige’s management style that is so off-putting.

The answer to this question may be found in another email we received today. A regular BoF reader wrote in to say that Mr. Moufarrige is "possibly the most unpleasant man I’ve ever come across in the Industry". This is consistent with the comments that have been spreading throughout the fashion community over the past 6 months. Nobody wants to work with difficult people — and this is not particular to the fashion industry.

However, the negative comments about Moufarrige are not conclusive, especially given that he has a strong track-record at some of Richemont’s premier brands, including Chloé, Dunhill and Mont Blanc and has had a hand in the renaissance of Goyard. It’s worth adding that while Moufarrige may not have hired all of the designers that have come and gone from Ungaro, this constant shuffling has nonetheless confused the brand and potentially made the role much less attractive than it 0nce was.

Does Cathy Horyn have the right to comment on designer appointments and does she censor her blog?
BoF received a strongly-worded comment artefact212 (potentially linked to the Ungaro team?), criticising us for quoting Cathy Horyn in our post, saying:

In our opinion, Cathy Horyn would not of [sic] been the best choice to quote from regarding the selection of Mr. Esteban Cortazar as head designer for Ungaro. Ms. Horyn is strictly a fashion critic for The New York Times and should reserve her personal opinions and report only on the collection once it has been presented. We have found with [sic] Ms. Horyn to be narrow minded and is [sic] selective with her criticism. We are appalled that The New York Times promotes censorship in respect to commenting on Cathy Horyn’s blog. Unfortunately, Ms. Horyn herself cannot accept criticism and if you challenge her you are either deleted or censored from her blog…Comments are only posted if you praise her baking or agree with her. We challenge Ms. Horyn and The New York Times to review their position and allow everyone to participate in her forum without being censored. We believe that everyones [sic] opinion matters in this business of fashion.

We are grateful for the comment, but respectfully disagree with the argument.  First, fashion critics in this day and age don’t just comment on hemlines and silhouettes, they comment on the entire fashion eco-system. Critics such as Suzy Menkes, Vanessa Friedman and Cathy Horyn all regularly comment on the industry as a whole, and certainly Horyn is entitled to state her opinion on what she thinks about the selection of a designer for a fashion house.  Second, our post was not only about Horyn’s comments, but about the broader discussion about the appointment on the blog and in fashion community at large.

As for censorship of On The Runway, we can’t verify whether the accusations placed on Ms. Horyn are true or not, but we have never had an issue with any of our own comments being removed. We found a comment from artefact212 on this post from Horyn’s blog and regardless, are happy to have artefact212 as part of the BoF community.

Shouldn’t we give Esteban Cortazar a chance?
Lauren from Fashion Inc encourages everyone to give Cortazar a chance (even at 23, he does have 5 years of experience, he has yet to send out his first collection, Moufarrige is a new CEO, etc) which is all fine and well. Everyone will be watching come March and as Anjo says in her comment, perhaps he will send out a stunner. So, shouldn’t we just wait and see, before passing judgment?

Yes, absolutely Cortazar deserves a chance.  In fact, our post said that we are hoping he will succeed.  But, our main point was that a successful fashion business does not only come down to a strong, critically acclaimed collection (as Olivier Theyskens proved at Rochas). Success really boils down to a combination of a strong creative talent matched with a formidable business manager and a brand with a strong DNA.

Given the current situation at Ungaro, all three of these elements are in question. We won’t have a real verdict on the collection itself until consumers have their say and either buy into the brand or not when Cortazar’s first collection in delivered into stores in about a year from now. A view on the longer-term chances for success for the Cortazar-Moufarrige duo at Ungaro may be far beyond that.

Thank you to everyone for your views on the issue…we are enjoying the ongoing debate.

Moufarrige photo courtsy of iloubnan.info

Ever since the announcement that 23 year-old Esteban Cortazar had been selected as the new designer for Ungaro, fashion people have been scratching their heads.

Over at Cathy Horyn’s blog, many of the regulars have been noting Cortazar’s lack of experience (in design, but also in life and in business), lack of sophistication and lack of a unique vision. While everyone seems to be rooting for the young and talented designer, the path ahead for Ungaro is full of question marks. Cathy Horyn herself says:

Esteban Cortazar is a nice kid; he’s outgoing and he’s got some talent. But a number of the fashion-house appointments don’t seem all that well considered, and at some point the mistakes become irritating. I certainly wish Cortazar well. Working in Paris can be a great experience for a designer, but as Fashion Turtle notes… does he have the craft?

So why would Ungaro’s management choose such a young, inexperienced designer for such an august label? Not by choice, it turns out.

Designer after designer was offered the role, but no one took the bait.  According to WWD, Hedi Slimane, Sophia Kokosalaki, Christopher Kane and Marios Schwab were all approached. Sources close to the discussions say that the list was even longer than that. Designers, it is said, were suspicious of the what the revolving door of Ungaro designers (Giambattista Valli, Peter Dundas and Vincent Darré) said about the Ungaro CEO, Mounir Moufarrige and his management style.

As for Cortazar, who agreed to give up his own label to take on the role, he is understandably overwhelmed. He gushed to the Miami Herald last week:

I’m at the Ungaro atelier on Avenue Montaigne. I’m living a dream right now. I’m 23 and I have so much to do and this is such a great vehicle.

This kid doesn’t seem to know what he is in for.  Like a lot of people, we are hoping for the best, but given the questionable match between the inexperienced Cortazar, the confused Ungaro brand, and the CEO with a patchy track record of managing creative talent, this may just be hope over experience.