The fashion blogs have been chattering away about Dana Thomas' Newsweek article detailing the current turbulence at Versace. Drugs, money, sex, murder, egos, feuds - all the ingredients necessary to make a titillating story are present. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Weinstein brothers have already commissioned a script to rival that of Ridley Scott's movie about the Gucci family saga. Scandal sells, especially during bleak times.
To Ms. Thomas' credit, the article is a fairly frank account of the many issues currently afflicting the brand (I would expect nothing less from the journalist who once compared the ubiquity of the Louis Vuitton logo to McDonalds' golden arches). One point that she did not explore in her article however relates to how dramatically the fashion and luxury businesses have been transformed by the rise of conglomerates such as LVMH, PPR and Groupe Richemont. While many of Versace's wounds are no doubt self-inflicted, the reality is that independent, family-owned brands are at a distinct disadvantage and have been since the wave of consolidation that swept across the fashion and luxury goods sectors in the early to mid-nineties.
Independent brands are swimming against a powerful current. Large conglomerates with a stable of brands under their belt can more easily negotiate (not to mention drive up the cost of) advertising pages, influence editorial content in fashion glossies and command the most strategic retail space in key luxury department stores, all of which necessarily impact a brand's bottom line. The playing field is far from level.
There is also a deeply entrenched hypocrisy at play in the fashion industry which often weighs as heavily in the success of a brand as actual design talent or artistic vision. I sense that despite an initial wave of sympathy towards Donatella Versace for the tragic loss of her brother, the brand has suffered from the fact that she has never truly earned the respect of the fashion establishment (namely editors and journalists).
This is perhaps understandable. After all, a designer's muse doesn't a designer make even if she does own a chunk of the company ... unless of course you're Victoria Beckham (I refer you to the fawning sixteen-page editorial spread and accompanying article in the December issue of U.K. Harper's Bazaar, the latest in a long series of contrived "infomercial" type industry coverage designed to give Ms. Beckham her lettres de noblesse as a designer). Ms. Versace might have had an easier time currying favor with the fashion establishment had she stuck to her late brother's repertoire rather than trying to move the brand forward. In essence, she over-stepped without ever doing the necessary penance and therefore never received forgiveness. Ms. Versace might do well to take a few pointers on reinvention from Posh.
I certainly don't mean to downplay the many costly mistakes made by Versace family members. In many respects, they are indeed the authors of their own demise and neither industry consolidation nor industry politics can diminish their responsibility in the matter. This said, a serious analysis of the brand's predicament deserves at least consideration of these points along with the rest.
Sincerely,
The Luxe Chronicles
"Independent brands are swimming against a powerful current." Perhaps, but swim they must. Whatever the Versace family's problems, they and all other independent brands must find a way to persevere and stake their claim to their own fashion territory. I refuse to accept that the future is only LVMH and PPR. These two giants have managed to homogenize the industry in such a way as to make it an infinitely less interesting place than it used to be. I don't care what anybody says or how much press these big brands get, I wouldn't be caught dead in Vuitton or Gucci.
As far as Mrs. Beckam goes, I think we've seen enough of the "celebrity-as-designer" phenomenon. I know I have. YSL, she ain't.
Posted by: John Agee Paris | Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 13:34