Demna appointed new Artistic Director @Gucci

[papertiger]

I have been deep in the rabbit hole of Hermes forum posts from 2008-2010. This week, I’ve spent more hours than I care to admit to looking at ridiculously expensive weird and wonderful and honestly hideous things.

Which means that I have many opinions on HauteAvante

So why am I talking about H on a Gucci thread? Because, between the 90s and 00s, H did jolie laid very well.

In the last decade, Alessandro Michele occasionally had beautiful items but had become, well, lazy by the end of his tenure. As someone who remembers Gucci in the 70s, he was painfully referential and trying too hard to be Pop Art in a Neo-expressionist world. De Sabato was safe, and elegant, but too commercial to be sellable.

Gucci needs someone who has a firm idea of who the Gucci customer is, and is willing to encourage him and her to try something new. Tom Ford worked because he took house codes, and made them more lavish and expansive - contrast stitching and tassels or oversized or multiple codes mixed together. Frida Giannini took that extravagance and made it tailored but femme.

I’m still lusting, over a decade later, after that linen trench with the oversized flora that started at the hem and grew upward so it looked like a garden but not twee.

That’s the point. That’s the thing Gucci lost over the last decade. How to balance being lovely and a powerful adult and also able to play.

Demna has shown the ability to play, but he hasn’t demonstrated either power or loveliness. Maybe he does have some untapped depths.

Exactly, there is a lack of understanding that most people in the world want to look 'beautiful'. Whatever that word means to each and society is subjective and debatable, but it is always relative to ugly, also subjective and time-sensitive. People don't realise how conventional and mainstream Gucci's core products are.

Icons are shorthand for classic, historic refs, gimmicks are for publicity and get dated quite quickly.

Concepts are not ugly, they are intellectual play. Deliberately ugly is kind of childish, it reinforces that what's considered aesthetically beautiful or desirable, no challenge at all.

I don't know how many people understand 50% of Gucci's revenue comes from their B2B for other Kerring companies (as well as others). Gucci owns tanneries and everything to do with leather-craft, Balenciaga's, McQueen's, Saint Laurent's leathergoods sales directly impact not just Kering, but Gucci's own figures.

Even though Gucci retail is only 50% of company's profits, that's still beyond anything Demna has had responsibilities or in the past. I really liked the Gucci design teams' looks for AW25. Hopefully, they'll just roll in Demna in at the end of shows like LV does with celeb CDs and he will let the design teams get on with what they do best. At least they seem to know what they're doing. Unsung heroes.

 

[papertiger]

Imagine the investors:
“We want DeSarno out, it’s his fault if we keep losing value”
Kering: “ok, here is Demna”
Investors: “”

It's Kering's fault:

The main reason Gucci lost sales at the end of AM's tenure was because Gucci started to put prices up exponentially whilst also over-producing with too many lines and variations within each line. Too many choices at uncomfortable price-points makes people indecisive and procrastinate. They were literally making existing clients too nervous to spend their money.

The main reason Gucci lost more sales under DeSarno was because Gucci was told to further raise prices exponentially, whilst still over-producing too many lines and variations within each line.

Prices:
They have too many third-party online partners buying wholesale (e.g. N.A.P) or agency fees (e.g.FF) which didn't increase the market-share, just lowered gucci.coms potential to achieve full retail. It's a bit too easy for Gucci to chuck overstock at outlets, but at a Gucci owned outlet, Gucci still will make more than if sold through a party buying wholesale.

If Kering (and LVMH) want to raise prices to H (or Chanel) prices, they have to understand that only so many people have a certain amount of disposable income. Gucci (and others) had their place. The slowdown after post-covid was natural. They upped prices across the board to make-up for the sales drop through each and every sale. That meant actual buyers were treated like 'mugs' artificially subsidising parent companies' bottom-lines and shareholder's dividends.

Perceived exclusivity and lack of choice:
9/10 clients will buy an Hermes bags when/if offered. Human behaviour studies 101. A) the choice between buy or don't buy is still a choice, and most people have suffered delayed gratification and want a 'score'. People can just about cope with the choice of 'this or that' but not 'which of 37?'. Choice is often overwhelming (this is why the hypermarket model failed) B) H Clients do not know when/if they get an offer again which helps them decide. c) An H client can convince themselves they love their H bag even if not ideal because they value the bag as hard won.

 

[papertiger]

ChatGPT is hilarious:

How We Got Here: The Corporate Cycle of Fashion Blunders​

1. Suits Chase Short-Term Trends Instead of Brand Legacy
   • Kering saw Alessandro Michele’s Gucci printing money (2015–2019) and assumed maximalism = long-term success instead of realizing that Michele’s world-building was a once-in-a-decade phenomenon.
   • Then they overcorrected with Sabato De Sarno, betting that “quiet luxury” would be the next goldmine—but forgot that Gucci’s DNA isn’t quiet at all.
   • Now they’re overcorrecting again by bringing in Demna, chasing “cultural disruption” instead of understanding what Gucci actually is.
2. They Panic When the Sales Drop
   • Sabato’s collections weren’t flopping, but they weren’t creating buzz either. Instead of refining his direction, Kering likely panicked because Gucci stopped being the “it” brand.
   • Rather than nurturing a long-term vision, they went for a shock-and-awe strategy with Demna to create instant noise.
3. They Hire a Big-Name Designer for Clout, Not Brand Fit
   • Demna is a great designer—for Balenciaga. But does he actually align with Gucci?
   • Gucci is playful, eclectic, romantic. Demna is nihilistic, ironic, dystopian.
   • The board probably didn’t think beyond "he's a proven disruptor!", ignoring the fact that Gucci doesn’t need disruption—it needs focus.
4. Investors Freak Out Because They Don’t Understand Fashion Either
   • Fashion people might give Demna a chance, but investors? They only see numbers.
   • They know Balenciaga’s sales tanked after the scandal, so they assume he’s a risky bet for Gucci—hence the 12% drop.
   • The irony? If Demna actually sells a ton at Gucci, these same investors will act like they supported him all along.

Final Thought:​

Kering’s biggest mistake is thinking Gucci needs “a moment” rather than a strategy.
They’re chasing noise instead of building a foundation. And now, thanks to some suits trying to make a viral comeback move, Gucci’s stock is tanking before Demna has even sketched a single look. Corporate fashion logic at its finest.

💯

 

[Pursephile]

Ugh this upsets me. I love some things at Gucci but haven't seen much that's excited me in a while; its all just so blah and monotone boring colours of late - so I was waiting to see who was going to come in and whether they'd bring back the maximalist Gucci of yore... but ugh, I despise Balenciaga! So I'm just scared of where the brand is going to go...

 

[silvester]

Why does fashion need to be shocking, ugly and ironic? What ever happened to beautiful fashion that fits women beautifully and makes us feel good?

Because of the internet ironically. You have people post within seconds of seeing a show how "boring" or "safe" or "not innovative" enough. And the comments and hot takes become so loud that it might affect sales, or at least perceptions. And from there its a domino effect leading to a decision to remove that CD. And go for someone who doesn't fit the brand aesthetic, but will bring sales and noise (positive or negative) to the brand.

We've seen that with Heidi at YSL then Celine, honestly surprised they didn't bring him to Gucci. Alessandro at Valentino.

But brands that can do beautiful fashion and get away with it are the ones who are either small and maybe owned by a conglomerate like Loro Piana, or brand that aren't under a giant conglomerate and have the funds like Hermes.

JW Anderson said something to the effect of, a designer needs to be given the space to create and integrate themselves into a brand in order to help it move forward. Sabato had what? three years? That's absolutely nothing! No time to fully understand a big brand like Gucci. I think CEO's forget how Riccardo Tisci's first FIVE years at Givenchy were met with lukewarm interest at best. But he was before the social media boom, so he had time.

I'm not a fan of one-note designers. Margiela at Hermes was nothing like Margiela for his own brand, and look how beautiful that relationship was. Same with JPG.

Véronique Nichanian is an example of a designer who makes beautiful clothes and she's been at Hermes for 34 years!!!!

Funny how all the examples were Hermes. LOL

 

[papertiger]

Because of the internet ironically. You have people post within seconds of seeing a show how "boring" or "safe" or "not innovative" enough. And the comments and hot takes become so loud that it might affect sales, or at least perceptions. And from there its a domino effect leading to a decision to remove that CD. And go for someone who doesn't fit the brand aesthetic, but will bring sales and noise (positive or negative) to the brand.

We've seen that with Heidi at YSL then Celine, honestly surprised they didn't bring him to Gucci. Alessandro at Valentino.

But brands that can do beautiful fashion and get away with it are the ones who are either small and maybe owned by a conglomerate like Loro Piana, or brand that aren't under a giant conglomerate and have the funds like Hermes.

JW Anderson said something to the effect of, a designer needs to be given the space to create and integrate themselves into a brand in order to help it move forward. Sabato had what? three years? That's absolutely nothing! No time to fully understand a big brand like Gucci. I think CEO's forget how Riccardo Tisci's first FIVE years at Givenchy were met with lukewarm interest at best. But he was before the social media boom, so he had time.

I'm not a fan of one-note designers. Margiela at Hermes was nothing like Margiela for his own brand, and look how beautiful that relationship was. Same with JPG.

Véronique Nichanian is an example of a designer who makes beautiful clothes and she's been at Hermes for 34 years!!!!

Funny how all the examples were Hermes. LOL

Sabato only had 2 years.

I only half agree though. Most of these Creative Directors have been fashion designers for years and studied at fashion colleges for years before that. Some of them know every designer's catwalk show by name never mind season.

It reminds me of the thing that had me worried at the opening Gucci's new, New Bond Street store in London which was a bout the same time as SdS was taking the lead at Gucci. My SA was showing me around and said that Sabato had chosen the artwork. The artwork was terrible, really 'naff' (watered-down, inoffensive kitsch). I was and hoping it wasn't a sign. I guess it was.

Gucci spent so much money on Sabato's 'vision'. London had Gucci Cosmos, basically a promo exhibition as an introduction to SdS and Ancora. The Elton John and David Furnish Fragile Beauty exhibition was sponsored by Gucci 2024, where we were welcomed with Ancora red walls for much of the show.

I think things could not have been working out on many levels with the hire. I don't think it was just stagnating sales as they had been way down before he climbed on board.

BTW, Margiela was great at Hermes (as was JPG) but I know that he found the job uninspiring.

I hope that Demna will shock us and be sensitive to Gucci's illustrious, dramatically colourful and brilliantly stylish past.

 

[averagejoe]

I actually think Demna would do a great job at Gucci. I find his Balenciaga so fun and interesting. Before he designed for Balenciaga, I was only interested in Balenciaga's City-style bags, and biker jackets. Now I am interested in everything in the brand. Demna successfully tied the biker-chicness part of the brand with ideas from Cristobal's couture (like cocoon shapes and structured collars) to make wearable pieces that are recognizably Balenciaga without branding (I don't like the branded hoodies and T-shirts, but so many brands produce these bestsellers). Demna and his team also made the brand an authority for designer sneakers where (with few exceptions) the shoes are very unique compared to other luxury brands. Dior Men used the Air Dior collaboration with Nike to assert its authority over the sneaker market, but each subsequent release was just a copy of Nike or another existing shoe with Dior branding, and I believe that Dior Men lost its clout in sneakers unlike Balenciaga.

I think Demna will come up with some really interesting pieces for Gucci. However, at the moment he doesn't have something to show for it based on his work at Vetements and Balenciaga. He already claimed on his own social media account that "[his] vision for Gucci is not going to be anything that has been done for Balenciaga." This makes Gucci exciting to see for me. I found Sabato's Gucci quite boring.

I'm more concerned about Balenciaga's creative direction moving forward because he was allowed to transform the brand so much. Even the boutiques match the edgy, raw aesthetic that he has tied deeply with the brand. Management allowed the brand image to be tied too deeply with Demna's vision, like at most Kering labels (i.e. Alessandro Michele transformed every aspect of Gucci branding during his tenure). At other heritage labels, the creative director can influence the image, and changing designers is not usually accompanied with changes in elements of branding such as the boutique architecture and logo (i.e. Fendi with Kim Jones or Pharrell Williams at LV). The new creative director for Balenciaga should ideally continue the edgy aesthetic while adding a sense of newness.

 

[Grand Maven]

Sabato only had 2 years.

I only half agree though. Most of these Creative Directors have been fashion designers for years and studied at fashion colleges for years before that. Some of them know every designer's catwalk show by name never mind season.

It reminds me of the thing that had me worried at the opening Gucci's new, New Bond Street store in London which was a bout the same time as SdS was taking the lead at Gucci. My SA was showing me around and said that Sabato had chosen the artwork. The artwork was terrible, really 'naff' (watered-down, inoffensive kitsch). I was and hoping it wasn't a sign. I guess it was.

Gucci spent so much money on Sabato's 'vision'. London had Gucci Cosmos, basically a promo exhibition as an introduction to SdS and Ancora. The Elton John and David Furnish Fragile Beauty exhibition was sponsored by Gucci 2024, where we were welcomed with Ancora red walls for much of the show.

I think things could not have been working out on many levels with the hire. I don't think it was just stagnating sales as they had been way down before he climbed on board.

BTW, Margiela was great at Hermes (as was JPG) but I know that he found the job uninspiring.

I hope that Demna will shock us and be sensitive to Gucci's illustrious, dramatically colourful and brilliantly stylish past.

That he will (shock us).

Demna made a cool cup Balenciaga Cities Cup (you can get it for different cities):

However he created some ridiculous stuff such as Balenciaga Towel Skirt:

Balenciaga Bin Bag:

Balenciaga Lays Bag:

That won't work for Gucci IMO.

I wonder if Demna will create a better Gucci Xmas tree than this [2023]. I'm sorry I'm talking about Xmas

 

[Grand Maven]

It's Kering's fault:

The main reason Gucci lost sales at the end of AM's tenure was because Gucci started to put prices up exponentially whilst also over-producing with too many lines and variations within each line. Too many choices at uncomfortable price-points makes people indecisive and procrastinate. They were literally making existing clients too nervous to spend their money.

The main reason Gucci lost more sales under DeSarno was because Gucci was told to further raise prices exponentially, whilst still over-producing too many lines and variations within each line.

Prices:
They have too many third-party online partners buying wholesale (e.g. N.A.P) or agency fees (e.g.FF) which didn't increase the market-share, just lowered gucci.coms potential to achieve full retail. It's a bit too easy for Gucci to chuck overstock at outlets, but at a Gucci owned outlet, Gucci still will make more than if sold through a party buying wholesale.

If Kering (and LVMH) want to raise prices to H (or Chanel) prices, they have to understand that only so many people have a certain amount of disposable income. Gucci (and others) had their place. The slowdown after post-covid was natural. They upped prices across the board to make-up for the sales drop through each and every sale. That meant actual buyers were treated like 'mugs' artificially subsidising parent companies' bottom-lines and shareholder's dividends.

Perceived exclusivity and lack of choice:
9/10 clients will buy an Hermes bags when/if offered. Human behaviour studies 101. A) the choice between buy or don't buy is still a choice, and most people have suffered delayed gratification and want a 'score'. People can just about cope with the choice of 'this or that' but not 'which of 37?'. Choice is often overwhelming (this is why the hypermarket model failed) B) H Clients do not know when/if they get an offer again which helps them decide. c) An H client can convince themselves they love their H bag even if not ideal because they value the bag as hard won.

PT please tell us what your abbreviations mean for NAP and FF. We're not all specialists like you are 💐

 

[averagejoe]

PT please tell us what your abbreviations mean for NAP and FF. We're not all specialists like you are 💐

I think NAP is Net-a-Porter and FF is Farfetch. I could be wrong.

 

[papertiger]

I think NAP is Net-a-Porter and FF is Farfetch. I could be wrong.

Correct!

 

[papertiger]

PT please tell us what your abbreviations mean for NAP and FF. We're not all specialists like you are 💐

As @averagejoe wrote, Net a Porter and Farfetch

The first buys wholesale, the second is a distributing agent that is paid a % fee.

Obviously there are more examples. I think in all cases most unsold stock is returned, although with a change of CD, I did espy some AM era Gucci on Outnet (N-A-P's dumping ground for overstock).

I don't know when the Bal city coffee mugs came in, but I have a suspiciously similar Gucci coffee mug in my kitchen from the Centenary Circlolo London event in 2021. Obviously, Bal and Gucci have many similarities.

 

[HAZE MAT]

I think that in five years when we come back to this thread, things for Demna Gucci will be different than the initial assessment.

 

[Grand Maven]

I think that in five years when we come back to this thread, things for Demna Gucci will be different than the initial assessment.

When the dust settles, we'll see what remains.

 

[bagnut1]

When the dust settles, we'll see what remains.

Given recent trends it will be somebody else’s Gucci in 5 years.