Helmut Lang travesty

[The False Prophet]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

I agree with you totally, Luc. I'm not sure WHAT Prada was thinking, especially in buying two other brands (Sander and Lang) so like itself in terms of aesthetic. In short, they're biggest competition with each other was their own brands. An odd way to build a luxury empire, non?

John

There was an intriguing remark on, IIRC, the Sartorialist site, wondering if there was an intentional move in buying competitors with a similar aesthetic, then running them into the ground. It's an interesting thought...

 

[rach2jlc]

It is an interesting thought and I've heard that as well.

With Prada, however, I really don't think that they intended to do this. It really wouldn't have worked out in their favor, especially given the financial committment and ultimate debt they incurred in buying and working with the brands.

Rather than a grand conspiracy theory in which Bertelli (Prada CEO) cleverly found his closest competition, bought them, and destroyed them... instead I think the downfall of Sander and Lang happened for several other reasons, some of them being the responsibility of Sander and Lang themselves:

1) 9/11: This affected ALL luxury brands and the way that they did business. Prada has often discussed how 9/11 hurt its bottom line.

2) Personality: Lang and Sander themselves were VERY demanding. They really should never have sold their companies, because they liked to retain control and do whatever they wanted. Having bosses, however, who were looking at their bottom line, really angered these designers. For example, with Sander (and Lang, for that matter), she wanted to continue putting incredibly expensive details and materials into her shows and clothes even when those clothes weren't selling. Bertelli wanted her to compromise and cut corners in order to prevent heavier losses, which she refused. That is why she initially left her house. Following that, the house floundered because Sander's fans really didn't want to buy Sander clothes designed by somebody else.

3) Failure to position the brands: As Luc mentioned earlier, Lang was never really a luxury brand, but instead a designer brand. Prada wanted to make it an "entry level" type luxury brand for the PRada group, but Lang never wanted to see himself that way. As such, his clothes never were really as accessible or diplomatic as Prada wanted them, and as such, Lang felt that Prada never really invested in his brand as much as they should have.

In hind set, all three (Prada, Lang, and Sander) have agreed that none of them should have bought or sold their companies to the other. But, at the time in 1999 when the luxury brand future looked bright and endless, it seemed like a good idea. Each thought the other could help it grow and to expand, but that just didn't happen. Now, unfortunately, we have two GREAT designers unemployed while in their prime.

John

 

[hermes]

i really just think it was a sign of the times because every major player was buying up someone

money was flush at that period of time and prada wanted to be a luxury conglomerate with visions of the being the italian version of PPR or LVMH and was competing with the gucci group for oneupmanship (gucci wasn't yet owned by PPR at the time)

so it was just a mad dash to snap up other designers and labels without much thought as to long term plan or debtload (i think prada had initially also purchased fendi in the early 90s? but sold it out to LVMH because it couldn't handle the debt load so you would have thought they had learned something from that ..... )

and i think bertelli doesn't make it easy either with his alleged dominating ways

 

[macuser3of5]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

stuff
John
Agree totally.

PS. Good to see another member of TFS (andrew here)

 

[GreyFlannelMan]

Excellent posts John -- this sort of analysis is very interesting to me.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

It is an interesting thought and I've heard that as well.

With Prada, however, I really don't think that they intended to do this. It really wouldn't have worked out in their favor, especially given the financial committment and ultimate debt they incurred in buying and working with the brands.

Rather than a grand conspiracy theory in which Bertelli (Prada CEO) cleverly found his closest competition, bought them, and destroyed them... instead I think the downfall of Sander and Lang happened for several other reasons, some of them being the responsibility of Sander and Lang themselves:

1) 9/11: This affected ALL luxury brands and the way that they did business. Prada has often discussed how 9/11 hurt its bottom line.

2) Personality: Lang and Sander themselves were VERY demanding. They really should never have sold their companies, because they liked to retain control and do whatever they wanted. Having bosses, however, who were looking at their bottom line, really angered these designers. For example, with Sander (and Lang, for that matter), she wanted to continue putting incredibly expensive details and materials into her shows and clothes even when those clothes weren't selling. Bertelli wanted her to compromise and cut corners in order to prevent heavier losses, which she refused. That is why she initially left her house. Following that, the house floundered because Sander's fans really didn't want to buy Sander clothes designed by somebody else.

3) Failure to position the brands: As Luc mentioned earlier, Lang was never really a luxury brand, but instead a designer brand. Prada wanted to make it an "entry level" type luxury brand for the PRada group, but Lang never wanted to see himself that way. As such, his clothes never were really as accessible or diplomatic as Prada wanted them, and as such, Lang felt that Prada never really invested in his brand as much as they should have.

In hind set, all three (Prada, Lang, and Sander) have agreed that none of them should have bought or sold their companies to the other. But, at the time in 1999 when the luxury brand future looked bright and endless, it seemed like a good idea. Each thought the other could help it grow and to expand, but that just didn't happen. Now, unfortunately, we have two GREAT designers unemployed while in their prime.

John

 

[Tabris]

If it wasn't tacky as hell, I reckon a seethrough rainjacked could be quite good.

As for the trousers, I wrapped clingfilm around my naked lower body, I don't see why anyone would want to buy those trousers.

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

John, this is quite an interesting thought. There is one last thing which maybe sums everything up: Prada was, first and foremost, a leathergood supplier (just like gucci for that matter) and thus never was a clothes "designer". Clothes for prada has always been, and still remains, a side-business i.e : why wouldn't you buy this really expensive dress with your new pair of shoes & laughably marked up handbag?
This is the core business of Prada: women handbags & shoes. So, while I agree Miuccia Prada aesthetics have been close to HL or Sander, she has just been following the fashion trend. Luxury clothes to go with luxury leathergoods. The failure was to run a fashion designer business, like a luxury goods business.

!luc

 

[cheapmutha]

id wear the pants

 

[rach2jlc]

Luc,

I think we definitely see eye to eye on this one. I really liked this post about the bags, which is (as you mentioned) the "bread and butter" of any designer. In fact, the reason that Miuccia can have any liberty on the runway with her clothes (meaning that she doesn't have to worry about ALWAYS producing a primarily commercial collection) is because some of the costs of the RTW can be offset by the margins from the bags and shoes. As you also mentioned, designers generally... almost ALWAYS... lose money off RTW (ready-to-wear). Armani, I read once in an article, is one of the only designers to make money off of their clothing as opposed to accessories. Of course, he's been trying to change that with recent accessories collections, but it hasn't really stuck.

With Lang and Sander, there was never an established market for their accessories to help offset the high cost and losses of their RTW. Sander's accessories were beautiful, esp. Pre-Prada, but were incredibly expensive given their overall simplicity (there really weren't enough people to buy them). For example, many of us know the Sander/Lattanzi collection... but to be honest the shoes were big, clunky, and lacked Lattanzi's "flare" but were priced at almost $2000.

Lang's accessories were really interesting conceptually but overall quite odd (I LOVE the silver patent leather travel bags and such, but how many people could actually use it? Same as the mesenger bags with lots of unnecesary straps hanging all over the place).

John

p.s. Hi Andrew! Nice to see you here also!

 

[denimdestroyedmylife]

But would you pay $180 for them?

 

[tweedlesinpink]

Just a thought: I find miuccia prada a very intelligent lady, from the way she talks about dressing and style, and fashion today.

 

[Brian SD]

Very insightful discussion.

I have a question - if a designer such as Helmut Lang and Jil Sander are taking losses, why do they stay in the industry? How do you stay afloat when you don't make money? Do they just go into debt and hope that some day the crowd will realize their vision and pay enough to make up for their losses?

 

[whoopee]

Originally Posted by tweedlesinpink

Just a thought: I find miuccia prada a very intelligent lady, from the way she talks about dressing and style, and fashion today.

How many fashion designers have a Ph.D?

 

[tweedlesinpink]

It's not just that--it's her whole bearing and her public image, really; do you see yourself actually Respecting donatella versace?

 

[LabelKing]

Jil Sander used to be known as one of the most expensive designer brands out there, rivalling Brioni, etc. pricewise.

Helmut Lang also did special cloths woven out of sterling silver for his suits, and such, which of course, does nothing for commercialism. But that's how we like it.