"Who are you wearing?": does the designer brand still matter in the era of homogeneity?

In the not too distant past, fashion designers had a distinct style, feel, and clientele. Zegna was different to Gucci, which was different to D&G and so on.

Now that every brand has a dark blue, an oud, and a gourmand, with little variation or inventiveness outside of what already exists, those differences have practically disappeared.

But I wonder if there is still room for distinguishing between brands (rather than individual fragrances)? If we can talk about houses in terms of feel, style, and customer, how and what are those differences?

slpfrsly said:

In the not too distant past, fashion designers had a distinct style, feel, and clientele.

Click to expand...

No they didn't, but they wanted you to believe they did. Magic of marketing. Now with increased globalization, we see reality for what it always was.

As to if the designer brands still matter -- of course, to certain people, and to certain people it never mattered, and will never matter.

GWM said:

No they didn't, but they wanted you to believe they did. Magic of marketing.

Click to expand...

Must you be so tirelessly wrong, GWM?

Given the emergence of independent talent, I don’t think I will ever buy a designer fragrance again. Boring, dated, cliche.

As always (or at least in almost any case) would still consider, affirm, rate, reckon and/or imagine depending very much on the respective designer (s).

Even with all uniforming and homogenization - likely more so according for BN standards - within a very limited range of best selling, hyped and/or highly complimented category, still having and willing to share a certain, even if mostly irrational and little substantiated nor documented optimism that certain (albeit not all and sometimes far from well known) designers might still become not just critically acclaimed but also financially successful with less mainstream scents priced within a more affordable cost range than artisan/independent/niche offerings.

Interesting question... TYVM for inquiring. I had to go to my Wardrobe and sort by brand. Out of 102 (108, counting samples and decants), nine are Aramis, six are Calvin Klein, four are Floris, and the rest are singles (with several doubles and three triples).

slpfrsly said:

But I wonder if there is still room for distinguishing between brands (rather than individual fragrances)? If we can talk about houses in terms of feel, style, and customer, how and what are those differences?

Click to expand...

To borrow from Kamala Harris, "I think we should have that conversation."

To me, all the Aramis scents (with the exception of the original New West Skinscent) are "mature" fragrances... appropriate (designed?) for mid-to-high-level office wear, or moderately-formal settings; the Calvin Klein scents are all-over-the-map, and I'm hard-pressed to see a unifying "fragrance philosophy" (other than "cover all bases"); and the Floris fragrances, though varied in scent, are all "barbershop" (proper, great finish to a shave, and relatively short-lived).

Designer brands and niche brands matter to me equally.

House styles in perfumery depend on house perfumers, which is part of the appeal of artisanal and some true niche houses. But then, Chanel has O. Polge, Dior has MFK, Hermès has Nagel, and so forth, so some designers still have a style, at least in their premium tiers.

Things start to get blurry where houses contract out to the big suppliers, and to the perfumers that those suppliers essentially rent out, and also with “me too” briefs from not-so-creative directors. That blur is greatly exacerbated by the massive surge in product introductions; between greater numbers and shorter development cycles, it’s much harder to distinguish a fragrance (or house) than it once was, especially if you adhere to a conservative notion of wearability that pits you not just against what’s current, but whatever’s been produced over the last 50–100 years.

It would be reductive to suggest that merely* having “a dark blue, an oud, and a gourmand” renders a house faceless. (*NOTE: OP did not say this.) That’s like saying that every house smelled the same back when they had a chypre, a fougère, and an oriental. Identity rests in what one does within a given framework, not the framework itself. It’s mostly the existence of so many fragrances that reduces the differences between them to smaller degrees.

My opinion:

Designers/Houses experience both forces of globalization/homogenization and forces of differentiation/individualization. These are a few off the top of my head.

Homogenization:

• too many perfumers and creatives
• weak creative direction
• trendy aesthetics
• me-tooism
• politicization
• commerce over art/craft
• conglomerates

Differentiation

• in-house or associated perfumers w/ long tenures
• strong creatives or founders/successors w/ long tenures
• house homage honored over external trends
• we-first innovation
• rejection of politics
• art/craft over commerce
• private/independent ownership

I see both forces still at play, but agree that independent aesthetics has taken a beating by some measures in many houses.

It is increasingly difficult to differentiate yourself if many of the brands buy the raw material from the same big guys (Givaudan, Firmenich, IFF) that already occupy 2/3 of the market. To this you add that the launches are faster and numerous compared to 20 or 30 years ago... that everyone wants to sell but not take risks... and without taking into account some of the plagues of our time such as conservatism and laziness... not all, but many fall into it...It is almost natural that after a while many of them are simply the same dog but with a different collar. Surely they spend more time and money on creating an image and washing it than on virtues such as patience and creativity.

PStoller said:

Identity rests in what one does within a given framework, not the framework itself. It’s mostly the existence of so many fragrances that reduces the differences between them to smaller degrees.

Click to expand...

+ 1

I wear primarily scents from Chanel, Guerlain and Mugler. Each of these houses has its own brand imprint and fragrance style that I recognize and appreciate. I think the output from noses like Polge père et fils, Wasser and Jelk or the various perfumers who come up with Mugler’s odd combinations are quite distinctive from each other and I find so many of their creations delightful in their own unique way.

To me, Chanel is one brand that has retained something of a coherent aesthetic and is not trying to cover all the bases. Hermès, possibly, as well. I'm no longer sure that Guerlain even knows what it is any more.

However, generally brand doesn't matter to me at all and mostly I don't buy designer fragrances any more because that's just not where the worthwhile stuff is to be found, for me.

Possibly the change happened when brands started releasing entire fragrance lines that, by definition kind of, need to cover all the bases. I'm old enough to remember when designer fragrance launches were few and far in between, and when they happened it was a major thing.

You connect to a face, a logo, an identity, a style, thats why people care about who made it, at least thats how i see it

SPACEDOUT said:

You connect to a face, a logo, an identity, a style, thats why people care about who made it, at least thats how i see it

Click to expand...

I believe you should distinguish between who "made it" (the brand) and who "created it" (the nose).
I don't shop by face, logo or identity (whatever the hell that means) . . . I do shop by perfume genre and nose.

This topic reminds me of a recent article from the business of fashion magazine. In fashion Chanel seems to have jumped the shark, Dior and LV did a while ago.

The Fashion System Is Creaking. Will It Collapse?

The current formulaic, corporatised, anodyne approach to fashion is not working. The industry needs to find its courage to be creative again, writes Imran Amed.

A collage of cracked ground with designer labels
The sheer scale of these businesses means there is a lot more at stake.



By
IMRAN AMED
14 June 2024
BoF PROFESSIONAL

LONDON — Lately, something has not been feeling quite right in luxury fashion. First Kering, and now LVMH and Chanel, seem to be creeping into crisis management mode.
As has been well documented, Sabato De Sarno’s creative directorship at all-important Gucci has not yet ignited industry interest. Meanwhile, customers haven’t had the opportunity to see much new product in store, hobbling Kering’s post-Covid performance. None of the other Kering brands are registering meaningful growth that can make up for this, leaving the group with a very complex multi-faceted turnaround to execute.
Over at LVMH, things are getting more challenging too. According to market sources, sales at Dior are flagging, which perhaps explains why the house’s March 23 men’s show in Hong Kong was “indefinitely postponed” just a few weeks before it was due to take place. Meanwhile, Fendi and Givenchy seem to be in stasis mode, while reports that Hedi Slimane is about to leave Celine following “thorny contract negotiations”with his bosses at LVMH further complicates matters.
And then just last week, Chanel suddenly lost its creative director, Virginie Viard, and in a not very Chanel way, especially for someone who had dedicated 30 years to the house. The fact that Viard’s exit happened so quickly with no succession plan in place makes it clear that neither side had planned for this to happen now. Chanel’s creative conundrum comes amid market reports that sales are down in almost every market this year.


But it’s not just these designers and these houses that are troubled. Burberry’s mooted elevation strategy is not yet delivering results and Lanvin, which has been without a creative director for more than a year, seems to be languishing even if CEO Siddartha Shukla is working hard to keep the brand relevant. After John Galliano wiped his Instagram account, the rumour mill started whirring that he would be leaving his creative directorship at Maison Margiela.
Meanwhile, a number of talented designers remain without big jobs. Pierpoalo Piccioli suddenly exited Valentino in March and Sarah Burton announced last autumn that she was leaving Alexander McQueen. Both designers had worked with their respective houses for more than 20 years and haven’t popped up anywhere else, in spite of their talent.Neither have Riccardo Tisci or Claire Waight Keller who left Burberry and Givenchy several years ago.

What explains this pattern of events? There are a variety of forces at work, but I think it has something to do with a gradual breakdown of the social contract between creatives and their corporate bosses, who are not championing creativity in the way they once did.
Once upon a time, people like Bernard Arnault and Francois-Henri Pinault were willing to take creative risks to boost the fortunes of small-ish fashion brands. When Arnault appointed Marc Jacobs to become the first creative director of Louis Vuitton in 1997, the brand had no ready-to-wear collection. Arnault knew Vuitton could benefit from an injection of creative energy, just as he did with John Galliano at Dior that same year.
Now, the sheer scale of these businesses means there is a lot more at stake. And as luxury brands brace themselves for an extended ‘normalisation’ period, it seems the mantra is to take the safe route — even if that means appointing no creative director at all. Chanel is unlikely to have a new creative director for sometime, and LVMH-owned Berluti has been operating without a creative director for several years.

There are exceptions to this fashion monotony, of course. Jonathan Anderson’s Loewe manages to both surprise creatively and create commercial impact. Prada and Miu Miu are also creative highlights that are driving commercial success. Both Anderson and Miuccia Prada have a proven ability to push things forward, while also finding ways to ensure the business is still growing. These brands may soon face a different challenge. They need to carefully balance growth with over-exposure, as if growth happens too quickly, it may not be sustainable over the long-term.

Most of the brands that compete with Prada and Loewe for attention have backed away from high-risk, high-reward fashion driven by creativity. Now the approach is more formulaic, akin to selling luxury merch in an overpriced supermarket. Karl Lagerfeld may have predicted with his Autumn/Winter 2015 Chanel show.
This is a world where one brand’s $1,000 hoodie is indistinguishable from another’s. Where it is easier to copy the shape of a box bag with gold logo hardware that is working at another brand, than coming up with a unique shape of your own. Customers have cottoned onto this, and would rather spend their money on one-of-a-kind experiences or hard-to-find vintage pieces than have the same thing as everyone else.


Karl Lagerfeld at the Chanel's Supermaket during the Chanel show, as part of the Paris Fashion Week Womenswear Fall/Winter 2014-2015Karl Lagerfeld at Chanel's Fall/Winter 2014-2015 show. (Getty Images)

But the lack of creativity and magic does not end there. The fashion system has also been buffeted by the sudden collapse of Matches and Farfetch, and the slow but steady decline of the once-dominant luxury e-commerce behemoth Yoox Net-a-Porter, which is a shell of its former self. The experience and assortment at Farfetch was not so different from Matches which was not so different from Net-a-Porter. This is in part because the people who bought or invested in these companies had no real. understanding of the creativity and taste required to create world-class retail. (Some of them did not understand how to manage technology either, but that’s a whole other analytical exercise.)
This meant the only way to compete was on price, which led to a downward spiral of discounting, training customers to wait for discounts, making profitability almost impossible to achieve. Sadly, the collateral damage has been independent fashion businesses that dependend on these platforms in the early stage of growth. Independent brands on both sides of the Atlantic are now on the brink, further diluting the creative lifeblood of fashion.

The result of all this is a fashion industry that fails to inspire customers, and not even ourselves. The current formulaic, corporatised, anodyne approach to fashion is clearly not working. This leaves me with the sinking feeling that things are about to break down. Maybe that’s what fashion needs to find its courage to be creative again.

The answer is brands matter to some consumers, but do not matter to others. It is hard to quantify. Generally brand names mean very little to me, but how that brand behaves in the world does matter. There are more options for consumers than there were in the past. Access to more options is a win for the consumers.

GWM said:

As to if the designer brands still matter -- of course, to certain people, and to certain people it never mattered, and will never matter.

Click to expand...

To some of us, it no longer matters.

I think it matters to some people, and not others. I don't know a lot of wealthy people who collect luxury clothing, but the few I know do not have a particular house they stick with unconditionally. They buy what they want.

When did luxury brands start making hoodies? That might be when all of this started.

PStoller said:

House styles in perfumery depend on house perfumers, which is part of the appeal of artisanal and some true niche houses. But then, Chanel has O. Polge, Dior has MFK, Hermès has Nagel, and so forth, so some designers still have a style, at least in their premium tiers.

Things start to get blurry where houses contract out to the big suppliers, and to the perfumers that those suppliers essentially rent out, and also with “me too” briefs from not-so-creative directors. That blur is greatly exacerbated by the massive surge in product introductions; between greater numbers and shorter development cycles, it’s much harder to distinguish a fragrance (or house) than it once was, especially if you adhere to a conservative notion of wearability that pits you not just against what’s current, but whatever’s been produced over the last 50–100 years.

It would be reductive to suggest that merely* having “a dark blue, an oud, and a gourmand” renders a house faceless. (*NOTE: OP did not say this.) That’s like saying that every house smelled the same back when they had a chypre, a fougère, and an oriental. Identity rests in what one does within a given framework, not the framework itself. It’s mostly the existence of so many fragrances that reduces the differences between them to smaller degrees.

Click to expand...

The point about the perfumer (and for clothing, the designer) setting the direction of the house is of course fair, but not the whole picture. The particular style or attitude of a house extends beyond the stay of any individual designer (or perfumer). There are fundamentals to a house - less pronounced now, hence this thread and others on similar themes - that become its true identity. These ideas become synonymous with the brand irrespective of intention or marketing. That many of these associations are negative or ambivalent (Versace, D&G, Gucci all have a "trashy" quality due to large parts of their catalogue being really rather trashy, for example) emphasises (for those who need it) that this is more than just mere marketing. These identities or moods, and their respective clientele, were once quite important in finding room in a fairly small luxury market. Naturally, that's changed as the way perfume is made: yes, some brands still have in house perfumers (and that's well worth discussing) but many do not. It shows (interestingly, D&G are/were going back to producing fragrances in house).

The obvious point to discuss in all of this is how the Asian influence has changed the way European brands operate. Both the middle and far east are having their own cultures reflected back at themselves through these globalised (formerly European) brands: the opulence of the near east (designer ouds, the spicy heft of designers in general, many more orientals in general e.g. amber, saffron) has clearly changed the focal point for designer brands. East Asia has something similar in the florals and citruses (most obviously yuzu) that are commonplace but more than that it would be in the way the brands market themselves - the uniformity of the overt elements of branding like logos, for example, reduces risk and potential alienation but comes at the cost of difference.



However, this topic is not just relevant to the Asian market. It is most interesting when considering it in relation to the past, to the points of distinction these brands had when the market was at most Transatlantic.