Only a week has lapsed since the centenary show at Gucci, which showcased the prowess and collaboration between Gucci’s in-house creative director Alessandro Michele and fellow Kering colleague Demna Gvasalia; yet the hype and buzz of what was coined as the “show of the century” has been relatively muted in the last few days.
While a lot of attention was given to Gucci and its unprecedented “brand hacking” 100th year anniversary show, the feedback from the show was somewhat of a mixed bag. Fans of the brand and Alessandro Michele have endless praise for the show, such as famed influencer Bryan Boy who shared on Instagram that the show was utter perfection. While others were left perplexed and confused — mostly because of the lack of originality behind the collection.
When the news first appeared that Gucci will be collaborating with Balenciaga in their upcoming collection, I had started to raise questions about the synergies between both brands. As a professor in luxury business, I often take a more analytical approach, even when I know fashion is far from logical. Yet after several discussions with fashionphiles and those who have worked in the industry for over 20 years, I was left unconvinced of the success between the collaboration. To me, it didn’t make sense to bring together two brands with similar values — gender fluidity, self expression and fashion forward casual wear; to work together. After all, collaborations from an economic stand point is to fulfil complimentaries. Gucci and Balenciaga in many way have been twin brands, making waves around the same period (with both Michele and Gvasalia being nominated as creative directors of Kering’s iconic brands in 2015). While the appeal is slightly different, with Gucci focused on the sophisticated fashion savvy consumers, and Balenciaga on the hypebeast streetwear aficionados, many of their consumers intersect. This, in more ways than one poses a huge discrepancy from my point of view, since collaborations are a way to not only create a new communication approach, but also attract a market share that does not exist for either brands.
An example of a perfect collaboration is of Louis Vuitton and Supreme. Supreme, which had a cult following within the skater and street style circles, had a unique business model which limits its availability and banks on new weekly product drops. While its price point was far from Louis Vuitton, the business model matched that of the luxury industry, which played to Louis Vuitton’s benefit upon its launched. Not only did this open up to a crowd of wealthy streetwear enthusiasts — who have often shied away from Louis Vuitton and its commercial branding, but also to Louis Vuitton’s dormant menswear division. The LVxSupreme collaboration paved the way for Virgil Abloh to take over as creative director of LV Homme, and has since generated incredible revenue growth.
For this reason, I personally found it difficult to comprehend the reason behind Gucci’s “brand hacking” objectives. Funnily enough, I stumbled upon an article by Chris Morency of Highsnobriety: What on Earth Happened at Gucci’s “Gucciaga” show? In the article, Morency talks about an important point I neglected, which was how brands have somehow lost their voice in the chaos of social media. He states that the power dynamic of the brand’s message has shifted from the press and buyers, to consumers and audiences, and that Gucci’s marketing moment was a way to regain control and navigate the conversation in a way where the brand sees fit. While I agree with this, I also believe that Gucci had lost control of its voice due to its rapid transformation. In the middle of the most socially sensitive moment, Gucci has veered far away from its Italian values and adopted one which aligns with its American consumers — standing for anti-gun violence, voters choice, and freedom. Of course, all of these themes are important values and brands such as Gucci with a huge platform and audiences need to do their part. However, it also brings about a misalignment when other important issues are not highlighted, such as Gucci’s lack of support for Anti-Asian/AAPI Violence, despite their continual support for Black Lives Matter. On the same note, Gucci whose new values are about inclusivity and self-expression has also been judged by many for its highly exclusive selection of models, which are often bland, ghastly and extremely thin. At the peak of 2019/20, similar brands to Gucci such as Fendi and Versace incorporated both plus size models and some from the silver generation to project that the brand caters to people of all shapes and age range. Sadly, Gucci’s discrepant messages do not end there.
While Gucci Aria took centre stage across the world’s most important fashion media e.g. WWD, Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, etc., the communication on social media fell a little flat. I suppose it could be a combination on today’s online fashion show and the overcrowding of social media posts, but fashion influencers who are supposedly fans of the brand, were found to be shockingly silent. Apart from the “friends of Gucci” such as Bryanboy, Yoyokulala, Tina Leung and SusieBubble, all of whom have been Gucci’s key opinion leaders since the beginning of Alessandro Michele’s reign at Gucci, nobody outside the circle had much to say about the show, or worse, talked about it. Even an avid Gucci and Balenciage fan Tamara, who is often seen wearing the brands’ clothes was instead working on content for Michael Kors.
Eight days post show and the Gucciaga buzz has gone significantly silent. Was their lack of innovation and synergies left to blame, or has the fashion world grown so tired of collaborations that even the “Great Brand Hacking” failed?
Share you comments below:
