News, The Business
G. Pugh for Alexander McQueen: Smart Move or Too Soon?
By Lauren Sherman
Just weeks after Alexander McQueen’s death, there are already rumors circulating about who will replace him.
Gareth Pugh is the first name to pop up, and from an aesthetic standpoint it makes sense.
The challenge of taking over an established house is that the new designer must capture the essence of the house, while still making it his own. (Good example: Karl Lagerfeld at Chanel. Bad example: Frida Giannini at Gucci.)
This could be Pugh‘s chance at widespread stardom. But is PPR, the company that owns Alexander McQueen, moving too fast?
We understand where PPR is coming from. McQueen is an internationally known designer whose sales will certainly double in the year after his death. Why not capitalize on his martyrdom?
But hiring a new designer might actually lose PPR money. We can think of only one fashion house where a founder has died and the immediate successor has been successful. Yves Saint Laurent did well at Christian Dior after the namesake designer’s death in 1957, but he was an unknown–and Dior’s protege. (And that was just for one season. After YSL’s famous trapeze shape dress, his collections tanked and he was eventually fired.)
Lagerfeld was brought on at Chanel a decade after the famous designer’s death. It’s taken Halston 20 years to find the right successor in Marios Schwab. And Bill Blass is hoping that Jeffrey Monteiro is finally the right choice to lead the quintessentially American brand.
The truth is, even if the McQueen ready-to-wear label had gained financial traction over the last couple of years, there’s no way it was making PPR much of a profit. While we don’t think the conglomerate should sit on the Alexander McQueen brand altogether, it might be smart to focus on other aspects of the label for now.
Here’s what we think PPR should do:
- Keep producing Alexander McQueen accessories. These can be tweaked year-upon-year to remain relevant, yet still in McQueen’s vision.
- Keep up the collaboration with Puma. Same story.
- Keep up the McQ line. Probably the only clothing McQueen makes that actually results in a profit, this diffusion line can easily be continued without a lead designer.
- Wait five years, then bring on a hotshot to revive Alexander McQueen ready-to-wear. At this point, the world will be ready for it, and it might even make some money.
Tags: Alexander McQueen, Gareth Pugh, PPR
Comments [37]
Leave a comment
Most Read
- 1
Jason Wu for Target Fallout: 11,000 Items Currently on eBay and Two Re-Sellers Buy Out the Entire Collection in a Miami Target (We've Got Video) - 2
Watch: Anna Wintour Defends Her 'Bitchiness' on 60 Minutes - 3
Karl Lagerfeld Thinks Adele Is 'A Little Too Fat' and More Highlights from His Unfiltered Interview in the Metro - 4
BB Creams Are the Hottest New Product to Hit the Beauty Aisle--Here's What They Can Do For You - 5
Not a Good Look: Gisele Faces Backlash After Her Super Bowl Rant is Caught on Camera
- 1
Copyright © 2012 Breaking Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
Registration or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
I totally agree with your advice to PPR. McQueen was not just a designer, he was a visionary. I don't mean to say Gareth Pugh is not a visionary, but I just don't think he is fit for the job at least not now. I am not saying he is a bad designer, I am just skeptical. I think they do have to wait a few years and revive the house of McQueen. I think it would be impolite and offensive to revive it so quickly. It really is a delicate issue.
Think it's a bit too soon for Gareth. Think he has the technical strength, but needs to develop his creative vision a bit more. I think Olivier Theyskens would be a great choice right now–and he needs a job!theworkinggirlesq.blogspot.com
People should learn to separate Alexander McQueen (the man) from Alexander McQueen (the business). Alexander (the man) is gone. He's left us. But his business is still here and if we want it to succeed then we have to start thinking about who will take over. (I say “we” as if I have a say in any of this :)
I think Gareth would be a terrible choice. He does not have the creativity needed. All his work is the same while each season McQueen was so different.
of course it's too soon, but then again, alexander mcqueen is / was not a one-person-business. think of all the people who were working with / for him. wouldn't it be unfair just to let them jobless?thus, waiting five years does not seem like a good idea. maybe six months are ok. but then again, i'm an economist, just so you know where i'm coming from.
I wouldn't go for Gareth…someone with more experience though with the same creativity would be ideal to replace McQueen…however, I still don't think that he should be replaced so soon after his death…Love love love, Erinxx
I agree, people don't seem to understand at the end of a day its a BUSINESS,with tons of investments and jobs at stake!!! No one is trying to offend anyone. To me it doesn't take a genius to understand that???If it fails on its own effort to keep the spirit alive then that's another story.
I don't think Pugh would be a good choice…not only is he too young, but aesthetically he doesn't really seem like a good fit. McQueen was all about prints, molded and warped fabric, appliqués and the drama of the show. Pugh has a much more singular, black and white, goth/Victorian vision, and would probably be a better fit for a label like Dior Homme or a label that specializes in leather goods. I agree that Olivier Theyskens would be a better choice…but all and all it seems too soon.On a side note: how secure is Shwab's position at Halston. His first show wasn't exactly the talk of NYFW, and i think its a bit early to call him “right successor” to Halston himself…he needs a few years (not seasons) to prove himself.
Bad example Frida? I love what she does at Gucci!
Second Olivier, Gareth Pugh just somehow doesn't feel right. Plus their is no need to wait, fashion is one of the fastest moving industries when it comes to “the new” almost like technology. If McQueen has a fighting chance of continuing it better be now!
I think they need to keep producing with the design team that was in place with McQueen–it's not like he did it on his own, and these people knew him better than anyone, design-wise. I think Gareth is definitely not the right choice. Also, Frida Giannini, wrong example? It took her a while to settle in, yes–she's no Tom Ford–but there's no question she's giving Gucci-ites what they want now. Her last several collections have been super-strong, commercially and otherwise.
I agree with Anon, Frida Giannini has done an excellent job at Gucci. I loved her menswear collection for Fall 2010 and she had these kick ass, buckle boots/sneakers for her spring collection that I lust for! Gareth Pugh just seems at a premature state in the fashion industry.
If you are an economist, do you understand the economics of fashion? A ready-to-wear line doesn't make a company any money (well, very little). So bringing in a big ticket designer might just sink them further. My argument is that they focus on the stuff that does make money–the contemporary line, accessories, collaborations–and worry about the ready-to-wear later on.
I'm so confused–did you guys read my story? My argument is that it's bad–from the business standpoint–to bring someone new in this quickly. Ready-to-wear doesn't make money. (McQueen made very little, if any when you break down sales and profits by market.) They'd be better off to have McQueen's team keep the brand alive–focus on accessories and diffusion lines–and inject something new later on when people are ready for something new. Look at how hard Valentino is struggling sales-wise.
Most definitely agreed. I honestly prefer her vision of Gucci than Tom Ford's, although I'm not denying the influence his tenure at Gucci has had. But I fail to see who she can be used as a bad example.I also think Oliver would probably be a better choice than Gareth, although it could go amazingly well or horribly horribly wrong.
I totally love Gareth and know that for him it would be a good career move because he would gain wide acclaim sink or swim and I don’t see this hurting McQueen a veteran label that can’t really die.backlessdress.blogspot.com
It reminds off people who get married weeks after their life partner has died ; it's disrespectful but expected in these modern times of bad taste.
Yeah, she is great. Especially at choosing her references to copy: http://layersandswathes.wordpress.com/2010/03/0...
While it is fair to consider the McQueen business as distinct from the individual- focusing on McQ, the accessories line, etc. opens the door for the company to be little more than a licensing deal.I feel without a doubt, this would undermine all that is Alexander McQueen. What next, Lauren, a fragrance? That'll support the business-That being said, the only appropriate fashion house to contrast to what Alexander McQueen is experiencing currently would be the Moschino label. And we all know how well, Moschino has been received over the past two decades following his passing. It's quite clear- place the brand on hiatus for the integrity of the label, but more importantly, the brand.
All incredibly interesting, good points guys. Thanks for commenting–this has been a really great conversation.
IDK. But I really LIKE Frida for Gucci more than Tom. But that's my opinion and we all have different likes and dislikes.
True–I find it really interesting that everyone really likes Frida, and I'm going to look into it more. I didn't really she had such a big following. I think the general consensus in the fashion industry is that she doesn't bring anything new to the table. She may do an okay business for the core Gucci customer, but it's not very exciting. However, you all seem to disagree, so I'm definitely going to do more research and reporting on who she is as a designer.
Here's a related blog article that I found, which focuses mainly on the business aspect of the future of McQueen's brand.http://brand-om.blogspot.com/2010/02/alexander-...
PPR should surely keep producing accessories, bags, shoes, McQ, etc… That's the easy part of the job.Talking about business, RTW is the key-point ; yes, you need to put something on the shelves of the shops, and when deciding to pursue the business under AMcQ's name, PPR – hopefully – thought about some kind of identity, and thus integrity. This being meaningfull both on business AND emotional point of views (yes, sometimes they match…)To cut a long story short, placing a new designer at the head pg AMcQ, now, would be a huge mistake.It's very easy to find, inside the AMcQ house, talented stylists who have been working very closely with the designer, and who can then, CONSISTENTLY, produce new collections inspired by the past collections – so rich… – for, say, 18 months or 2 years, meaning at least 3 or 4 mainline RTW collections.And then, at a later stage, with human dignity and accurate business views, it might be possible to take then the right decision : either closing the “couture” house if nobody seems able to take the job properly, either going on with artistic and business prospectives, following Alexander McQueen's spirit firmly.But “Gareth Pugh, today” appears like a true bad idea, something totally irrelevant. For everybody : Pugh, Lee McQueen, AMcQ brand & business, & the public and buyers.In business, great visionaires must keep a cold head even under shock. Gareth Pugh's rumor just sounds as a panic reaction… In best case, it's just a rumor, and there are so many around McQueen. I surely hope that PPR has brilliant minds ready NOT to take devastating decisions in a hurry.
I completely agree about Schwab at Halston. While I liked the show overall, it was too singular in its vision. I feel that Nicholas Ghesquiere is a great example of someone who took the house's signatures and brought it into the future. I don't feel like Marios Schwab's collection brought anything new, but it takes time before we can decide.
I think Lauren Sherman has hit the nail on the head. While PPR's interest in continuing the McQueen brand is “just business,” it is one with strong emotional ties and susceptible to the whims of the consumer more so than other industries. Continuing the house for a while without a lead designer — largely relying on the craftspeople who worked with McQueen — would allow time to “decompress” from the loss of its founder without undermining the vision of whomever is brought in eventually to lead the brand. However, this has to be done in such a way which does not diffuse the McQueen brand to creating products that cheapen the brand, as has happened before to other couture houses.Am I definitely in agreement with others who have commented that Pugh, to date, has not proven himself flexible in terms of fashion vision — but he does have the appropriate skills to take on such a role at McQueen. I do like the idea of Theyskens, given that he could benefit from a delay in naming a new head of McQueen (Theyskens needs to distance himself from the bugaboo that his collections were highly praised, yet unsellable). But I have been persuaded by a friend that Miguel Adrover (currently creating pieces for Hess Natur) would be a more interesting fit at McQueen.
I definitely agree with JG about the integrity of the brand. On a smaller scale, I think only producing accessories, etc for a few years would work, but it'd be a good idea to give the whole operation an “underground” feel. Much of McQueen's appeal was due to his “specialness;” even as a headliner at Paris fashion week, Alexander McQueen the brand wasn't big in the same way as Chanel or Louis Vuitton. Outside of suiting, the majority of his clothes appealed to a very niche market. Image-wise, PPR should capitalize on that. Hire a PR firm that knows how to be subtle, and build quiet, but strong buzz within the industry that will serve as a stable foundation when the next designer emerges. The buzz around Margiela, and the way it escalated about a year ago, is a good example of what I'm talking about. I think Olivier Theyskens is an excellent idea! He's not conceptual in the same way as McQueen, but his last collection for Nina Ricci certainly proved that he can do the whole strange-but-beautiful thing. Besides, EVERYONE loves him.Also, if PPR bought McQueen, they obviously aren't as bothered by abstraction as Puig, or at least know how to make it profitable. God, that sounds tailor-made for Theyskens.
I think this is way too soon.
omg… two geometric cutouts in the same decade? Quelle horreur!
I think the commenters of this post are actually all Frida psuedonymns. I can't believe that Tom vs Frida is even a debate! I'm team Layers all the way with this one. She has no identity as a designer let alone class..
I think it is outrageous to even consider Gareth Pugh for the role. He does not have one per cent of the talent that Mcqueen had!!! Just because Pugh sends down a load of 'alien' looking costume garbage and outfits ripped off from Leigh Bowery, everybody thinks 'Hey , yes he is the most 'extreme' choice. I think Mcqueen would rock in his grave to know this info. God rest his soul!!
McQueen was all about prints, molded and warped fabric, appliqués and the drama of the show. Pugh has a much more singular, black and white, goth/Victorian vision” I could not agree more.
Gareth Pugh would be a good fit. He and Olivier Theyskens are the only ones that come to mind to even be possible. Yes, Gareth is young, but so what? He's a great designer. I doubt he'll do it though. It would be stupid for the brand to not hire someone that has some momentum going on right now. The brand could go under. It's business, come on.
argh….for me….it's too soon….:(visit my blog http://www.iscariotteh.wordpress.com
Ready to wear brings in money, couture on the other hand, doesn't. A little confused here about the point you are trying to make.
Actually, ready-to-wear doesn't bring in much money. Not at the luxury level.
Or Thierry Mugler!!