At a certain point in their careers, designers often find themselves at a crossroads: should they stick with their growing brand, or accept a job as a creative or artistic director at a heritage fashion house? It’s a dilemma that may well be on the mind of British designer Martine Rose at the moment, as rumours circle about the possibility of her taking over from Demna as the Creative Director of Balenciaga. So, what should she do?
Granted, taking over at a storied brand has its benefits. Overnight, independent designers can go from being known only in fashion’s inner sanctum to being household names. They’re also given a handsome salary (which they can then funnel into their own brands): a tempting luxury when compared to the alternative: having to seek investment, or personally invest, in their namesake brands. “It’s extremely difficult and financially straining to run your own brand, particularly now. We’ve seen how many great emerging and even mid-size brands have shut down over the past couple years,” remarks Anastasia Vartanaian, the fashion critic and meme maker who runs @fatannawintour.
And the legacy brand (which are often backed by fashion juggernauts like LVMH and Kering) gravy train also helps when it comes to the end product: low budgets can be a killer when it comes to creativity, especially for designers from low income or otherwise underrepresented backgrounds. “These big fashion houses also naturally have a much bigger budget than an independent label, so the designer may have more resources to execute their vision. Designers also don’t have to invest their own money - e.g. putting on fashion shows is extremely expensive, it’s great to have LVMH cover that cost,” adds Vartanian. It’s also an undeniably exciting challenge.
There’s also the question of job security. Around 80% of new fashion brands fail within the first five years, so attaching yourself to a well established house is likely a safer bet, regardless of the fact that there’s no guarantee of longevity (particularly of late, where it feels like another creative director steps down every few days). But even if that particular role doesn’t last, it opens up a spiders’ web of other opportunities. “Major fashion houses owned by LVMH or Kering often hire creative directors from within their brand portfolio (e.g. Demna going from Kering-owned Balenciaga to Kering-owned Gucci) so it’s beneficial to get into that talent pool,” remarks Vartanian.
Further, generally speaking, designers are creative types who are overwhelmingly led by the left side of their brains, but as a lot of independent designers are the founders of their own brands, their remit extends well beyond design: they’re book keepers, personalities, social media editors, and e-commerce experts. When working for a major fashion house however, they have a seasoned and capable team for those other important jobs, and can focus on one thing: executing their vision.
It must also be noted that legacy fashion houses—with their long-entrenched ways of doing things—can be brought into the present by fresh ideas and philosophies. As remarked by Willy Chavaria in an interview with us back in January, “I feel that anytime I’ve worked for a large company I’ve had a positive influence within the structure of the company. I feel like just my presence alone is a significant reinforcement of positive social change when I work for a company, and I’ve always made significant effort to bring in more diverse talent. It’s interesting because there are large companies that are now approaching me with the question: “how do we communicate with modern culture?”
But it comes at a cost. Funneling your efforts into another brand inevitably means having less time to spend on your own, no matter how much you try to optimise your time. “One person only has so much energy, creativity and time. So something has to give if you’re producing 10 collections a year. We have seen people manage both successfully—for example Jonathan Anderson at Loewe and JW. However, let’s not forget that the JW brand had investment from LVMH also!” says Vartanian.
But perhaps the most compromising aspect of joining a major brand is the requisite dilution of ideas. When joining an existing house—especially one with a defining multi–decade archive —a designer must bend their vision to fit (or at least compliment) the brand’s codes, and to serve its existing clientele—and quickly. Otherwise, they won’t hit expected sales rates, and their tenure will likely be short. (As was seen with Sabato De Sarno, who left Gucci after just two years following a sales slump.) “It’s great to have a strong voice and brand identity, which might get a bit muddled if you do a couple seasons at a big house,” says Vartanian.
It’s for this reason—and the industry’s generally toxic and unpredictable machinations— that independent designer Charles Jefferys believes Rose would be smart to stay as she is. “I kinda don’t want her to be chewed up and spat out though by the f*cked up system that exists right now. She deserves to just create and have the best set up to continue making amazing work for all of us for as long as she wants to do it,” he commented on Culted Instagram’s post posing the idea.
At the risk of sounding like the opening of a GCSE essay, there are pros and cons to both. Some designers can strive while straddling two houses: others might struggle. But it must be said that were better support systems in place for emerging designers, they would have more freedom to make these choices based on artistic preference over economic necessity.
Featured image via Financial Times
More on Culted
See: The culture wants Martine Rose at Balenciaga
See: Adobe Express tapped in with the youth for the A-List Festival
