It feels like every time you blink, another luxury fashion house announces a new Creative Director. One minute Alessandro Michele is reshaping the legacy of Gucci, the next Sabato De Sarno steps in—only to step out just as quickly with Demna (from Balenciaga) now helming the brand.
Kim Jones has also exited Dior, and whispers of Maria Grazia Chiuri’s potential departure are adding even more fuel to the fire. The highly acclaimed Haider Ackermann took over Tom Ford’s mantle succeeding Peter Hawkings, whose tenure lasted less than a year. With all the rapid turnover, the industry is feeling more like a game of musical chairs than a bastion of creative legacy.
Tenures at heritage brands are getting alarmingly shorter, and while change can be exciting, is it also diluting brand identity?
Choosing sides
A fresh vision can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, new leadership can bring innovation, attract a coveted younger demographic, and boost sales. Debut collections have been known to fly off the shelves. On the other hand, if the shifts are too drastic or too frequent, a brand’s loyal audience feels alienated. Imagine being a long-time Givenchy fan moving from Riccardo Tisci’s gothic glamour to Clare Waight Keller’s soft femininity to Matthew M. Williams’ street-style chic. And now we have Sarah Burton, who’s debut collection for Givenchy suggests that she is reinventing the wheel, giving modern interpretations to Hubert Givenchy’s iconic styles. It’s like dating someone who keeps changing personalities—confusing, exhausting, and ultimately frustrating.
“Maria Grazia Chiuri did an amazing job at Dior multiplying the turnover by three, yet the industry is expecting a new designer to sustain growth.”
Philippe Mihailovich, Co-Founder and CEO of HAUTeLUXE, a leading luxury brand advisory firm, offers an insightful perspective on this volatility: “Long-term equity is what everyone assumes they are aiming for, but with the corporate pressures of growth in sales or growth in social media buzz, many succumb to wanting a continuous high, and then the easy answer is ‘change/surprise, change/surprise.’” This highlights the growing struggle between brand heritage and modern market demands.
Luxury fashion executive Arnaud Bazin, who has worked with Hermès, Chanel, Dior, LVMH, and Lanvin, adds another layer to this discussion: “Changing creative directors is first of all a strategy to answer financial analysts and regain value on the stock market. The industry today is very sensitive to that kind of buzz. Maria Grazia Chiuri did an amazing job at Dior multiplying the turnover by three, yet the industry is expecting a new designer to sustain growth.” This suggests that, beyond creativity, financial pressures often dictate these frequent shifts.
Then there’s the investor side of things. When creative directors change too often, it signals instability. A prime example is Chloé. The brand has seen a whirlwind of leadership changes—from Clare Waight Keller to Natacha Ramsay-Levi to Gabriela Hearst to Chemena Kamali now. Frequent shake-ups make it difficult to establish a strong, long-term identity and brands are becoming more about “who’s designing now?” rather than what they actually stand for.
Consumers are losing interest and the once-magnetic allure of luxury seems to be fading. This, unsurprisingly, is causing sleepless nights at LVMH, Kering, Richemont, Tapestry, and Capri Holdings. Perhaps the most unexpected announcement came from Versace, when the namesake designer, Donatella Versace stepped down, to pass on her chair to Dario Vitale.
When legacy houses struggle to maintain long-term brand loyalty, boardrooms start to panic. Are rapid turnovers truly driving profitability, or are these conglomerates unknowingly diminishing the prestige they once meticulously built?
The luxury identity crisis
History is proof that some of the most successful fashion brands have benefited from long-term creative leadership. Karl Lagerfeld’s 36-year reign at Chanel, Tom Ford’s decade at Gucci, and Christopher Bailey’s 17 years at Burberry helped these houses evolve while maintaining a strong foundation. Even Demna saved the flailing minimalist Balenciaga with his avant-garde streetwear and meme-worthy fashion moments. So did Jonathan Anderson for Loewe, who has quit the brand after very successful 11 years.
Compare that to the modern carousel of designers, and it’s clear why stability fosters a deeper connection with consumers.
Mr. Mihailovich further reflects on the importance of leadership longevity: “A House without a visionary leader at the helm is lost! One needs visionary leaders to manage these wonderful houses of creative geniuses.” Without a steady creative force, even the most historic brands risk losing their essence.
Giving the example of Karl Lagerfeld and Alexander McQueen, Mr. Mihailovich expands: “…sometimes the ‘fit’ is just wrong. When the super-talented Alexander McQueen was given the reins of Givenchy, it was seen to be a disaster because he was unable to ‘be’ Givenchy, he was only able to be himself. He was an artist with one vision of the world and his place in it, so it is all he could express. Karl was like a great actor, when he was Chanel, he was really Chanel. When he was Fendi, he was Fendi. For Lagerfeld [his namesake brand], he had little to say because he had simply developed an iconic look, but did not wish to speak about himself. He was great at bringing out other’s characters. He made Chanel greater than she [Coco Chanel] could ever have done herself.”
“Even footballers don’t switch clubs at that speed. It takes a long time to build up a strong customer base, and it can all be lost overnight with one bad move.”
Mr. Bazin, too, emphasizes the importance of leadership choices: “Only an iconic strategy can be sustained in the long term. Companies that have decided to be fashion brands only have to pick the right duo: a Creative Director and a CEO. Choosing a CEO is a strategic choice—he/she has to be a real leader with communication and analytical skills, and their background must fit the strategy of the brand.” This highlights that strong, strategic leadership at both the creative and corporate levels is essential for longevity. Gucci is an example where the designer and the CEO have often worked hand in hand.
If fashion history has taught us anything, it’s that stability breeds success. The strongest luxury brands have leaders who stay long enough to cement a vision and create a lasting impact. A designer needs at least a decade to shape a brand without erasing its legacy. The fashion world moves fast, but if creative directors keep changing at this rate, we might need a scorecard just to keep up.
The magic of fashion has always been about trusting a bold vision, not just spreadsheets and bottom lines. Mr. Mihailovich poignantly notes: “Even footballers don’t switch clubs at that speed. It takes a long time to build up a strong customer base, and it can all be lost overnight with one bad move.” If luxury is about exclusivity, craftsmanship, and cultural capital, then perhaps brands need to slow down and give their creative visionaries the breathing room they deserve.
Mr. Bazin echoes this sentiment, pointing to two distinct strategies: “There will be two approaches: full freedom when the brand is in a difficult situation (YSL with Slimane) or a restricted one (Blazy at Chanel is not coming to make a revolution but an evolution).” This suggests that the most successful brands find a balance between creative reinvention and long-term vision.
After all, Karl Lagerfeld didn’t build Chanel’s empire overnight. It took 36 years. Maybe, just maybe, giving designers more time is the key to true luxury longevity.
