The current state of fashion has been in a tizzy over the past few seasons, whether that be the creative director musical chairs or by the decline in leather goods since Covid. It seemed for a while that no brand was safe from their creative director leaving or moving onto another brand. One that certainly surprised everyone was Demna Gvasalia’s sudden departure from Balenciaga to Gucci.
When one creative director leaves, another comes along to completely revise the brand. This confuses consumers tremendously, as they must suddenly abandon their expectations and hope that a new piece they purchased for thousands of dollars retains its relevance. Considering the undeniable influence of social media on consumers, a precedent is set for a brand to maintain its image accordingly — this is simply impossible with the unpredictable nature of creative direction in contemporary fashion.
Since 2015, and up until 2023, Gucci was at the peak of their success because of Alessandro Michele. He completely rebranded the company to be loud and out there, a stark contrast to previous creative directors such as Tom Ford who embraced the minimalism of the 90s and early 2000s. Michele’s vision doubled the company’s revenue from 2016 to 2019 from $4.5 billion to $10 billion. After the pandemic, the number stayed steady to $10.9, but after his sudden departure, it dropped. It was as if the old Gucci had died; the distinctly loud style enthusiasts associated with the brand was no longer distinguishable amidst the rise of quiet luxury. Under the short direction of Sabato De Sarno, the numbers unfortunately continued to decrease. I think that his designs were way too hated. He was a master at what he did and in comparison to his peers, it was nice to see a new and fresh name on the roster of creative directors. Just when De Sarno’s vision for the company began to take shape, he too departed after a brief two year stint.
Subsequently, Gucci’s sales tumbled 25% in the third quarter of 2024, losing an approximate 1.64 billion euros. Part of this came from the announcement that Balenciaga’s troubled child Demna was the new creative director of the company. If you are not familiar, Demna is the antithesis of Michele: brooding colors, oversized fits, and controversy. Many remember the designer’s questionable tenure at Balenciaga for the infamous BDSM bear incident with children, his outlandish pieces like the towel skirt, and his wide variety of sneakers. Nevertheless, he can create and sell these pieces to his supporters regardless of where his influence takes shape.
Personally, I am not a fan of Demna’s designs. At his peak around 2018 when streetwear and hypebeasts were the pinnacle of fashion, he was certainly refreshing. But after seven years of what felt like the same repetitive concepts, Gucci could have gone for anyone else. Does it make sense that he jumped from one Kering brand to another? Yes, however Balenciaga was his baby and meant to be quintessentially Demna — Gucci does not need that influence. If Sabato remained at Gucci, he could have had the time to build trust with their slowly departing fanbase.
Demna’s creative direction is controversial and that’s how Balenciaga was able to thrive. Whether it be outrageously thick shoes or the expensive IKEA bag, he knew what was going to be a buzzworthy product. But after some serious controversies that included accusations of perceived child exploitation (which Demna has since made amends for) from a risky photo shoot involving children holding BDSM teddy bears, Demna’s image and style don’t feel welcome at an already struggling Gucci.
So in all, at a fashion empire such as Gucci, is it a good decision to have such a controversial figure representing the company when they are now at their worst financially in over ten years? Does Demna’s outlandish style align well with the interests of Gucci patrons? Will he be able to reinvigorate the company that feels so misaligned with what it once stood for? I think not.
