Has Fashion Become Too Afraid to Create?
Mimma Viglezio examines how brand codes, social-media scrutiny and financial pressure are reshaping creative leadership at Chanel, Gucci and Balenciaga, and asks whether fashion is becoming too cautious to move forward.
Fashion houses want creative directors to create something new without moving too far from the identity consumers already recognize. Mimma Viglezio argues that the balance has become harder to maintain as weaker demand, social-media scrutiny and management pressure narrow the room for creative risk.
The conversation examines succession at Chanel, Gucci and Balenciaga, how creative directors are hired, the financing problem facing emerging designers, Gucci’s pricing reset, the migration of high-fashion talent into more accessible brands and the changing economics of ultra-fast fashion.
Viglezio closes by examining the cancellation of the Met’s planned John Galliano exhibition and what the reversal may reveal about the changing distribution of cultural power.
AVAILABLE ON
Fashion’s largest houses have a familiar problem: how to change without becoming unrecognizable. A new creative director inherits more than an archive. There are logos, colors, silhouettes, materials and decades of customer expectations, as well as the legacy of the designer who came immediately before. Yet the reason for appointing a new creative director is usually the expectation of change.
Mimma Viglezio calls that contradiction “the tyranny of the codes.” Brand codes become restrictive, she argues, when a designer is asked to satisfy two competing demands at once: remain recognizable enough to reassure the market while changing enough to justify the appointment. “If they remind them too much, then it’s repetition and it’s boring,” she says. “If they are completely disregarded, it’s ‘this is not Chanel.’”
The harder territory lies between those extremes. A designer must preserve enough continuity for the house to remain legible while introducing enough difference to make the work feel authored rather than reproduced. Viglezio points to Hermès orange, Tiffany blue, Chanel’s black-and-white identity and Gucci’s horsebit as examples of codes that can preserve recognition but also narrow the boundaries within which a successor is expected to work.
That balancing act has become harder as authority over fashion brands has become more dispersed. Owners and executives still control the companies, and creative directors still determine the collections, but digital media has given audiences a larger role in determining whether a designer is perceived as succeeding or failing.
Viglezio invokes Roland Barthes’ The Death of the Author, which argued that once a work enters the world, its interpretation no longer belongs solely to the creator. Social media, in her view, has accelerated that process and made its consequences more immediate. “Everybody now is a critic,” she says. A commentator with an audience can acquire enough influence to shape the public narrative around a collection or designer, whether or not that judgment is grounded in fashion history or commercial performance.
For executives, the question is no longer whether online reaction matters. It is how much weight it should carry when assessing creative leadership. Viglezio argues that reputational pressure can become a management issue even when commercial performance and public sentiment do not point in the same direction.
That tension is visible in the recent succession of creative directors at some of Europe’s largest houses. Viglezio contrasts Chanel’s appointment of Matthieu Blazy with the changes at Gucci and Balenciaga. Her argument is less about the objective quality of the collections than about whether the designer, the house and management are strategically aligned.
She sees Chanel as having taken a longer view, giving itself time to identify the designer it wanted and, in her interpretation, allowing that designer enough institutional support to establish a point of view. Gucci and Balenciaga present a different problem. A new creative director at either house inherits not only the founder’s history but also the cultural and commercial identity created by a successful predecessor.
At Gucci, that legacy includes Tom Ford and Alessandro Michele. At Balenciaga, Demna’s decade at the house became part of what audiences understood the brand to be. A successor therefore confronts two archives at once: the historical codes of the house and the more recent codes created by the person who came before. For management, the appointment becomes a decision about positioning, customers, succession and commercial direction rather than taste alone.
Viglezio believes those pressures are contributing to a broader problem: fashion has become more cautious. She points to economic uncertainty, softer demand, management pressure and constant online judgment as forces that can make both designers and executives less willing to take visible risks.
“There’s been very few wow moments in fashion,” Viglezio says. “It’s been very pretty, expensive, luxurious clothes, but just pretty clothes.” Her criticism is not that commercial clothing is unimportant, but that fashion’s cultural relevance has historically depended on designers proposing ideas audiences have not already learned to expect. “Why bother with Fashion Week,” she asks, “if you don’t give me something that moves fashion forward?”
The Business Behind the Creative Director
The process for selecting those designers is itself more corporate than the mythology of fashion might suggest. Major houses use specialist headhunters. Chief executives and group leadership can approach candidates directly. Powerful industry figures and personal networks can also influence the process.
Viglezio says the difficulty begins when the brief becomes too narrow or when management reacts to the failure of one strategy by immediately pursuing its opposite. She points to Gucci’s transition from Alessandro Michele to Sabato De Sarno and later Demna as an example of the risk. Her view is that a succession strategy driven by urgency can produce a mismatch between designer and brand.
Replacing a highly distinctive creative leader with someone deliberately different may address an immediate management concern without defining what the house should become next. “When you make this strategic decision on fear and on emergency or urgency, you can’t make it,” she says. The contrast, again, is Chanel. “Take your time.”
That approach is easier for a privately held company than for a publicly traded group facing investors every quarter. It also exposes one of luxury’s central contradictions. The product is built around time. Craftsmanship, development, scarcity and heritage are part of the proposition. The business behind it is often evaluated on a much shorter timetable.
Public companies report every quarter. Management teams are judged on revenue, margins and returns. Creative directors may therefore be expected to build long-term brand value inside a system that measures progress much sooner. Luxury sells patience while capital markets measure quarters.
Luxury’s Pricing and Talent Problem
The tension extends beyond established houses. Viglezio remains optimistic about the next generation of designers, in part because she regularly works with students and emerging talent. She sees young designers combining cultural references, technical ability and commercially viable ideas in ways that could move fashion forward.
The problem, she says, is financing. Young brands are often told to return to investors once they have demonstrated traction. But traction itself can require the capital needed to produce collections, manufacture inventory, build distribution and reach customers. “You will not have traction if you don’t give me the money now,” Viglezio says.
Her description is consistent with a broader shift in fashion investment. Investors have become more selective, with greater emphasis on profitability, customer economics, differentiation and evidence that a brand can grow without relying indefinitely on outside capital.
The shortage of capital may help explain why some of fashion’s more interesting creative opportunities are beginning to emerge outside traditional luxury. Viglezio supports the movement of high-fashion designers into larger, more accessible businesses, arguing that permanent creative roles at companies such as AllSaints or Uniqlo can provide scale, resources and a broader customer base without the same pressure attached to the largest luxury appointments.
Aaron Esh’s appointment as chief creative officer of AllSaints is one recent example. Esh is overseeing menswear, womenswear, campaigns, digital communications and the wider brand voice, and his first collection for the company launched this month.
The shift also arrives as the luxury industry confronts the consequences of years of price increases. Gucci has begun selectively lowering prices on some products as Kering works to rebuild demand among aspirational customers. Vogue Business reported that the price of Gucci’s Mercato tote was reduced by roughly 20% to 25%, against a backdrop in which average luxury prices rose 52% between 2019 and 2024.
Kering has made restoring Gucci’s desirability a central part of its strategy, with an emphasis on clearer creative direction, more disciplined brand codes, product architecture and rebuilding trust around quality and pricing. The group reported first-half 2026 revenue of €7.22 billion, up 1% on a comparable basis, with sequential improvement at Gucci in the second quarter.
Viglezio considers selective price reductions a good call, but says the communication matters as much as the decision. A luxury house can adjust entry points or absorb some margin. What it cannot do easily, she argues, is tell customers that previous prices reflected corporate inefficiency. The larger question is whether Gucci can restore accessibility without weakening the exclusivity and pricing power on which luxury margins depend.
At the opposite end of the market, Shein faces another test. The company raised about $1.7 billion in its Hong Kong IPO and was valued at roughly $26.5 billion, far below its approximately $100 billion private-market valuation in 2022. Its shares fell in their first days of trading as investors weighed slower growth, rising tariffs, regulatory risk and pressure on the low-cost cross-border model.
Viglezio does not approach Shein as an investment case. She rejects the ultra-fast-fashion model itself and welcomes the increased regulatory pressure surrounding it. Her criticism is explicitly normative, encompassing labor practices, sustainability and what she sees as growing consumer fatigue with extremely low-priced disposable clothing.
The financial question is narrower: can Shein preserve the advantages that made its model so powerful if governments make cross-border trade more expensive and consumers have better-designed alternatives at accessible prices? That question is now being tested in public markets rather than private ones.
Who Still Holds Cultural Power?
Viglezio ends the conversation outside the balance sheet. For “The Floor Is Yours,” she turns to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s decision not to proceed with its planned John Galliano exhibition and what the reversal may say about the distribution of cultural authority.
The Met announced on Aug. 31 that John Galliano: Horizons, which had been scheduled to open in May 2027, would not proceed as planned. Director and Chief Executive Max Hollein said the decision followed discussions with Galliano. The museum did not attribute the cancellation to donors, sponsors or outside pressure.
Viglezio offers a different interpretation. She argues that the reversal illustrates the limits of institutional power and the growing influence of donors, brands and public audiences over cultural decisions. Those claims are her analysis, not findings established by the museum.
Her interest is not primarily whether Galliano deserved a retrospective. It is who has the power to make such a decision, and who has the power to reverse it. Museums, major publications and powerful cultural figures still exercise significant authority, but they now operate within a wider network of commercial, reputational and public pressures.
The question connects directly to the episode’s opening argument. Fashion once depended on a relatively concentrated group of institutions to determine what mattered. Designers, editors, executives, museums and critics exercised disproportionate influence. That power has not disappeared. It has become harder to exercise alone.
Gucci Tests Its Pricing Power
Gucci has begun selectively lowering prices on some products as Kering tries to reconnect with aspirational luxury consumers after years of substantial price increases across the sector.
Does that make selective price cuts a smart way to restore demand? Or does reversing prices risk weakening exclusivity and long-term pricing power? Viglezio says it is a good call, but only if the communication is handled carefully.
Her concern is not simply the lower price. It is what the company tells customers about why the price is changing.
For luxury brands, the lesson may be that accessibility can be rebuilt without undermining prestige, but only if the adjustment feels deliberate rather than corrective.
High Fashion Moves Into the Mid-Market
Aaron Esh has taken on creative leadership at AllSaints, bringing a high-fashion background into a much larger and more accessible fashion business.
Does that represent a democratization of good design? Or does it further blur the line between luxury, designer fashion and the high street? Viglezio sees it as a good call for designers, consumers and the market.
She argues that accessible brands can offer strong creative talent more stability, scale and resources, while giving consumers better-designed fashion at prices below traditional luxury.
The broader implication is that some of fashion’s most interesting creative jobs may increasingly sit outside the luxury sector.
Shein Tests the Limits of Ultra-Fast Fashion
Shein entered Hong Kong’s public markets at a valuation of roughly $26.5 billion, far below the approximately $100 billion private-market valuation it reached in 2022.
Does that decline suggest ultra-fast fashion is reaching its limits? Or can Shein still use its scale, technology and global reach to defend one of fashion’s most efficient digital business models? Viglezio does not make a conventional investment call. She is openly critical of the ultra-fast-fashion model itself.
She points to growing regulatory pressure, tariffs, labor concerns and what she sees as increasing consumer fatigue with extremely low-priced disposable fashion.
The bigger question is whether ultra-fast fashion can preserve its economics as governments raise the cost of cross-border trade and consumers gain more accessible, better-designed alternatives.
The Floors is Yours
For The Floor is Yours, Mimma Viglezio turns to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s decision not to proceed with John Galliano: Horizons, the retrospective that had been planned for spring 2027.
Her argument is not primarily about whether Galliano deserved the exhibition. It is about the institutions that decide which figures receive cultural legitimacy, and what happens when those decisions collide with donors, brands and public opinion.
The Met said on Aug. 31 that the exhibition would not proceed following discussions with Galliano. It did not attribute the decision to donor pressure, sponsors or outside intervention.
Viglezio offers her own interpretation of what the reversal represents. She argues that the episode exposes the limits of institutional authority in fashion and culture, particularly when museums, media organizations and powerful individuals operate within networks of financial and reputational dependence.
She also directs the argument toward Anna Wintour and Condé Nast. In Viglezio’s view, the episode raises a broader question about whether institutions and individuals accustomed to exercising considerable cultural influence can still assume that their decisions will be accepted without challenge.
Her point is less that cultural gatekeepers have lost their power than that the conditions under which they exercise it have changed. Museums depend on patrons. Media companies depend on advertisers, audiences and reputation. Fashion houses depend on consumers. Decisions that once might have remained inside a relatively small institutional circle can now become global controversies within hours.
For Viglezio, that is the more consequential story behind the Galliano dispute: not simply who was chosen for an exhibition, but who ultimately has the authority to decide what culture legitimizes.
Q&A
What does Mimma Viglezio mean by “the tyranny of the codes”?
Viglezio uses the phrase to describe the tension facing creative directors who are expected to innovate while preserving the recognizable identity of a fashion house. Too much continuity can look repetitive. Too much change can appear disconnected from the brand.
What are fashion brand codes?
Brand codes are recurring elements that make a house recognizable, including logos, colors, materials, symbols, silhouettes and references to its archive. Viglezio argues that they become restrictive when designers are expected to reproduce them rather than reinterpret them.
How has social media changed fashion criticism?
Social platforms have broadened the number of people able to influence the reception of a collection or designer. Viglezio argues that this can affect not only public perception but the confidence of executives and creative directors inside fashion companies.
Why does Viglezio think fashion has become more cautious?
She points to economic uncertainty, softer demand, management and shareholder pressure, and constant public scrutiny. In her view, those forces encourage safer creative decisions and reduce the willingness to take visible risks.
How are creative directors hired by major fashion houses?
According to Viglezio, the process often involves specialist headhunters, CEOs and senior group executives. Personal networks and influential industry figures can also play a role. She argues that the quality of the brief and the strategic clarity behind the appointment are crucial.
Why is Gucci lowering some prices?
Luxury prices increased sharply in the years after 2019, leaving some aspirational consumers priced out of the category. Gucci is among the brands now testing selective price reductions and more accessible entry points while trying to preserve exclusivity and margins.
What is Kering trying to change at Gucci?
Kering says its strategy is focused on restoring desirability through clearer creative direction, disciplined brand codes, stronger product architecture, higher quality and a more productive distribution network.
Why are high-fashion designers moving to more accessible brands?
Larger premium and mass-market businesses can offer designers scale, resources and broad distribution without necessarily exposing them to the same scrutiny attached to major luxury appointments. Aaron Esh’s appointment at AllSaints is one current example.
What happened to Shein’s valuation?
Shein’s Hong Kong IPO valued the company at about $26.5 billion, compared with a private-market valuation of roughly $100 billion in 2022. The company raised about $1.7 billion in the listing.
What happened to the John Galliano Met exhibition?
The Met announced on Aug. 31, 2026, that John Galliano: Horizons, scheduled for spring 2027, would no longer proceed as planned. The museum said the decision followed discussions with Galliano.
What is the central argument of this Culturepreneur episode?
The episode examines whether the institutions surrounding fashion are making creative leadership more cautious by placing designers under simultaneous pressure from brand heritage, executives, financial performance and public reaction.
Mimma Viglezio is a prominent fashion executive, creative consultant, and editor with over two decades of experience shaping the global luxury market. Known for her unfiltered and candid insights, she held top corporate leadership positions at Bulgari, Louis Vuitton, and the Gucci Group before pivoting to independent advisory work, media editing, and mentoring emerging talent.
SOURCES AND TRANSCRIPT
Vogue Business: Reporting on luxury pricing, aspirational consumers and Gucci’s selective price reductions
Vogue Business: Should Luxury Brands Reduce Their Prices?
Reuters: Reporting on Shein’s Hong Kong IPO, $1.74 billion capital raise and approximately $26.5 billion valuation Reuters: Shein Shares Slip on Second Day of Hong Kong Trading
Reuters: Reporting on Shein’s IPO pricing and use of proceeds Reuters: Shein Prices Hong Kong IPO
The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Official statement announcing that John Galliano: Horizons would not proceed as planned The Met: Spring 2027 Costume Institute Announcement
TIMESTAMP:
00:00 — Why Fashion Needs More “Wow” Moments
00:20 — The Tyranny of the Codes
01:26 — When Brand Codes Become Constraints
05:13 — Has the Audience Become Part of the Brand?
08:27 — Chanel, Gucci and Balenciaga
12:22 — Has Fashion Become Creatively Afraid?
15:02 — Who Chooses the Creative Director?
18:17 — The Luxury Paradox
18:36 — The Next Generation Has Talent. Capital Is Harder to Find.
21:41 — Good Call / Bad Call
21:48 — Gucci Tests Its Pricing Power
23:36 — High Fashion Moves Into the Mid-Market
27:00 — Shein Faces a Harsher Market Test
29:10 — The Floor Is Yours
29:18 — The Limits of Cultural Power
33:10 — Is This a Turning Point for Condé Nast?
33:40 — Closing
Transcript:
Yuri Xavier: My guest today is Mimma Viglezio.
Mimma Viglezio: Thanks for having me.
Yuri: Are you ready?
Mimma: Very ready.
Yuri: Fashion has always lived between continuity and reinvention. A great fashion house needs to remain recognizable, but it also has codes, history, archives and expectations. At the same time, we hire creative directors because we expect something new.You describe this contradiction as “the tyranny of the codes.” What exactly do you mean by that?
Mimma: We now live in a culture suspended between archives and invention. Since the internet, people are aware of everything that has happened, is happening and, in some ways, what is likely to happen next. That makes authorship more complicated.What I mean by the tyranny of the codes is that it has become difficult to create this blending of culture, suspended between past, present and future, while still convincing people that it makes sense.
Yuri: When does a brand code stop being an asset and start becoming a creative constraint?
Mimma: Brand codes are the elements that make a brand recognizable. They can be the logo, the colors, the typography or certain recurring symbols. Think of Hermès orange, Tiffany blue, Chanel’s black and white, the Chanel logo, Gucci’s horsebit or the camellia at Chanel.Those codes become a constraint when a new author, in this case a fashion designer, is caught between two expectations.If they reference the codes too much, it becomes repetition and it becomes boring. We want innovation. If they disregard them completely, people say, “This is not Chanel,” or “This is not Gucci.”The brilliance lies in the middle. You take those codes and evolve them in a way that reflects the world we live in now. You create something relevant and desirable, but still recognizable.That requires confidence from the creator, but also from the people employing the creator. In the era of social media, there will always be unhappy people. Some will say it is too much. Others will say it is not enough.This evolution is natural. It happens in every field, not only fashion.I always use cars as an example. There are moments when the typical shape of a car begins to change. You see a new BMW or Mercedes and initially people think it looks strange. Then the eye adapts. Eventually the old version begins to look dated.Fashion moves much faster. A car does not last one season. A collection does. Sometimes a designer barely lasts longer than that.They do not always have enough time to consolidate their signature.There is also another complication. You are not only inheriting the founder or the legacy of the brand. You are inheriting the creative director who came before you.If that person was successful, recognizable and loved, the audience expects you to remain faithful to that legacy while also being yourself. You have to be extremely confident and skilled to blend all of those codes without destroying the DNA of the house.
The Audience and the Brand
Yuri: Has the audience become part of deciding what a brand is allowed to do?
Mimma: Absolutely.I quoted Roland Barthes and The Death of the Author. His argument was that once you release a work, it is no longer entirely yours. It belongs to the interpretation of whoever encounters it.With fashion and digital media, that has become much more extreme.Everybody is now a critic. Everybody is an observer. And people can build their own followings, which gives them a kind of authority.I believe in opinions. I give opinions myself. What I struggle with is people giving extremely strong opinions without knowing the facts, without understanding the history of fashion or without having any knowledge of the subject.Today, someone can have enormous influence simply because they have a keyboard and an audience.That can affect a creative director.You can have a designer who produces strong commercial results, but if that designer is intensely disliked in the public sphere, I believe that can eventually influence management.The voice of the public has become so loud and so important that owners, executives and even investors can be affected by it.That, for me, is one of the biggest creative constraints.If you are writing, designing or creating while constantly thinking about what the public square will say, you cannot be at your most creative.
Chanel, Gucci and Balenciaga
Mimma: I think the differences between Matthieu Blazy at Chanel, Demna at Gucci and Pierpaolo Piccioli at Balenciaga illustrate this very clearly.I do not work for Chanel and I do not know the Wertheimer family, so what I am about to say is my interpretation.My sense is that Chanel took its time. They waited until they were confident about choosing Matthieu Blazy. They made the decision with intention, strategy and resources behind it.I imagine the message was essentially: “We chose you. You are here for the long term. Show us what you believe should be done.”You can see confidence in the collections. They feel self-assured. He looks as though he is enjoying the possibilities that such an extraordinary house gives him.People can say, “It’s not Chanel enough.” People will always criticize. But I think the collections have been very strong.Then you look at Demna at Gucci.He did something extraordinary at Balenciaga. He created a tribe and a very recognizable cultural identity around the brand.The assumption may have been that he could do something similar at Gucci.But Gucci is not Balenciaga.Gucci has its own history. People expect innovation from Gucci, but they also associate it with different periods and different identities, including Tom Ford and Alessandro Michele.Demna himself has said he does not want simply to reproduce what he did at Balenciaga.Then there is Pierpaolo Piccioli at Balenciaga.Pierpaolo is an extraordinary couturier. He is not the same type of cultural operator that Demna is.When he arrived at Balenciaga, I thought it was fascinating because Balenciaga is one of the great couture houses in fashion history.But I felt that he was initially being asked to maintain too much of what had already existed.The result felt like a hybrid that did not fully belong to him.Then he did couture, which is his territory, and suddenly you could see his signature again.That is what I mean by confidence. It was his point of view expressed through the codes of the house.
Has Fashion Become Afraid?
Yuri: We have talked about constraints, but I think there is no bigger constraint for a creative person than fear. Fear of the audience, fear of poor sales, fear of cultural appropriation, fear of moving too far from the archive.Has fashion become creatively afraid?
Mimma: Very much.There is everything we have already discussed, but there is also the period we are living through: uncertainty, wars, inflation, contraction and pressure on consumers.There is fear from management because they have to answer to shareholders. There is fear from designers because they do not want to fail publicly or lose their jobs. And there is fear of being disliked.Creative directors are human beings. They read what is written about them.Some designers appear more self-assured than others, but everyone is affected by criticism in some way.Over the past year or year and a half, I think there have been very few “wow” moments in fashion.There have been very pretty, very expensive, very luxurious clothes, but often they have simply been pretty clothes.Why bother with Fashion Week if you are not going to give me something that moves fashion forward?That is what I think fear does.Fashion also has a responsibility to train the eye.Sometimes people look at a collection and say, “I would never wear that.” But that is not necessarily the point. The runway can introduce an idea that gradually changes what feels normal.The eye needs time to adapt.I hope we begin seeing more of that again.
Who Chooses the Creative Director?
Yuri: I am interested in the process of bringing in a new creative director.In film, actors and directors have representatives and agents. Does that kind of infrastructure exist in fashion?
Mimma: It works a little differently.The first thing a CEO or a luxury group often does is go to a headhunter. There are headhunters who specialize in creative directors.They receive a brief from the company, and sometimes that brief can be extremely narrow.It might be: “We need somebody who can sell.” Or, “We need somebody within this budget.” Or, “We want this particular star designer.”Then there are CEOs and executives who already have their own ideas and approach people directly.And there are also powerful figures in the industry whose opinions can matter.The important thing is whether the decision is being made strategically or reactively.Gucci is a useful example.When Alessandro Michele left, the company moved in a dramatically different direction with Sabato De Sarno.He is a talented designer, but his approach was almost the opposite of Michele’s.My argument is that Gucci needed to understand what Gucci itself needed to become, rather than simply reacting against what came before.Then they moved again and appointed Demna.When strategic decisions are made from fear, emergency or urgency, it becomes very difficult.That is why I keep returning to Chanel.They took their time.If you can afford to take your time, take your time.
The Luxury Paradox
Yuri: When we think about luxury, we think about something that takes time. Something crafted and considered.But on the business side, the approach is often much faster. It is quarterly. It is about the stock going up and down.
Mimma: Exactly.Chanel is private, which gives it more freedom.A publicly traded company has a different kind of pressure.
The Next Generation
Yuri: Are you optimistic about the next few years when you look at the talent and the business of fashion?
Mimma: I am optimistic.I have the privilege of working with the next generation, and I love finding talent.If you really want to find talent, you have to go to graduate collections. You have to teach. You have to spend time doing things that are not necessarily glamorous.Sometimes young designers come to me and I have to tell them honestly, “This is derivative. This is not going anywhere.”That is difficult.But sometimes you find a pearl.There are several designers in the market right now who have real talent. Some are beginning to become known, while others are still waiting for the right opportunity.The problem is money.These designers have talent. They understand how to make work that is creative but also relevant and wearable.They need a house or an investor.Investment is very difficult to find right now.Investors often tell young companies, “Come back when you have traction.”But how do you build traction if nobody gives you the money to begin?It becomes a vicious circle.I remain optimistic because I regularly see the graduate work at Central Saint Martins and there is so much creativity.There is also this extraordinary blending of cultures.People are coming from all over the world and they are increasingly proud of where they come from. A designer from Uzbekistan, for example, may bring something from Uzbekistan into a collection and combine it with what they are seeing in London.The same thing happens in Paris, New York and elsewhere.That mixing of cultures is incredibly exciting.The established names remain dominant, but there is a generation coming behind them with enormous creativity.So yes, I am very optimistic.
Good Call / Bad Call
Yuri: Now we are going to move into a segment we call Good Call / Bad Call. I am going to give you a few headlines and you tell me what you think.
Gucci and Pricing
Yuri: Gucci has begun selectively lowering prices on some products. Kering is trying to reconnect with aspirational luxury consumers after years of significant price increases across the sector.Is selectively lowering prices a smart way to bring aspirational consumers back into Gucci, or does reversing prices risk damaging exclusivity and long-term pricing power?
Mimma: Good call, but it depends on how you do it.You need to be extremely careful about how you communicate a price reduction.You cannot make your customer feel that they were previously paying for your inefficiencies.Internally, you can have those conversations. But externally, you need to frame it differently.You can say that you are absorbing some of the margin in order to make the product accessible again. You can introduce new products at different price points. You can make adjustments through future collections.The strategy itself is necessary.I think many luxury companies will eventually have to reconsider pricing.But this is luxury. Communication matters enormously.So: good call, but communicate it properly.
High Fashion Moves Into More Accessible Brands
Yuri: Aaron Esh has taken on creative leadership at AllSaints. He brings a high-fashion background into a much larger and more accessible fashion business.We have seen other designers make similar moves.Is bringing high-fashion talent into accessible brands a smart democratization of good design, or does it further erase the distinction between luxury, designer fashion and the high street?
Mimma: Good call.We are seeing more designers move into permanent creative roles at accessible brands rather than doing only one-off collaborations, which is what H&M began popularizing about 20 years ago.I think it is good for the industry because consumers get more creative and innovative fashion at an accessible price.It is also good for designers.Working for a large accessible brand can mean less relentless scrutiny than working at Gucci or Dior. There may be fewer collections, more stability and, in many cases, significant resources.It is good for the market as well.Luxury prices have pushed many aspirational consumers out of the category. Those consumers do not necessarily want cheap fashion. They want accessible fashion that is well designed.Brands such as Uniqlo, Zara and COS are becoming more sophisticated about that opportunity.They can become slightly more expensive while offering much better design.That gives ordinary consumers access to fashion that feels considered without requiring traditional luxury prices.So, definitely a good call.
Yuri: It is interesting to think that some of the most exciting creative jobs in fashion may eventually exist outside luxury.
Mimma: Absolutely.There was a time when a top actor would never do television. Television was considered beneath them.Then television changed.The same thing can happen in fashion.Once respected designers begin taking these roles, other designers see that it is possible.The important thing is not whether something is technically “luxury.” It is whether it has creativity, good design and the right price for what it offers.If luxury wants to remain extremely expensive, then it has to deliver accordingly in quality, service and experience.
Shein and Ultra-Fast Fashion
Yuri: Shein has reached the public markets in Hong Kong at a valuation of roughly $26.5 billion, dramatically below the roughly $100 billion valuation it reached in 2022.The company is also facing tariffs, regulation and questions about the future of ultra-fast fashion.Is Shein’s continued push for global scale a smart move because it remains one of fashion’s most efficient digital business models, or does the collapse in valuation suggest ultra-fast fashion may be reaching its limits?
Mimma: I do not know whether I can answer this simply as Good Call or Bad Call because I am fundamentally opposed to ultra-fast fashion.The market has changed. Governments are introducing regulations and taxes that make the old economics more difficult.Ultra-fast-fashion companies benefited enormously from an environment in which extraordinarily cheap products could move across borders with very little friction.That environment is changing.I also think there is some consumer fatigue.Consumers can increasingly find accessible fashion that is better designed, which gives them alternatives.There are also growing questions around labor practices and the broader social cost of producing clothing at extremely low prices.So if the question is whether I think increased pressure on ultra-fast fashion is a good development, then yes.
The Floor Is Yours
Yuri: We finish the show with a segment we call The Floor Is Yours. Mimma, the floor is yours.
Mimma: I want to talk about what I call “Galliano-gate.”I am less interested in debating whether John Galliano personally deserved the exhibition than in what the controversy says about power, particularly the power of institutions, Condé Nast, Vogue and Anna Wintour. My impression is that there was a degree of overconfidence in assuming that such a decision could be made without meaningful opposition.What happened demonstrates that cultural power has limits, and I think that is healthy. Nobody should have unlimited power.I also find the Met’s position interesting because an exhibition of this scale could not have been announced without significant institutional approval.The public explanation is that the exhibition would no longer proceed following discussions with Galliano. I have my own interpretation of what happened behind the scenes, particularly given the reporting around donors, brands and the controversy surrounding the decision.But the more interesting question is not Galliano himself.It is how cultural institutions make decisions when reputation, money, donors and public opinion all intersect.Museums depend on patrons. Fashion depends on customers. Media organizations depend on audiences, advertisers and reputation.Those forces are connected.I think the episode shows that even extremely powerful cultural figures and institutions cannot simply assume that what is happening in society will not affect their decisions.It will.And that, for me, is the real story.
Yuri: Do you think this could mark the beginning of a larger change at Condé Nast?
Mimma: I honestly do not know.We have seen many controversies before and institutions often continue largely unchanged.But I do think this is a significant crisis for Condé Nast and for Anna Wintour. What happens next will be very interesting to watch.
Yuri: Mimma, thank you so much for joining us.
Mimma: It was amazing. I am sorry it is already over.