Generic Gucci

The Once-Pioneering Design House Has Lost Its Focus and Flair

MILAN, Sept. 26 Gucci has lost its panache. The label that once sent shivers through the fashion industry is transforming, with an almost urgent haste, into just another company hawking handbags and shoes to those more interested in a brand name than great style.

The spring 2009 collection that designer Frida Giannini put on the runway Wednesday was dominated by palm tree prints, thigh-high caftans and shrunken pantsuits in shades such as sea foam. The shoes had high, mean heels. And there were several striking handbags, such as a satchel in deeply textured snakeskin.

On the runway, Gucci has always underscored the importance of its eveningwear, separating it from the rest of the collection by a dramatic pause and a few seconds of darkness to serve as a visual palate cleanser. This time, there were flowing caftans that looked matronly even on a 6-foot model who is all legs and poutiness. The jersey slinks were more tempting, particularly one in lilac with a low-slung, open back.

But a good evening gown and a not-bad safari suit are not enough to save a ready-to-wear collection. The complaint has been the same since Giannini became creative director in 2005: The collection lacks a strong, clear point of view. Under the direction of her predecessor Tom Ford, the collection personified sex -- sweaty, aggressive and unabashed. Giannini made it clear that she was not interested in continuing in that vein, which makes sense. She wanted to make Gucci her own. So what does she stand for? And why should a customer pay thousands of dollars for it, especially when the U.S. economy is in the tank? This is not a small issue for a company that generates close to a quarter of its revenue in North America.

Often the garments on the Gucci runway failed to exude the exceptionalism that should distinguish a luxury label from a mainstream brand such as Zara, Club Monaco or J. Crew. But to be fair, perhaps it is not that Gucci has failed to rise to the rigors of a luxury label. It may be that mass-market merchandise has gotten especially good. J. Crew is manufacturing its cashmere sweaters in Italian mills, and the Gap has Patrick Robinson -- formerly of Giorgio Armani, Anne Klein and Paco Rabanne -- designing its sportswear. To paraphrase designer Michael Kors: If you're going to put a $1,000 price tag on a pair of trousers, there'd better be voodoo in those pants.

There was no voodoo on the Gucci runway. But the problem with the label goes deeper than a few ill-conceived frocks. And it is particularly disheartening because of the company's history.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gucci was a shell of a company. The knock-offs of its handbags sold by street-corner vendors were virtually indistinguishable from the bags sold in its shops. All of them lacked finesse and sophistication and were overwhelmed by tasteless logos. The company had fallen into such dire straits that it could barely pay its bills.

Gucci made a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of designer Ford and chief executive Domenico de Sole, becoming a billion-dollar, publicly traded brand defined by slithering sex appeal. It built up a deep store of goodwill within the industry because of its ability to nudge fashion in new directions and bring sizzle to the enterprise, which also brought customers and investors.

The company's formula for success was based on keeping an eye toward long-term success. De Sole closed well-performing but embarrassingly dowdy stores. Ford produced highly edited and focused runway presentations. And both men understood how to balance the smoke and mirrors of fashion marketing with the nitty-gritty of moving the merchandise.

Ford and de Sole left the company in 2004, forced out in a tug of war for control with the company's owner, PPR. Since then, Gucci has dismantled its reputation for womanly sizzle -- a sensibility with many admirers but admittedly limited commercial appeal. Even under de Sole and Ford, shoes and handbags were responsible for the vast majority of revenue. Giannini, whose background is in accessories at Gucci and, before that, Fendi, has continued to place the sales emphasis on leather goods. She has made the ready-to-wear, which defines the overall image of the company, vaguely girly, rocker, mod, tomboy, whatever. It changes with the wind.

Worse, a serious case of the uglies has struck Gucci boutiques, which are dominated by merchandise covered in logos and Gucci horse bits.

Financially, Gucci continues to do well. In 2007, revenue was 2.18 billion euros (about $3 billion), up 11 percent from 2006. That may be the result of an increase in the number of stores from 219 to 233. Opening stores can increase sales, but de Sole advised caution in that regard just days before stepping down as the company's CEO. In 2004, he told The Washington Post: