Matthew M. Williams. Swan Gallet/WWD/Getty Images.

Matthew M. Williams’ recent exit from the position of creative director of LVMH’s Givenchy after three and a half years has set the fashion world abuzz. Aside from the usual debates about the success of his tenure and possible replacements. A broader question arises: Why is the turnover of luxury fashion’s creative directors so quick?

Givenchy SS24. Alessandro Lucioni/Gorunway.com

Williams, an American, earned a name for himself by designing for the likes of Kanye West and Lady Gaga, and subsequently founding his own brand, 1017 ALYX 9SM. His upscale streetwear aesthetic fused sophisticated tailoring with utility-based metallic elements. The success of his brand and unique vision earned him the coveted spot at the helm of Givenchy, albeit for a short time.

The role of creative director is crucial to a fashion house as it sets the tone and direction for the brand. All of a brand’s consumer touchpoints: the storefront, its e-commerce experience, the look and feel of the clothing– are the product of the creative director. “A creative director has a complete vision of a brand, we often say 360 degree,” states Sophie Brocart, CEO of Patou. She continues, speaking to 1Granary, “they profoundly understand (sometimes even create or change) the mission of the brand and how to communicate it.”

Anok Yai in Givenchy SS21 Campaign. Photo by Heji Shin.

The creative director is integral to the success of a luxury fashion house; however the role has evolved tremendously over the years. It is no longer enough merely to be a creative force, but today’s creative directors must become the human embodiment of the brands they work for. According to David Langer, the CEO of the luxury, lifestyle and consumer brand strategy firm Équité, a creative director becomes “the public face, spokesperson, and tangible identity” of the brand.

Playboi Carti in Givenchy SS21 Campaign. Photo by Heji Shin.

More and more, the creative director is tasked with ensuring ever-increasing profits. Financial expectations are exceedingly high, perhaps too high to be truly sustainable for any single creative director. As a result, luxury houses feel inclined to reinvent themselves more frequently by hiring a new creative director every few years to maintain consumer interest and keep profits high. While LVMH does not publish sales figures for its individual brands, it is likely that Givenchy was underperforming under Williams’ tenure. Speaking to The Business of Fashion, analyst Luca Solca said, “I don’t believe Givenchy is on the front foot and may well be below the pre-pandemic revenue level.”

Rhuigi Villaseñor. Marco Mantovani/Getty Images.

Just this year, the fashion world has witnessed a number of swift departures of young, buzzy creative directors who were intended to inject new life into floundering luxury brands. Notable exits include Rhuigi Villaseñor leaving Bally after less than two years, and Ludovic de Saint Sernin parting ways with Ann Demeulemeester after a single season. Regarding Villaseñor’s short stint, Jessica Ramirez, a senior research analyst at Jane Hali and Associates, notes that the luxury house was following the same playbook as some of its competitors. By hiring a young, popular menswear designer with his own streetwear-oriented label, Bally seemingly hoped to cash in on a more youthful demographic to improve its fortunes.

Bally SS23. Daniele Oberrauch/Gorunway.com

However, Ramirez claims that Villaseñor was not afforded the luxury of sufficient time to reinvigorate Bally. “A year to turnaround a brand that has already been dead is very little time. I don’t think it’s fair enough to just rely on a creative director to do that,” told Ramirez to Complex. Continuing she says, “Within the year they brought this designer, they brought Bally back to the runway and some celebrities got behind it, but very little. That hype doesn’t instantly happen overnight. It does take a little bit of time and especially when you’ve lost an audience for a long time.”

Unfortunately, this profit-driven approach often results in relatively safe, but boring collections. Luxury houses no longer seem to be the boundary-pushing, agenda-setting agents in the fashion world. According to Atlanta de Cadenet Taylor, digital content creator, influencer, and the cofounder of consultancy papergirl, financial accountability is to blame. “When you have shareholders to respond to, it’s harder to be creative and risk-taking,” says de Cadenet Taylor, speaking to SSENSE. “Edgy stuff that some legacy brands do didn’t move the needle commercially, and they quickly went back [to less risky creative choices].”

Among these less risky creative choices is a reliance on brand archives to inspire present and future collections. Langer laments this, decrying what he refers to as the “endless variations of what was created decades ago with little to no inspiration for audiences of today.”

It is also interesting to note that many of these short-lived creative tenures were held by individuals with their own labels. One can argue that the overarching sameness in luxury fashion is not only based on profits, but partially a result of creative burnout. These young creative directors, thanks to their stellar work with their own labels, have caught the eyes of floundering stalwart luxury houses. However, the struggle to maintain their own brands and to revitalize failing ones with long histories could prove to be too much for them to manage.

Ludovic de Saint Sernin by Willy Vanderperre.

With Ludovic de Saint Sernin and his blink-and-you’ll-miss-it tenure at Ann Demeuelemeester, the reasons for the split are unclear. Some theorize that de Saint Sernin grappled with juggling responsibilities at Ann Demeulemeester and at his namesake brand. While the popularity of de Saint Sernin’s namesake label, Williams’ ALYX, and Villaseñor’s Rhude gave the individuals behind them a great deal of star power and credibility, this did not translate to success for the heritage brands they worked for.

In light of these rapid hirings and firings, fashion must re-evaluate its approach to appointing creative directors. Even though shaking things up with a new creative director every few years may help drive sales in the short term, brands must think in terms of longevity and staying power. Speaking to The Zoe Report, Mario Ortelli, managing partner of the luxury advisory firm Ortelli & Co, declares, “Sometimes you need a continuation. Sometimes you need a disruption.”

Creative directors also require sufficient time to develop their visions fully. On average, it takes approximately five seasons for a new creative director’s collection to sell through. By not giving these young talents the opportunity to refine their offerings, luxury brands lose the chance to establish unique and compelling brand stories. “By depending too heavily on creative directors and not arming them with non-negotiable emotional and differentiating brand markers,” Langer observes, “luxury brands … [hamper] their own ability to create long-term value.”

It remains to be seen who will replace Williams at Givenchy. Will the brand aim to revamp its image with another young, hyped designer, or opt for a more low-key industry insider? Only time will tell.

Article by Ren Wilson, Contributor, PhotoBook Magazine
Tearsheets by Chenglin Qu, Graphic Design Intern, PhotoBook Magazine

Rinse and Repeat: Luxury’s Rapid Turnover of Creative Talent