What drives creative director changes? Is it a dip in sales, a shift in the board’s vision, or pressure from investors? And more importantly, what are the financial consequences when a brand changes its creative director?

Massimiliano Giornetti, director of Polimoda and former designer for luxury brands like Salvatore Ferragamo and Shanghai Tang, was undoubtedly well-suited to address the topic. He responded pointedly, stating: “Rather than continuously asking who will take over at which brand, we should be questioning what fashion houses are looking for in a creative director today. Does this role still hold relevance in the current landscape?”

Amid the relentless pressure from market forces, shifting consumer trends, and regulatory changes – such as the increasing push towards sustainability – brands often feel compelled to take steps they normally wouldn’t. Some were tempted to operate an overly aggressive shift towards “green” initiatives, while it does not even particularly align with the brand’s core identity. When facing these pressures from the market, companies often see a change in their creative director as a solution to better adapt to change, to impulse it, or solve unsatisfactory financial performances. While the reasoning might hold, it sometimes pulls companies away from one of the fundamental keys to long-term success: consistency.

A brand’s true compass

As the saying goes: “When you don’t know where you’re going, every road leads nowhere.” Before adapting to change or trying to recover growth through a change in creative directors, brands need to clearly define their values and vision, and stay committed to them without wavering. While transitions in creative leadership can have a significant impact, causing financial results to fluctuate in the short to mid-term, they can also lead to an inconsistent brand identity and, ultimately, customer confusion.

In June, Chanel announced that after 30 years at Chanel, Virginie Viard was officially leaving the French label. Earlier this year, iconic names like Moschino, Lanvin, Supreme, and Givenchy also found themselves navigating periods of transition without creative directors.

While these vacancies can be seen as challenging, they also present an opportunity for reflection and reinvention. It is a time off for some after facing fastly evolving years of constant pressure to outperform. It is a period of uncertainty which can lead to innovation, allowing brands to surprise the market with unexpected directions, staying dynamic and future-focused.

So why do creative directors leave?

This relentless race for innovation and change increasingly pushes artistic directors to leave fashion houses due to the constant demand for reinvention and the shortening of their tenures. As Amy Odell, author of ‘Anna: The Biography’ and editor of the ‘Back Row’ newsletter, aptly pointed out in an interview with Canadian retailer Ssense: “The tenure of artistic directors has shortened as brands seek to reinvent themselves. In a saturated market, there is constant pressure for more frequent changes.”

Massimiliano Giornetti, the director of Polimoda, goes even further, stating that “this frenzied dance of artistic directors illustrates a total blindness on the part of fashion houses, whose sole objective seems to be sudden artistic direction changes, without real reflection on the deeper needs of the brand”. This constant need for accelerated reinvention often leads to replacing designers before they’ve had the time to fully establish their vision.

Luca Solca, an analyst at Bernstein, explained in an interview with Les Echos that “artistic directors leave their positions when they no longer have a positive impact on sales”. Fashion houses thus aim to inject new energy and innovative perspectives into their brands, even if it disrupts the creative process. While this strategy can drive short-term sales and keep brands at the forefront of the fashion scene, it places immense pressure on artistic directors to deliver immediate results, often at the expense of long-term artistic development.

But does this apply to all brands? Doesn’t Hermès prove the contrary? Its lasting success shows that consistency, rather than frequent change, is what consumers value. Hermès remains one of the most successful luxury brands, likely because its leadership—perhaps less pressured by the demands of major conglomerates—allows it to remain true to the brand’s core vision. Hermès proves that a sustainable identity, rather than constant change, can be a winning formula.

Not all brands succeed with such drastic leadership changes. Gucci, for instance, has undergone a radical shift in values, which hasn’t always been in its favour. Innovation should not come at the cost of abandoning a brand’s identity. Take Balmain, for example: under Olivier Rousteing’s direction, the brand has undergone a remarkable transformation, modernising while staying true to its DNA. Every year, Rousteing presents fresh collections and collaborations, but Balmain’s essence remains consistent. As he recently stated: “You can bring the past into the future and make it relevant today.” What works year after year for Balmain is that customers know exactly what to expect from the brand.

This revised Balmain DNA, as interpreted by Rousteing, allows the brand to maintain steady performance year after year, avoiding the dramatic financial fluctuations seen in some other fashion houses. In contrast, Gucci’s audience, who once favoured the iconic Jordaan loafers, didn’t necessarily embrace Alessandro Michele’s fur-lined version. In seeking to appeal to a new generation, Gucci risked blurring the lines of its own history, diluting its image, and losing sight of the expectations of its most loyal customers.

So, what do fashion houses really expect from their artistic directors? “For me, an artistic director must be able to shape the identity of a brand. Being visionary and creating a beautiful collection isn’t enough. A modern artistic director needs to understand market trends, consumer behaviour, and financial analysis,” said Italian fashion designer, Massimiliano Giornetti.

Who really shapes a brand’s success?

This pressure to maintain a brand’s identity often falls on the creative director, but in reality, it’s the board, investors, and management who steer the course. As Giornetti, points it out, post-pandemic consumer euphoria misled analysts and merchandisers into believing double-digit growth could support steep price hikes. “This hasn’t been the case. Consumers are now faced with products that have doubled in price over four seasons, without any real improvement in quality,” Giornetti commented.

Concerns about slowing sales often result in the creative director being blamed for poor strategic vision, even though decisions are influenced by broader marketing, communication, and merchandising strategies crafted in collaboration with the CEO and management. This shared responsibility is often overlooked.

“The fear of a sudden block in sales has led to pointing the finger at poor strategic vision by creative directors, without however taking into consideration that behind their work there are marketers, communication, merchandisers and strategies shared with the CEO and management. We have thus arrived at non-personalised brands, deeply deprived of soul and identity. A vain global attempt to reach an increasingly younger, and by definition totally unloyal community of consumers, without understanding that fashion has moved from being a status symbol to a symbol of an individual expression,” deplored the director of Polimoda.

Some of these insights are echoed by Mary Gallagher, Paris-based associate of boutique recruitment firm Find Consulting, who pointed out that creative director changes often follow the appointment of a new CEO. These CEOs are under enormous pressure to exponentially increase revenue in an unrealistically short time frame, a trend that has been exacerbated by the luxury market downturn in 2024.

Interestingly, some brands buck this trend. Brands like Hermès, Brunello Cucinelli, Loro Piana, and The Row stand as exceptions. “In many of these cases, the company executives themselves are the creatives, or they closely steer the creative process,” Gallagher declared in a WWD interview. “Their unified vision, craftsmanship, and incremental innovation allow them to appeal to multiple generations while remaining timeless. They’ve mastered the art of being the industry’s best-kept secret.”

Concretely, what is the financial impact of creative director changes?

A change in creative director can have a profound financial impact on a fashion house, often correlating with shifts in brand identity and consumer appeal. This transition is marked by both potential for growth and risks of alienating a loyal customer base, making it a strategic decision for luxury brands.

Revenue growth through new creative vision

Hedi Slimane’s tenure at Saint Laurent from 2012 to 2016 is one of the most striking examples of how a new creative director can drive financial success. Slimane modernised the brand’s aesthetic by emphasising rock-and-roll influences and cutting-edge designs, which resonated strongly with a new generation of consumers. His transformation led to a 33 percent increase in revenue, from 470 million euros to 970 million euros in just three years according to the data from the thesis ‘The Impact of Designers Changed on Luxury Brands-Celine and Yves Saint Laurent’ by Kaitong Ou, of Lancaster University, elevating Saint Laurent to a one billion euro brand by the end of his tenure.

At Céline, Phoebe Philo similarly revitalised the brand during her 10-year tenure, bringing Céline back into the fashion spotlight. Philo’s minimalist yet chic aesthetic earned the house a loyal following, with estimates suggesting that she grew the brand’s annual revenue to between 700 million euros and 800 million euros, according to Vogue Business. Her departure left a noticeable gap, with fans mourning the end of her distinct vision.

Burberry’s financial renaissance

Christopher Bailey’s impact on Burberry was transformative both creatively and financially. When he took over as creative director, Burberry’s image had become somewhat outdated. Bailey introduced a modern, luxurious identity, repositioning the brand as aspirational rather than accessible. During Bailey’s 17-year tenure, “Burberry’s revenue grew from around 716 million pounds in 2005 to the highest figure to date in 2017, of approximately 2.77 billion pounds”, reported Statista.

By the time he left in 2017, Burberry had achieved annual revenues of 2.8 billion pounds, notes Vogue Business, securing its position as Britain’s top luxury fashion brand. His successor, Riccardo Tisci, continued to evolve the brand’s aesthetic by attracting a younger audience and celebrities like Ariana Grande and Rihanna, which helped drive further growth – new designs under Tisci saw double-digit revenue increases in 2020.

Gucci’s metamorphosis

Gucci, under Alessandro Michele, is another prime example of a creative director driving immense financial success. When Michele took over in 2015, he led an immediate transformation of the brand’s identity, aligning it with a maximalist, eclectic aesthetic that captured the cultural zeitgeist. His collections reinvigorated the brand’s offerings, resonating particularly with millennials and Gen Z. By 2019, Gucci accounted for 80 percent of parent company Kering’s sales, according to Vogue Business data, with third-quarter sales rising by 10.7 percent to 2.37 billion euros.

However, Michele’s departure in 2022 marked a turning point, with Sabato De Sarno appointed to lead a “bold reset” for the brand. This highlights the delicate balance between maintaining brand identity and innovation; although Michele’s creativity boosted revenue significantly, a new direction was deemed necessary for Gucci’s future growth.

Bottega Veneta’s revival

Daniel Lee’s minimalist yet innovative approach helped Bottega Veneta achieve breakout success during his three-year tenure from 2018 to 2021, reported BurdaLuxury. Lee’s emphasis on modern sophistication and sleek designs led to a notable increase in sales, even during the pandemic—Bottega Veneta saw a 4.8 percent rise in sales during Q3 of 2020, reminds Vogue Business, defying industry trends at the time. After his departure, Matthieu Blazy took over and continued the evolution of the brand, promising to introduce new creative directions while maintaining the house’s established identity.

Data analysis of the impact of creative director changes on financial results

To better picture the financial impact of changes in creative directors on fashion companies, let’s break down the information into a few categories. First, year-on-year revenue growth before and after the change of creative director (e.g., Saint Laurent, Burberry, Bottega Veneta). Secondly, the percentage sales growth or revenue shifts (e.g., in specific segments like leather goods or ready-to-wear, before and after the creative director’s shift).

Graph 1: Impact of creative director change on total revenue

For this graph, we compared the revenue before and after creative director changes at different fashion brands.

Based on the data collected earlier, the following table has been compiled:

Brand	Revenue before (million euro)	Revenue after (million euro)	Percentage growth
Saint Laurent	470 million euros (2012)	970 million euros (2016)	100.38 percent
Céline	250 million euros (2008)	750 million euros (2017)	200 percent
Balmain	30 million euros (2011)	300 million euros (2023)	900 percent
Gucci	3.9 billion euros (2015)	9.7 billion euros (2021)	148.72 percent
Burberry	830 million euros (before Bailey)	3.21 billion euros (after Bailey)	286.75 percent

Graph 2: Percentage revenue growth per brand after creative director change

This graph focuses on the percentage change in revenue for each brand during the tenure of different creative directors.

Analysis of the data

Significant growth

Several brands experienced substantial revenue growth after the change in creative directors: Balmain saw the highest growth at 900 percent, suggesting that the change had a massive impact on the brand’s performance, rejuvenating its appeal and boosting sales. To be noted: the figure could even be higher, as some suggest revenues before Olivier Rousteing were closer to 20 millions than 30 millions. Brands like Burberry (286,75 percent), Céline (200 percent) also had very high growth, indicating that new leadership brought a fresh vision that strongly resonated with consumers.

Moderate growth

Brands like Burberry (286 percent) and Bottega Veneta (36.36 percent) experienced moderate growth. This still represents a successful creative shift, though not as dramatic as the others.

Positive but moderate growth

Gucci experienced a growth of 148.72 percent, indicating that – if only looking at the data – while the change in creative direction had a positive impact, it wasn’t entirely transformative. However, Gucci’s growth was particularly noteworthy because it occurred in a much shorter time frame compared to brands like Balmain or Céline, achieving this impressive revenue surge in half the time it took those brands to reach similar milestones.

The graph underscores the significant influence creative directors have on the financial success of fashion brands. Brands like Balmain and Céline saw remarkable revenue growth following changes in creative leadership, indicating that the right vision can greatly elevate a brand’s appeal and profitability. Meanwhile, Gucci experienced more moderate revenue growth, but its brand transformation and performance surged significantly. However, these impressive results were challenging to maintain over time, as they were driven by a complete overhaul of the brand, leading to a major disruption in its long-established vision.

The complex role of pricing and perception

A shift in creative directors is often accompanied by changes in product pricing and positioning. Under Anthony Vaccarello at Saint Laurent, the brand moved away from frequent discounting and implemented more conservative pricing strategies, which helped maintain brand exclusivity and desirability. As a result, Saint Laurent’s leather goods and ready-to-wear collections expanded significantly, with leather goods accounting for 72 percent of total sales by 2021, while ready-to-wear grew by 21 percent, according to the aforementioned University thesis.

During Daniel Lee’s tenure at Bottega Veneta, from 2018 to 2021, the brand saw significant growth, particularly in its accessories and online segments. Handbags became a major driver of success, with sales growing by 83 percent season-on-season, according to Lyst. Leather goods also gained prominence, although precise figures for their growth were less clear. Additionally, online sales surged, with a 31 percent increase in the US and a remarkable 124 percent rise in the UK, reflecting the brand’s expanding digital presence and its appeal to a wider global audience.

Financial risks: A delicate balancing act between creativity and financial strategy

While the success stories of Slimane, Philo, and Michele illustrate the potential for immense financial gains, creative director changes are not without risks. Gucci serves as an example of how shifts in aesthetic vision can attract a different audience, which, while beneficial in the short term, can result in long-term challenges. Michele’s maximalist designs drew in new, younger consumers, but this pivot created a disconnection with the brand’s traditional customers, leading to concerns over sustaining this momentum post-Michele.

Similarly, brands like Burberry and Dior have experienced turbulence when their creative directors departed, underscoring the volatility that can accompany these transitions. For instance, Dior saw Raf Simons leave after three years due to creative differences, disrupting the brand’s continuity and leading to a temporary stall in growth.

Creative directors hold immense sway over a fashion brand’s success, driving not only its aesthetic but also its financial performance. The data shows that successful creative leadership can lead to impressive revenue growth, as seen with brands like Saint Laurent, Céline, Gucci, and Burberry. However, these transitions also carry risks, especially when the brand’s core identity is shifted too drastically. Brands that balance innovation with heritage, such as Bottega Veneta under Daniel Lee, often find sustained financial success.

In the luxury fashion industry, where creativity and commerce intersect, the tenure of a creative director can make or break a brand. The financial implications of these changes are profound, with the right vision potentially driving a brand to unprecedented heights.

Who better to conclude this analysis than Massimiliano Giornetti?

“Fashion is a serious cultural exercise applied to the industry. This is why fashion requires a very specific humus to flourish and above all, it will never be able to boom where the cultural, economic and social conditions do not allow it to exist. The proof is history, our past, which is a guide to the future.

“Fashion is something exquisitely anthropological and intrinsically philosophical.

“Fashion is a verb tense conjugated in the future.

“Fashion is an instant projected into the future that has already passed, a paradox of time. The greatest challenge for a creative director is, therefore, to create something that can last over time and aspire to immortality”.