Mugging or investment? Italians seem very sensitive and nationalistic when it comes to being scandalized by the acquisition of a Made in Italy jewel by foreign groups. Even the last sale, that of Loro Piana which passes under the control of Lvmh, was immediately defined as yet another French raid on Italian soil. Is this really the case, and should we only regret it, or isn't it rather a question of a further investment in a reality of great value, that of fashion, the only one that attracts international interest from all points of view? Asking yourself why no financial-industrial center capable of carrying out similar operations in the luxury sector has been born in Italy means going to the heart of our business model.
The Emilian Burani had tried to become a group with more prestigious brands, with botched strategies and bankruptcy outcomes, as well as the Molise Tonino Perna, who had gotten into debt to acquire Ferré, arriving at the final defeat of It Holding. For a brief phase it seemed that even the Marzotto group could go the way of the great Italian fashion pole: it was the period of Hugo Boss and the Valentino Fashion Group listed on the Stock Exchange. But even in that case, the further step was to sell to the Permira fund (which then sold Valentino to the Emir of Qatar).
In Italy, true “luxury groups” capable of aggregating different product and creative stories and increasing their value while respecting their autonomy have not been born. An emblematic case is that of Prada which, in 1999, seemed interested in becoming a variegated hub of creative luxury: in that year, and until 2001, Patrizio Bertelli had gradually acquired Helmut Lang, Jil Sander, Church's, Azzedine Alaia, Car Shoes, Genny and Byblos and a share of Fendi. The owner of Prada had even contested the takeover of Gucci: it was 1999, but after a few months, and with a "nice capital gain" (as Bertelli himself defined the 230 billion old lire) he had sold his block of shares to Lvmh (which then lost Gucci's final battle with Pinault's PPR).
It was however the period in which Bertelli still thought of going on the Stock Exchange with the strength of a large multi-brand group: but the fall of the Twin Towers and the listing project, together with the heavy debt accumulated, pushed him towards a completely different. The "foreign" brands were all sold (except for Church's and Car Shoes) and the creativity of Miuccia Prada, together with a courageous strategy of commercial expansion on new markets, made the Prada and Miu Miu lines grow so much as to allow, two years ago, the listing in Hong Kong of a group strongly characterized by its own creative identity. In fact, this is the point: the Italian path of development of fashion companies follows the continuous line of internal creativity and, on the other hand, does not hit the target as soon as it detaches from it. The hypothesis is confirmed by all the great Italian fashion successes.
We are talking about the Salvatore Ferragamo group, capable of attracting investors on the Stock Exchange but reluctant to make acquisitions which, in the fashion sector, add to the family brand. We are also referring to Tod's, Della Valle's great success, which also has the Hogan and Fay brands but which were also born and developed in-house. And finally, last but first in importance, the Armani group, emblem of a creative resource that does not want to mix either with finance or with other corporate histories. It is known that Bernard Arnault has been courting Armani since 1998 and "King George" has repeatedly used it to assess the real appeal of his company. The Lvmh group has returned to the attack several times and still does not give up, perhaps relying on the age of the founder (who is about to turn 79) and on the lack of a real heir. The French group was not the only one to make offers that Giorgio Armani has always rejected, there was also L'Oreal, its partner in cosmetics.
But why has the stylist-entrepreneur, in addition to refusing to sell or make room for a partner, never even chosen to transform his own group into a large international luxury hub? Because he too, indeed he above all, has maintained the pride of his creations, the individualism of his brands and lines, of his work, in short, his true passion. Giorgio Armani distrusts finance, and one should ask himself if it is not also the fault of our financial system, he would not bear to be accountable to shareholders but neither would he be able to passionately develop brands that are not his own, not generated by his personal creative effort. For him, as for Prada, but many other cases could be made, the fashion enterprise has a value closely linked to its creative and entrepreneurial history.
If this "Italian syndrome" has very successful outcomes in the cases mentioned, in many others it does not allow to reach the dimensions for real development on international markets, the only ones that today guarantee a good turnover. And so it happens that Italy is today a diamond mine, of relatively small companies, often with a complete production chain (that of Loro Piana, for example, ranges from an organized network for the acquisition of the best raw materials to a textile company high-level and up to the beautiful luxury fashion shops) very attractive for those who, like the French, know how to respectfully manage the history of Italian brands, also knowing our production reality well since everyone, from Lvmh to Kering (ex Ppr of Pinault) produce in our districts. Because the French model – this must also be said, on the flip side – no longer has fashion and luxury factories in its territory.
Note: Brands controlled by the two main French luxury poles.
LVMH: Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Givenchy, Celine, Kenzo, Fendi, Pucci, Bulgari, Acqua di Parma, Cova, Loro Piana.
Kering (ex Ppr): Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Stella McCartney, Alexander McQueen, Sergio Rossi, Brioni, Pomellato, Richard Ginori, Puma, Volkom.
