Luxury brands don’t need strong creative designer names—they have their own, or How maisons aim to de-personalise

“Sabato De Sarno isn’t going anywhere for now—Gucci CEO has significant plans for him. The goal? To “de-personalise” Gucci, much like what was once done with Louis Vuitton.”

A few days back I’ve read insider tea on reshuffles across the fashion industry. It was broader than latest news we all read (and got tired of, didn’t we?). But what made me thinking is this part about de-personalisation.

📌In recent years, fashion houses have increasingly prioritized becoming “household names” - one that’s universally recognized and easy to associate with luxury. While the role of a creative director matters to those of us who follow fashion closely, for the majority of high-spending consumers, it’s often irrelevant.

If you were to ask shoppers leaving Dior, Louis Vuitton, or Hermès stores who the current creative director is, you’d likely hear answers like “Mr. Dior, Mr. Vuitton, or Mr. Hermès.”

Alessandro Michele’s Gucci was defined by his bold, maximalist vision, which brought cultural relevance and financial success. However, his deeply personal aesthetic became inseparable from the brand’s identity, making it difficult for Gucci to evolve as trends shifted.

When Michele left, Gucci faced the challenge of redefining itself, exposing the risks of relying too heavily on one designer. While his tenure delivered short-term success, it ultimately limited the brand’s adaptability and left it vulnerable to change.

📌The strategy of de-personalisation represents a shift toward a more sustainable and adaptable approach. This philosophy places the brand’s heritage, iconic symbols, and craftsmanship at the forefront, reducing the risks associated with being tied to one individual’s style or vision. It allows a luxury house to evolve with the times without the upheaval of completely redefining itself when creative leadership changes.

This explains the current trend of “de-personalising” legacy brands.

For smaller, newer labels like JACQUEMUS, relying on a strong personal identity remains crucial—they build their business around the personality of the founder.

The appointment of Pharrell Williams at Louis Vuitton might seem to contradict the de-personalisation trend. After all, Pharrell has undeniable personal influence. However, his role is more about leveraging his cultural impact rather than making him the defining voice of the brand. LV has mastered the art of ensuring its identity remains bigger than any individual designer. I also see his appointment as an attempt to engage with the brand’s diverse target audiences, as well as with the U.S. market, one of the largest for luxury.

In terms of de-personalization, I believe Hermès has mastered it to perfection. Honestly, I can’t even recall the name of creative director, yet I can easily envision brand’s aesthetics.