A Tale of Two Brands

Gabrielle Chanel opened her first boutique in 1912 in Deauville, France, before the first world war. Christian Dior 34 years later, after two world wars, in 1946. Both created houses that would survive and last for more than one century, but although French, their styles and visions were completely different. Chanel wanted to liberate females from the rigours that society commanded on their aesthetic and daily lives. Dior wanted to reproduce and modernize the Belle Epoque from the previous century.

Chanel, not convinced by Dior’s rhetoric, famously declared:

“Look how ridiculous these women are, wearing clothes by a man who doesn’t know women, never had one, and dreams of being one.”

She accused him of dragging women back to 19th century ideals of femininity, when women were merely objects to be admired by men. Dior saw it rather differently, of course, saying that his work was an architectural representation of the female body. But Chanel was so put out by Dior’s elaborate looks that in 1954, at 71, she came out of retirement.

It’s easy to understand why Chanel disliked Dior’s aesthetic so much, after all, it is the complete opposite of everything she stood for. Coco Chanel was a feminist and the question between both aesthetics was a battle between femininity versus feminist. She was elegant, simplistic and loved adding masculine elements to her designs because, she argued, it empowered women. She ditched the corsets and borrowed elements from menswear and sportswear. This approach revolutionized fashion and women's relationships with their bodies. Bold, independent and visionaire, Chanel was the ultimate avant-garde woman, inspiring female liberation and generations to come.

Dior, on the other hand, built structured complex and feminine silhouettes: padded hips that emphasized a corseted waist and bustier bodice, and layers of tulle, taffeta and silk organza, all inspired by the Belle Epoque. They weren’t necessarily the easiest clothes to wear, women needed time to dress and help to fasten buttons and hooks, and some of his evening dresses weighed as much as 27 kilograms. But the collections were unapologetically luxurious and a rejection of the minimalist women's tailoring that had been taking place for the past 20 years.

Dior and Chanel aesthetic may have been poles apart, but that is understandable due their gender, social class and time. Both develop their aesthetic on different society shifts, different values and revolutions. The 20s where the years of clear feminist and women liberation. The 50s pushed women back to their pre-war condition of housewives and merely objects for men’s admiration. Currently the time is in favour of women rights and empowerment. So how can a house with its core values and foundation in the 50s as Christian Dior survive?

Modern woman and the XXI century

Today, both the Houses of Dior and Chanel are ruled by women: in February 2019, Chanel announced Virginie Viard as successor to the late Karl Lagerfeld, having first joined the brand 30 years earlier, being the first female Creative Director since the death of its founder in 1971.

Three years before, in 2016, Maria Grazia Chiuri became the first ever female Creative Director at Christian Dior, setting out her intentions loud and clear in her first show with t-shirts carrying the title “We Should All Be Feminists” of the author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Right from the start Maria made a statement that Coco Chanel had made one century ago. Was the House of Dior ready to let go of the values and aesthetics of its founder? The feminine and romantic aesthetic that Christian Dior boldly declared as female architecture?

'We Should All be Feminists" t-shirt Spring 2017, 1st Maria Grazia collection for Dior

In an interview for Document Journal in 2018, Maria Grazia talked about the motivations and aesthetic of Christian Dior. Anders Christian Madsen asked directly if Maria though that Christian Dior was a feminist, to what Maria reply

“No, I honestly don’t think so. I think he was in love with women—it’s another story. He appreciated women, but it was another time. It was impossible for him to be a feminist.

Anders pushed back asking “But do you think there are feminist elements to his work?”, to what

Maria Grazia answered:

“I think he wanted to give women the opportunity to return to a sense of femininity after the war. During [World War II], women were getting industrial, dressing themselves similarly to men, so it was the idea that women could be more feminine in a simple way.”

Maria Grazia understood that the times are changing and women, once again, are taking control of their lives. Transforming a feminine brand into a feminist one is the logical step. Women nowadays don’t want the style of the new look. They want practical, comfortable, stylish clothes to feel empowered. Their clothes need to fit their daily lives, not the other way around. They have a successful career and a family in need of constant care and attention. Maria knows that because she, herself is, surprisingly, a woman. Never before Dior had a female directing the wheel in its 70 years of existence, and never before was Dior so commercially successful.

It is amazing how many men are in front of female fashion houses and collections. They may have great taste and creative innovation, but, most of them, design what they think women want and should dress, not what women really want. The success of Maria’s Dior is proof of it. In 2021, Christian Dior had a revenue of 64.2 billion euros, a growth of 49% since 2016 when Maria Grazia took over the Creative Direction of the House (even during and after the worst health crisis of the modern era).

In the House of Chanel, Coco Chanel’s influence on the fashion world and her liberation of the female body is still revolutionary and lucrative. The development and innovation of Coco Chanel’s legacy seemed an impossible role to fill until Karl Lagerfeld stepped in. Lagerfeld, like Coco, understood what it took to transform fashion for the modern woman, and, instead of abandoning her legacy for his own, Lagerfeld decided to reincarnate Coco’ style. He understood how strong and contemporary the Chanel brand was, and in order to give continuity and consistency to the brand, it was necessary to continue the work of empowering women.

And so, he reinterpreted and rejuvenated the iconic designs of Coco Chanel, inserted ready-to-wear into pop culture, bend the Chanel’ look to the style of Goths, Hippies, surfers, and robots, restoring Haute Couture to its former glory and managed to attract the younger women to a label that once had a bourgeois and older image.

Embracing the iconic motifs of Chanel – from the pearls and two-piece suits to the interlocking CCs, tweed fabrics and gold chains, two-tone shoe and 2.55 handbag – Karl Lagerfeld modernized the house’s designs while simultaneously ensuring that they remained visibly Chanel. He recognized early own that Brands and their Core Values (besides Rarity and Quality) are what designs true Luxury, not the designers that succeed them.

We can see how consistent the Chanel brand is due to Coco and Lagerfeld efforts: every product that Chanel presents is for strong, feminist, independent and empower woman, from the Ready-to-Wear collections to Couture, Cruise to Métiers d’art, from Makeup to Parfums, Skin care to Accessories. The brand work is impeccable, consistent and agreeable with the values of its founder – Gabrielle Chanel. Not only Karl Lagerfeld managed to transport the symbols and values that Coco Chanel designed in the XX century to the XXI century, Vivienne manages to keep developing the brand, keeping loyal to the first values and aesthetics.

Chanel show Spring/Summer 2015

Vivienne brought a new softness and ease to the Chanel silhouette, reflecting her woman’s perspective to what a woman is and wants in the XXI century. She, as her predecessor, chose to continue and develop Chanel’ aesthetic and vision, with the clear advantage of being a woman designing mainly for other women.

In Maria Garzia’s Dior, although we can see some of the Christian Dior’s symbols, marks and values, Garcia is taking the brand ready-to-wear and other more commercial products in a direction that is not the Christian Dior foundation. Is Maria’s Dior based on dreams and romanticism like its feminine foundation? Or in reality and practicality like todays’ feminist?

We can see this issue on the parfum, make-up and accessories departments where they produce products to attract a little of everyone, from every taste and every age group: the feminist and the girly, the feminine and the femme fatale. This illustrate the brands’ foundation problems, although the marketing, communication and branding departments try to provide us the notion of a strong brand with very solid foundation and values, with its documentaries, short-films and exhibitions, its values change or are reinterpreted according to its Creative Director.

We can see this difficulty from every designer that took Christian Dior in the XXI century, from Galliano to Raf Simons and Maria Grazia Chiuri, each designer have a different perspective and representation of what Christian Dior should be in the XXI century, a century build on female empowerment:

From left to right: John Galliano Spring Couture 2008 dress ,Raf Simons Fall 2012 Couture dress, Maria Grazia Chiuri Spring/Summer 2017 Dress

John Galliano – Galliano’s designs for the house of Dior were luxurious, extravagant, and epitomizes the fantasy and escapism of reality. Inspired by Christian Dior’s New Look and with notions of femininity, Galliano focused on developing and modernizing Dior’ designs with more dramatization and theatrical splendour. A feminine mix between history and pop culture merged in complicated and avant-garde designs that resemble work of arts.

Raf Simons - set a new signature aesthetic for the brand: sharp tailoring, creative color combinations, and skirts and very short dresses worn over pants. Comfort shoes and pockets were presented in every collection, and simplicity, practical femininity and shiny minimalist kings.

Maria Grazia Chiuri – feminist by heart, Maria’s aesthetic for the House shifts between feminine and Hellenism, peplos gowns and toga dresses, resembling Italian and Greek goddess and enchanted forest, to a feminist artistic and social revolution.

This constant aesthetic shift shows the clear branding issues in what the Christian Dior brand should be in the XXI century, in a century where women don’t want uncomfortable, romantic and static clothes like the substance of the founder.

We can see this difficulty, for example, on the Ready-to-wear collections and the Couture collections: where the Ready-to-wear is more practical and feminists, and the Couture more romantic and feminine.

But can a brand be feminist and feminine at the same time? How long until the client forces the brand to pick a side? And how do you transform a classic and feminine brand into a contemporary and feminist brand without breaking with some symbol, designs and values of the founder? And if you do, is it still the same brand?

When a century brand doesn’t find purpose/reason on the founders’ values, maybe it’s time to reconsider if it should exist at all. There comes a point when one should ask: does it make sense to keep the same brand if the public doesn’t want its foundation anymore? Doesn’t it make more sense to start a new one? Or to do a 180-degree rebranding? And is the rebranding enough to clear the old brand image from the client’ mind?

For example, me, as a Chanel’ client and consumer, I’m clearly saying to the world that I am an independent, strong and successful woman that doesn’t need a man to survive. But as a Dior’ client, who am I? What do I want to exhibit to the world when I am wearing Dior? Am I a feminine that wants to be admired? Or am I someone that wants to be seen as independent, strong woman?

It is my believe taht the best option for Christian Dior should be breaking the brand into two, in an endorsed and sub-brand brand architecture: where couture and the feminine products are named “Christian Dior”, and Ready-to-wear and the feminist product under the umbrella of “Dior”. This way you have a product for everyone, a better brand positioning and a more honest communication and marketing approach for two very different audiences:

Maria Grazia understands the direction that the house of Dior needs to take but her works seem somehow incomplete, and sometimes constrained. Breaking the brand into two, developing the two different brand identities that clearly co-inhabit in the same House, would manage the House to be more honest, and communicate more clearly to the different and broad audiences that they want to relate with. It would clearly establish an identity for the feminist client that doesn’t want to carry a feminine logo, and the feminine client that doesn’t want to showcase a feminist symbol, while simultaneously, keeping the dialogue open between the two different social poles. Afterall, a luxury brand in the XXI century can’t be generalistic...

Note: Can feminism and femininity coincide? Can a woman be feminism and femininity simultaneously? And can she be professionally respected if she has a feminine style? Too much sociology, I know. I do believe both styles and philosophies can and should coincide, but, talking from a branding perspective, it is very difficult for a brand to represent both.