It’s Giving Snooze: Luxury Fashion Needs New Blood, but Where Is the Pipeline?
We Won at Versailles. So Who Owns the Value Now?
American fashion helped redefine global luxury. Fifty-three years later, its cultural influence remains extraordinary, but the question of who owns, finances and benefits from that influence deserves renewed attention.
Earlier today, I came across a Vogue Business post discussing a reported decline in LVMH’s latest quarterly sales. Accompanying the story was a video featuring Zendaya and Law Roach, two American cultural figures whose contributions to contemporary fashion are difficult to overstate. My response was characteristically diplomatic: “It’s giving snooze. The industry needs new blood. I said what I said. Bite me.”
But the more I considered the pairing of that headline and video, the more interesting the underlying question became. Here were two extraordinarily influential American talents appearing alongside a discussion about the financial performance of a European luxury conglomerate. The reasons behind LVMH’s reported decline deserve their own analysis, but that was not what caught my attention.
I was thinking about the extraordinary value American culture continues to create for the global fashion industry, and where that value ultimately accumulates.
We have spent generations demonstrating that American creativity belongs at the highest levels of fashion. Yet I wonder whether we have been equally ambitious about building the institutions, financing structures and heritage houses capable of retaining more of that value within the American fashion economy.
The Battle We Already Won
On November 28, 1973, the Palace of Versailles became the setting for an extraordinary confrontation between French and American fashion. Five American designers, Bill Blass, Stephen Burrows, Oscar de la Renta, Halston and Anne Klein, presented alongside five French houses: Yves Saint Laurent, Christian Dior, Hubert de Givenchy, Pierre Cardin and Emanuel Ungaro. What began as a fundraising event became a defining cultural moment, remembered as the Battle of Versailles.
The American presentation challenged prevailing assumptions about where fashion authority resided. Its energy, contemporary sensibility and extraordinary models, including Black American women whose contributions were essential to the presentation’s impact, demonstrated that American fashion possessed a creative language capable of standing beside Europe’s most established houses. It was not simply an argument about garments. It was a demonstration of cultural power.
There was no official commercial prize that transferred leadership of the industry to America. The significance of Versailles was symbolic and historical, establishing that American designers and their collaborators could challenge European fashion’s cultural authority on one of its most prestigious stages. The question that interests me today is what the American industry has done with that achievement.
Winning recognition is one thing. Building institutions that preserve and expand the economic value of that recognition is another.
America’s Cultural Capital
Consider how frequently American music, film, entertainment, celebrity culture and styling influence the global luxury industry. American performers and cultural figures help generate international attention, shape consumer preferences and give established brands contemporary relevance. Their influence is not confined to wearing garments. They participate in creating the cultural meaning that makes those garments desirable.
Zendaya and Law Roach offer a particularly compelling example. Their collaborations have become recognizable cultural events, demonstrating how an actor and stylist can transform clothing into narratives that travel far beyond traditional fashion audiences. Their accomplishments stand independently of the houses whose garments they interpret, yet those houses can benefit commercially and culturally from the resulting attention.
That relationship is not inherently exploitative. Fashion houses invest in design, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and the preservation of brand identity, while cultural collaborators contribute their own creative and commercial value. Both sides can benefit substantially. The question is whether American talent has sufficiently developed the institutional leverage to participate not only in the visibility of luxury, but also in its ownership and long-term economic rewards.
There is a difference between being paid to represent a brand and possessing equity in the enterprise whose value your influence helps create. There is a difference between generating a moment and owning the intellectual property capable of producing value long after that moment has passed.
America has become extraordinarily effective at exporting cultural relevance. We should be equally interested in building institutions that allow more of its creators to own the value they generate.
Where Are the Next Heritage Houses?
America is not without important fashion houses. Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger and other American brands demonstrate that substantial fashion enterprises can emerge from the United States and achieve international recognition. Their histories also illustrate the different ways creative identity, commercial scale, licensing, ownership and corporate development can intersect.
But the existence of successful companies does not mean the country’s development infrastructure has reached its full potential. Fashion businesses operate across different market segments, and the institutional requirements for building a globally competitive luxury house differ considerably from those required for a mass-market apparel business. Creative talent alone cannot substitute for manufacturing capability, patient capital, distribution, management and long-term brand stewardship.
I am particularly interested in what happens before a designer becomes commercially obvious. How does someone with extraordinary technical ability, a distinctive aesthetic or a compelling cultural history obtain the resources required to develop an enduring enterprise? How do we identify founders capable of combining creative direction with financial and operational discipline? And how do we distinguish between designers who should build independent houses and those whose talents might be more valuable within established institutions?
Not every designer needs to become the next Ralph Lauren. Some should operate profitable ateliers, others should develop specialized manufacturing businesses, and many will contribute through employment, styling, craftsmanship or creative services. But among them may be founders capable of building the next generation of American heritage houses, provided the industry can recognize and support that potential before it becomes fashionable to do so.
The Difference Between Talent and an Institution
I approach this question as a fashion designer who has spent years developing an independent house. Through HYDE, I have become increasingly interested in how creative identity, family history, craftsmanship, product development and commercial strategy can contribute to building something with institutional longevity.
Heritage is particularly important to this discussion. A compelling historical foundation cannot simply be manufactured through advertising, and not every designer enters the industry with the same cultural or familial inheritance. Some brands emerge from generations of craftsmanship, commerce or distinctive cultural experience. Others establish their heritage through the originality of their work and the institutions they build over time.
Neither pathway guarantees commercial success. A remarkable history cannot compensate for weak design, poor execution or inadequate financial management. But when a credible historical foundation intersects with creative ability and business discipline, it can provide a form of differentiation that deserves serious consideration.
HYDE is one example of the kind of independent enterprise I believe should have a pathway toward greater institutional development. Its potential must ultimately be demonstrated through products, customers, operations and sustainable commercial performance, rather than heritage alone. But the larger principle extends far beyond my own work.
The next significant American fashion house may already exist in a small studio, an apartment or a workshop. The question is whether the industry possesses the infrastructure to recognize it.
Who Gets to Build?
Fashion has councils, educational institutions, investors, retailers, competitions and professional associations. Organizations such as the Council of Fashion Designers of America already contribute to the development of American fashion through various forms of support and recognition. The opportunity is not to pretend these institutions have accomplished nothing, but to ask whether their combined resources could be organized more effectively around long-term enterprise development.
An emerging designer might require access to equipment, technical training or manufacturing partners. Another might need financing to fulfill existing orders. A more established independent house might need patient investment, distribution relationships or the managerial infrastructure necessary to expand into higher market segments.
These are different commercial problems, and they require different solutions.
The same applies to models, stylists, photographers, filmmakers and other creative professionals whose work supports fashion’s cultural economy. A young model arriving in New York may possess extraordinary potential but lack consistent access to paid assignments, professional development or legitimate industry relationships. A photographer might need opportunities to collaborate with designers, while an emerging stylist may require access to garments and editorial projects.
These complementary needs suggest an opportunity for a more coordinated creative-development system. Properly structured, such a system could connect professionals through paid work, transparent contracts, shared resources and opportunities that strengthen both individual careers and emerging enterprises.
The objective should not be to manufacture another generation of people working indefinitely for exposure. It should be to create an environment in which creative labor becomes more economically sustainable.
From Cultural Influence to Economic Ownership
This is where the conversation becomes larger than fashion. Across entertainment, music, sport and popular culture, American talent has contributed enormously to the international desirability of products and institutions. Yet cultural influence does not automatically translate into ownership, and ownership is what allows value to accumulate beyond individual contracts or moments of visibility.
A performer may receive substantial compensation for representing a luxury house. A stylist may build an extraordinary career through creative collaborations. A designer may earn recognition through an influential collection. Those achievements matter, but the underlying commercial structures determine who continues benefiting as the resulting intellectual property, customer relationships and brand equity appreciate.
If we want a more resilient American creative economy, we should be interested in expanding the range of opportunities available to creators. That includes compensation, intellectual-property protection, licensing, equity participation where commercially appropriate, access to capital and the ability to establish independent institutions.
Not every collaboration should involve ownership, and not every creator wants to operate a company. But those who possess the ambition and capability to build should have credible pathways toward doing so. The question is not whether American talent should stop collaborating with European houses. Those relationships can be valuable and mutually beneficial. The question is whether America is doing enough to ensure that its own creative economy captures a greater share of the long-term value generated by its talent.
The Opportunity Across the Atlantic
The global luxury industry is not static. Established houses face changing consumer expectations, economic uncertainty, evolving distribution models and competition for cultural relevance. A disappointing financial quarter at a European conglomerate does not automatically create an opportunity for an American competitor, but periods of market adjustment can encourage investors, retailers and consumers to reconsider established assumptions.
That is where strategic ambition matters.
If an established brand struggles to maintain excitement, the appropriate response is not simply to celebrate its difficulties. It is to examine whether independent businesses can offer compelling alternatives, whether emerging designers possess commercially relevant ideas and whether capital can be deployed to develop those opportunities responsibly.
American fashion should not have to wait for European luxury to stumble before taking its own institutional development seriously. But moments of uncertainty elsewhere can serve as reminders that commercial leadership is never permanently guaranteed.
The opportunity is to build businesses capable of competing through design, craftsmanship, service, cultural identity, technical innovation and operational excellence. Some may compete directly with established European luxury houses. Others may create entirely different categories of value.
The objective should be a stronger and more diverse American fashion economy, not merely an American imitation of Europe’s existing hierarchy.
What Was the Point of Versailles?
More than half a century after the Battle of Versailles, American fashion continues to demonstrate extraordinary cultural influence. Its designers, models, stylists, performers and creative professionals remain central to conversations about what the world wears and desires.
But cultural recognition should not be confused with the completion of an economic project. The American designers who participated at Versailles helped establish that fashion authority did not belong exclusively to Europe. The generations that followed built influential brands, expanded the industry’s commercial reach and contributed to an increasingly global fashion culture. Their accomplishments deserve recognition, but they should also inspire further ambition.
We should be asking how to develop more independent houses, strengthen existing American brands, expand manufacturing and craftsmanship, and create meaningful professional opportunities across the industry’s many disciplines. We should also be asking how to ensure that the people generating cultural value have greater opportunities to participate in its financial rewards.
As a designer and entrepreneur, I am not interested in criticizing an industry simply because criticism is fashionable. I am interested in the structures that determine what can be built, who receives support and how value moves through the institutions we create.
I have spent 33 years observing the relationship between talent, access, capital and opportunity, both within fashion and beyond it. One lesson has become increasingly clear: creating value and capturing value are not necessarily the same achievement. The distance between them is often determined by ownership, institutional capacity and the terms under which people participate.
That is the conversation I believe American fashion should be having.
We proved at Versailles that our creativity belonged at the highest levels of fashion. The next challenge is ensuring that more of the people responsible for that creativity have the opportunity to build institutions capable of retaining and multiplying its value.
Because winning the cultural argument was never supposed to be the end of the story.
And if the established luxury industry is giving snooze, perhaps the more interesting question is what we’re prepared to build while everyone else is sleeping.
Editorial note:
The Americas Were Never Without Heritage | The argument for developing stronger American fashion institutions extends beyond the achievements of the United States and the Battle of Versailles. It must also account for the extraordinary cultural, material and intellectual wealth of the wider Americas, including the Indigenous civilizations whose contributions to textiles, ornamentation, craftsmanship, color and aesthetic expression long predate European colonization.
The Maya, Mexica (Aztec) and numerous other Indigenous peoples developed sophisticated systems of weaving, dyeing, decorative arts and material production. European colonization did not introduce these societies to beauty, luxury or technical sophistication. It encountered civilizations that already possessed their own.
Colonial trade subsequently carried American materials, knowledge and aesthetic influences into European markets. Cochineal, cultivated and processed through Indigenous expertise in Mesoamerica, became an important source of brilliant red dye for European textiles. Cotton, precious metals, feathers, pigments and other materials also moved through colonial commercial networks, often under conditions of coercion, dispossession and unequal exchange.
These histories complicate the familiar narrative in which European luxury appears principally as the product of an isolated continental tradition. European craftsmanship is substantial in its own right, but its development also occurred within global systems of trade, extraction and cultural exchange. In Belize, our own cultural inheritance offers another perspective on the relationship between appearance, status and identity.
The expression ekk, which I associate with gallantry, boasting, dressing impressively and presenting oneself with distinction, captures something recognizable about the social performance of style. Its precise linguistic origin, spelling and historical usage warrant further documentation before being presented as an established etymological fact. Nevertheless, the cultural idea is important: the desire to dress beautifully, demonstrate refinement and communicate status through appearance is hardly exclusive to European society.
For contemporary designers throughout the Americas, these histories represent more than a reservoir of decorative motifs. They offer opportunities for serious research into materials, craftsmanship, design systems, cultural identity and the development of distinctive fashion institutions.
But historical inheritance must be approached responsibly. Indigenous cultures are living traditions, not unclaimed intellectual property available for commercial extraction. Meaningful engagement requires accurate attribution, collaboration, appropriate compensation and respect for the communities whose knowledge continues to sustain those traditions.
This also broadens the economic argument advanced in the article. The United States possesses enormous cultural and commercial influence, but the wider Americas hold additional sources of creative distinction that remain insufficiently developed within globally competitive fashion enterprises. Belize, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America and South America should not be understood merely as sources of inspiration, labor, raw materials or consumers for established international brands.
They are also places from which original fashion institutions can emerge, develop their own provenance and participate more substantially in the ownership of the value they create. The challenge is therefore not simply to produce American equivalents of European luxury houses. It is to develop institutions capable of expressing the
Americas on their own terms, drawing upon documented history, contemporary creativity, technical excellence and commercial discipline. Provenance is not something Europe alone possesses, and heritage is not something that must first receive European recognition before acquiring value. The Americas have centuries of extraordinary cultural and material history upon which to build, alongside living communities whose contributions deserve recognition and economic participation.
We should not confuse Europe’s success in institutionalizing and commercializing heritage with exclusive ownership of the world’s heritage.
The Americas possess the history, materials, cultural influence and creative talent to develop luxury institutions of their own. What remains is the work of organizing capital, craftsmanship, intellectual property, production and long-term stewardship so that more of the resulting value remains with the people and communities responsible for creating it.
That is the larger significance of revisiting Versailles. The question is no longer whether American creativity deserves a place beside European fashion. That argument was challenged decisively more than half a century ago. The question now is whether the United States and the wider Americas are prepared to build institutions that fully recognize, develop and retain the extraordinary value already present within their own cultural and economic inheritance.
Comments