Fashion Notebook

Oh No She Didn't! Jill Granoff Leaves Liz Claiborne for Kenneth Cole

The Gossip Girl in us finds this one kind of delicious, but the journo in us finds it kind of a headscratcher.

Jill Granoff has left her spot as the EVP of direct brands at Liz Claiborne (overseeing the company's golden children: Juicy Couture, Mexx,  Kate Spade and  Lucky Brand) to become the CEO of Kenneth Cole Productions. At her new gig, which starts May 5, Granoff will be in charge of retail, wholesale and licensing for all domestic and international operations, effectively taking over the responsibilities of brand namesake Kenneth Cole who will continue on as chairman and chief creative officer to manage the brand's positioning, product, design and advertising (maybe he can make it seem less tired and derivative!). Both are pictured, at right, in our fun-with-Photo Shop estimation of what the new deal must look/feel like.

Ok, we get it from an ego perspective, CEO trumps EVP, no question. But it kinda seems like she traded one sick child for another. While Claiborne has its own issues, including that recent $451 million loss, they at least appear to be on the road to recovery. (For more on Claiborne's situation, check out our feature, "Rough Measurements"). Kenneth Cole, on the other hand, seems to be in some seriously bad shape and we don't hear any buzz about them getting better. In fact, we've been hearing that they're on the verge of a turnaround for at least the past two years. And nothing.

In its most recent earnings report (from March 4), Kenneth Cole Productions posted net sales of $119.5 million for the fourth quarter, practically flat against last year. For the full year 2007, sales were $466.4 million, down 5.5% from 2006. Not so bad. Er, until you look at the profits. The company posted a net loss of $3.1 million, or 16 cents per diluted share, for the fourth quarter, versus a gain of $8 million, or 39 cents a share, in the year-earlier period. When the last cash register chimed in for 2007, the brand posted only $7.1 million in profits, or 35 cents a share, down almost 75% from 2006, when they posted net income of $26.8 million.

If you can't read between the lines, or you don't have your abacus out: that's not good. And why do people leave jobs that seem like they could be promising for ones that will likely be a total mess? Beaucoup d'argent, cherie! Then again, maybe Granoff's been shown a plan we're, and the earnings analysts, aren't privy to. Or maybe she just likes a challenge.

But hey, a little financial thunderstorm won't prevent us from giving you guys the PR love fest, fresh from the release:

"We are extremely excited to have Jill on our team. She has a great track record of building brands, and I look forward to working with her and leveraging her strategic and operational capabilities to improve all aspects of our company," said Kenneth Cole, in a statement. "It is a new era for me, and the company. I am confident that having an executive of Jill's stature and abilities, to partner with me and our strong management team, will allow the company to achieve even greater successes in its next chapter."

And Granoff's air kisses:

"I feel privileged to have the opportunity to work with Kenneth and the management team to realize the extraordinary potential of this global lifestyle brand," said Granoff, in a statement. "I am particularly excited to help build upon the strong brand heritage while helping to drive new growth initiatives in the retail and international arenas."

Honey, we think you'd have a better chance of doing that with Juicy Couture than Kenneth Cole, but, hey what do we know? Oh, and there was also this fun little nugget from Liz Claiborne CEO William McComb, that we're reading as a kind of "bitch please" statement:

"We have made a lot of progress towards the execution of our strategy over the last eight months, in particular by placing strong leaders in the multi-functional roles each of these companies requires to successfully expand its business," said McComb, in a statement. "We thank Jill for her valuable contributions to the company during the past two years and we wish her the very best on future endeavors. While we're disappointed to see her leave, we have a deep bench of talent at the management level, and I am confident that this will be a seamless transition."

For some reason, we picture McComb penning this while Tina Turner's "When the Heartache Is Over" booms in the background.

Lessons in Branding: Why the Woody Allen Vs. American Apparel Case Is Actually Kind of Funny

If you hadn't heard already, director Woody Allen is suing
American Apparel for $10 million, for using his image,
without permission, in one of its outdoor campaigns in May 2007.

The campaign features a photo of Allen, dressed as a Jewish rabbi in his 1977 Academy Award winning film Annie Hall, beside Hebrew script that translates to "The Holy Rebbe." (See photo, right.)

While the lawsuit is certainly interesting—or maybe not really, we find legalese to be somewhat tiresome and who isn't suing anyone else these days?—the whole situation has us kind of perplexed, then chortling, then perplexed again.

So first, you take an ego-maniac like Allen (Full disclosure: we love Allen's work; Annie Hall makes our top 10 movies of all time, though our boyfriend pulled a gifting gaff for our last anniversary by getting Manhattan, still a good movie, but it no Annie, and, for the record, we don't care if it's the deluxe edition and we once mentioned it was "our real favorite Allen movie."), and you use him in branding that doesn't, well, directly promote him and his work.

We need to note here that Allen has found a way to finagle himself into nearly all of his movie scripts, and, in the aforementioned was, indeed the main character, so this guy is no stranger to an über-level of self-promo. So we have to imagine that Allen's real beef here not that there's a promotional image of himself out there, but rather than the said image isn't promoting him in a way that he totally controls. That's totally fair, and who would want their mug on an American Apparel ad, especially without their permission? (Though some of our friends have appeared in the ads, with their all-too-eager permission.)

According to press reports concerning the lawsuit, the case argues that the use of Allen's image in the billboards in Hollywood and New York were "especially egregious and damaging," and that Allen does not endorse products or services in the United States. Hmmm... We can think of a couple things Allen has done to himself that were more "egregious and damaging" than a few billboards with a still from one of his movies, but we'll get to that later. 

Second, you take a company that has made its name with 1970s porn-style ads that feature either moist looking hipsters or their rather sleazy looking bearded brethren. We're all for it, and love the gay-themed advertisements that they've done in publications like BUTT (anyone remember those "Bottoms...And Tops" spots?!, WARNING: NSFW. A tamer spot is pictured, below, left.), but, in the end, it's just kind of an edgy sex-sells play for the apparel company, you know, with a little vintage sleaze thrown in for good measure.

This oddly brings us back to Allen, someone who's rather a 1970s vintage cartoon character, who scandalized himself with what some would call a sleazy, sexual relationship with Soon Yi, the adopted daughter of Allen's former flame, Mia Farrow. So we kind of see the relevance from a marketing standpoint. In fact, in response to a query from The Jewish Daily Forward, American Apparel rep defined Allen as the brand's "spiritual leader." And if you think about it, it's kind of dead on. Better in the 1970s, sexually provocative, somewhat over-thought and overwrought (thinking lamé swimsuits and Celebrity), well these concepts all seem to define both the American Apparel and Woody Allen "brands."

Anyhow, we're not so impressed by the outdoor ads, but they sure got a lot of attention, so perhaps this whole weird mélange is worth its weight in branding gold. Still, wouldn't something it have been cooler if AA had superimposed Allen's face on one of their own hipster-hot models? Like this. So what's the lesson here folks? Well, it remains to be seen if these ads and the lawsuit move the needle any for American Apparel (as if they need it, the stores around here are always hopping with pretty, and some not-so-pretty, young things) and if that movement outweighs any legal costs, but if so, the lesson seems to be find someone both scandalous and (considered) brilliant in their field, someone who kind of relates to your own brand values, and then slap their image up on your billboards. Without all the hassle of asking.

We're not in favor of breaking the laws, per se, or abusing someone else's likeness, but do marketers really care about such meddling things as this, you know, provided it's still selling products?

Also, it's not like American Apparel hasn't ever been on the receiving end of image misappropriation issues, but for them, it actually turned out to be kind of a good thing. They were one of the faux sponsors in a Youtube spoof dubbed "The Hipster Olympics," in which contestants from Williamsburg, Brooklyn (our nabe, coincidentally, so the satire here does sting a bit) snort cocaine to get in the game, take MySpace photos, pick out ironic album covers, and dis normals.

When we asked what they thought about it, American Apparel director of corporate finance and development Adrian Kowalewski told us that since the spot wasn't "grossly defamatory" it wasn't such a big deal.

"It's quite flattering to us that our marketing would inspire someone to do a mock ad," Kowalewski added. "We think this is a reflection of how impactful our advertising has been to our audience."

So c'mon Woody, what's the big deal, man? Can't we all just, like, brand along? Anyways, I'll let you readers sort it out.

Check out the "Hipster Olympics" video, below.

UPDATE: Target Prez Says Analysts "Over Representing" Significance of Isaac Mizrahi

We had a feeling the top dogs over at Target would have to  respond to designer Isaac Mizrahi's jumping ship to head design over at Liz Claiborne's women's division.

As we said in our previous post, Mizrahi reportedly brought in about $300 million in annual sales to the retailer, which reported annual sales of $61.5 billion yesterday.

Here was the statement regarding Le Mizrahi's defection, from Target President Gregg Steinhafel.

"As it relates to Isaac Mizrahi, we've enjoyed a terrific five-year relationship with Isaac, and I think you all are over representing what it means at Target," Steinhafel said, in an earnings conference call. "It's approximately 3% of our apparel and accessories business, and we really view his strength as a niche contemporary collection, and any efforts that we have had to move beyond that were unsuccessful at best. And so, when the contract became renewable, we had the opportunity to, he had the opportunity to broaden his involvement with an apparel company, and we took it as an opportunity to move beyond this partnership, because we did not want to pass on higher royalty rates to a small collection business within the stores."

OMG, this is like sooo totally high school, and Target's all, like, pissed, because they got dumped first. So then they fire back, like, well, whatever we didn't really like Isaac that much anyways. But wait, it gets better.

"We're focused on our Go International and our Emerging Designer strategy," added Steinhafel. "WE can very easily replace these four or five racks on our apparel floor in the small section that we had in accessories and footwear with these new emerging designers, which frankly have been very successful, and we've got a terrific portfolio of new emerging designers coming on-stream this year, which we'll share with you as the year progresses."

Oh snap! Burn!

Ok, so maybe we did overestimate Isaac's influence, and while $300 million sounds like a lot to our poor Brooklyn writer budgets, it pales in comparison to $61.5 billion.  But still, the guy added a great personality to the floor at Target, and that's not so easy to replace. Plus, we still firmly believe that consumers connected to Isaac in a way that they will have trouble connecting with designers who are in for one quarter and out the next. But hey, what do we know? We're not making $61.5 billion a year.

While you ponder your own thoughts, here's a video clip for you to enjoy, and remember the personality that once lived at Target. Clip is from The Isaac Mizrahi Show, in a segment featuring Rufus Wainwright, the über-gay singer/songwriting, and full-time Judy! Judy! Judy! fan, who is now starring in H&M's "Fashion Against AIDS" campaign. (Seriously, how can you not love this guy? Enjoy!)