Last month, the news was released that Hedi Slimane, creative director of Yves St Laurent, intended to re-name the brand in an attempt to 'thrust it into a new era modern'. Namely the most significant decision was to remove 'Yves' from all branding. While the majority of the largest fashion houses use the singular surnames of their original founders (think Gucci, Prada, Chanel) it seems unnecessary for YSL to take the same direction at this point in time, especially as using the forename of its founder seems bizarrely unrelated to whether the brand is perceived as being outdated.
I'm really glad that they have decided to keep the original YSL acronym logo that is recognised worldwide, although it seems slightly pointless to me that Slimane hasn't committed his decision to all areas of the branding.
 |
| Source |
It all looks nice enough, but I think this is really a prime example of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', although I'm sure, as with all changes, Saint Laurent will feel as though it has always been the brand's name after a while.
What do you think of the new branding? A good way to take YSL forward or completely unnecessary?
I think it's completely unecessary. I think the name is well known and rolls off the tongue for those that are familiar with it. It definitely doesn't have the same high fashion feel to it, reminds me to St Micheal at M&S!!
ReplyDeleteThe January Girl
I definitely subscribe to the ' if it ain't broke, don't fix it' theory! I think it will take a while for the new branding to get recognition, as the YSL logo is so recognisable!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it will catch on eventually, but it's just a shame to do it in the first place. He could have just modernised the packaging, not the actual name!
Delete