10 brutal truths about running a fashion brand in London
Inside the closed-door roundtable where a handful of London’s independent designers spoke candidly about being stuck in the middle.
This summer, at a moment when the British Fashion Council has just changed its leadership and is reconsidering its future strategy, 1 Granary brought together a group of eight “middle-class” independent designers to ask hard questions about what it really takes to sustain a brand in London today. But first, the news.
Pope x Louis Vuitton
The Pope was up all night to get lucky on Saturday, as musician and Louis Vuitton creative director Pharrell Williams performed a free concert in Vatican City that he co-directed (for accuracy’s sake, he actually sang “Happy”, not “Get Lucky”). Vuitton seemingly had no involvement in the event, meaning the Vatican remains one of the last institutions impervious to a branded takeover (did anyone else experience a wave of deep, deep depression scrolling through the ‘Studio 54 as brought to you by Valentino Beauty’ content?). Still, Pharrell did manage to milk some earned media value out of the event by meeting the Pope and shaking his hand while wearing full-look.
LVMH x Emporio Armani?
According to his will, the late Giorgio Armani wants his heirs to gradually sell his company (valued at somewhere between five and 12 billion euros) or seek a market listing, “setting off a race to control one of the world's best-known brands and a major shift for a company highly protective of its independence and Italian roots,” as per Reuters. The will stipulates that priority should be given to the luxury conglomerate LVMH, as well as the beauty corporation L'Oréal, eyewear empire EssilorLuxottica, or another group of "equal standing". If LVMH buys Armani, another piece of Italy’s empire will be absorbed into the group, alongside Fendi, Bulgari, Loro Piana, and Pucci. Still, Versace is on its way to being acquired by Prada, taking it back from the Americans and into one of Milan’s few remaining fashion family businesses.
Prankles
That’s Prada-ankles. Aren’t they nice? (Slow news week)
Job and work opportunities
London gallery Herald St is looking for a full-time gallery assistant. Send a CV and cover letter to jobs@heraldst.com by 21 September
Photographer Rachel Fleminger Hudson (Dazed, Miu Miu, Self Service) is looking for a photographic intern in London. Email her at flemingherhudson@gmail.com
By Jorinde Croese
Framed around the idea of fashion’s “middle class” – labels that have survived beyond the first burst of hype, or in some cases closed after five or more years – the roundtable featured Eudon Choi (founded in 2009), palmer//harding (2011), Maria Grachvogel (1994), Holly Fulton (2009), Cozette McCreery of Sibling (2008), Rupert Sanderson (2001), Amy Powney of Mother of Pearl (2013), and Georgia Hardinge (2010).
The conversation was candid and wide-ranging: from the limits of early support to the business pressures no one wants to talk about, and the fragility of creative livelihoods to London’s evolving place on the global fashion map. What emerged was not just frustration, but also resilience and a constructive determination to be heard. If British fashion is to thrive, the designers argued, it must rethink how it supports its talent – not only at the start, but throughout the long, difficult middle stretch.
Below are 10 key takeaways from the discussion: lessons that speak to the challenges of survival, the possibilities of growth, and the urgent need to build an ecosystem that values longevity as much as novelty.
1. Early support is inconsistent
For many, the earliest years of running a label were shaped by a confusing patchwork of schemes, mentorships, and grants that often did not align with the actual needs of a small business. While funding programmes existed, they frequently came with strings attached – money earmarked for fashion shows rather than for building infrastructure, or mentors with corporate backgrounds advising micro-labels producing runs of twenty pieces. This mismatch left many founders feeling that the system was designed to generate buzz rather than sustainability. What was missing was not intent but relevance: guidance on cash flow, hiring, logistics, and small-scale production, rather than advice better suited to multinational houses. For a young designer juggling every role – creative director, CEO, accountant – the difference between theoretical mentorship and practical, context-specific support can be the difference between survival and collapse.
2. Money alone doesn’t solve problems
One theme repeated throughout was the limited impact of cash injections without accompanying structure. Winning a fund or prize might allow a brand to stage a show or cover seasonal costs, but rarely did it shift long-term outcomes. Without strategic guidance, that money disappeared quickly, leaving the same structural weaknesses in place. Designers emphasised that what they need most is a blend of investment and expertise: advice on scaling production, structuring a team, managing contracts, and planning growth. The real value lies in capital that comes with conditions – such as mentorship, board oversight, or access to shared services – that ensure it is deployed strategically. Money on its own may extend a brand’s life temporarily; money combined with knowledge can transform its trajectory.
3. The middle stage is the hardest