Gucci Licensing Agreements

Nevertheless, licensing is a powerful means of growth, as it allows brands to market their valuable intellectual property (i.e. their brands) and expand their business to new markets and geographic categories with greater ease than if they did in-house. ”The more they give your brand to other people – especially licensees and franchisees – the more they will interpret it,” De Sole told WWD in 2000. In fact, the Gucci Group has only concocted licensing agreements when perfumes and glasses are absolutely necessary. In 2012, Burberry also put its beauty division under its own roof and ended the agreement with perfume interparfums in France. As the Telegraph said at the time, branding control – one of the main reasons brands have seen, or dispensed with, existing licensing agreements – was ”the key to Burberry which, under the watchful eye of Chief Creative Officer Christopher Bailey, has retained control over marketing and design for their fragrances from the beginning.” Ralph Lauren was the quintessence American brand that practically invented Preppy`s American aesthetic, but since the turn of the 21st century, the company`s image has taken a number of different hits. Today, most experts agree that unfortunate licensing agreements have watered down the brand. B, like the lower quality polo shirts made in developing countries and which have found their way into department stores in the United States. But by embroidering the company logo on cheap clothing of questionable quality, Ralph Lauren has caused the decline of his brand. Look for the address of the brand holder. You need the company`s address to be able to send a written license agreement directly to the company`s headquarters. They must also understand the laws that the corporation must respect.

You can find this information by searching Dun-Bradstreet or by speaking to a Secretary of State. You need to know the location of the business or the status of the company`s home that you can determine from the public listings or the company`s first registration. Licensing for categories such as glasses, perfumes and watches has always been a phenomenon for fashion houses, because they require specific know-how – and often huge start-up costs. Increasingly, however, designers are beginning to view licensing as a way to diversify the business rather than as a last resort. The Gucci label, owned by Kering, understood the risks of major licensing agreements and put its eyewear segment back in the house in 2014. Reuters and The Fashion Law: ”The group said it wanted to be involved in all stages of the business, from design and marketing to distribution, but to continue to outsource production.” At the investor level, the mix of licensed and unlicensed activities and the general licensing philosophy of companies will be closely examined and will be a determining factor in business valuations.