What’s wrong with Gucci €95,000 underwear
- Maryna Borysenko
- 23 hours ago
- 2 min read
Gucci is the largest brand within the Kering group. Last year it generated almost 41% of the group’s revenue. Gucci sales fell 19% in 2025 compared to the previous year.
Brands of this scale require appeal to a broad client base in order to remain stable. We can add CHANEL, Louis Vuitton, and Christian Dior Couture to this list.
This means excessive niche positioning effectively limits the inflow of new audiences. When a product becomes too conceptual, it stops functioning as an entry point into the brand.
In the top-client segment, exclusivity matters — but it is understood differently: rarity is valued when embedded in a clear status code of the brand, not when it exists as provocation for its own sake. A piece must remain relevant and legible years later, without requiring contextual explanation.
Therefore, €95,000 underwear does not solve the brand’s current need: it neither reinforces status, nor integrates into a wardrobe, nor adds long-term value to a collection.
At the same time, the product performs poorly with aspirational audiences. Instead of creating desire to enter the brand, it creates distance and a sense of misalignment with the consumer. A reverse signal emerges — discussion shifts away from desirability toward questioning the intention behind the price itself.
As a result, the piece generates attention, but alongside it irritation and friction toward the brand, as if the price exists primarily for provocation rather than value creation.
Demna’s entire show is built around hype dynamics — not only individual pieces, but the overall atmosphere appeals to a relatively narrow client group. Many of the techniques feel familiar and read as an extension of an already tested formula rather than a new long-term direction.
Such a strategy once again pushes the brand into a cycle of “peak attention — decline in interest,” creating a roller-coaster effect instead of long-term stability and gradual brand value accumulation.
The way forward is not abandoning experimentation, but restoring balance: strengthening long-term brand value through clear product pillars, the development of heritage codes, and categories that build trust and stable demand.
On this foundation, hype can function as an amplifier of interest rather than the sole engine of growth.
Ultimately, the risk is that Gucci once again undermines its foundation instead of rebuilding it progressively.
After all, has Gucci shown something to aspire to? An image of a party-all-night woman with heavy, smudged makeup, barely walking home in heels at sunrise may provoke attention, but does it create desire? Luxury depends on distance, on something to grow toward. Gucci’s feels within reach — and that may be Gucci’s greatest challenge.
