Gucci trainers made in China are a political issue

The controversy surrounding Gucci’s ‘Drip’ trainers, made in China, erupted a few hours before Demna’s third fashion show, which was spot on in its casting, featuring actresses and grand dames such as Osanna Visconti and Naty Abascal, on set – which previewed the new boutique due to open in Paris – and, above all, in the designs (nostalgia for a bygone era of opulence is the overarching theme underlying these Milan fashion shows and goes hand in hand with teenagers’ craze for vinyl records and the revival of Celentano’s ‘Prisencolinensinainciusol’, from the year of grace 1972, as Fendi’s soundtrack). The sneakers in question – a logoed slip-on style reminiscent of certain designs created by Demna during his time at Balenciaga – cost 800 euros in Europe and around 1,000 in the US, a high price point even for a brand that is repositioning itself and cutting the prices of some products by as much as 30 per cent to win back the entire aspirational market segment lost in recent years.

Beyond the obvious considerations that everyone raises – which, in short, boil down to ‘why must we pay for Chinese-made goods as if they were Italian luxury goods’ – the decision by the Kering Group’s flagship brand raises a serious issue, because whilst Gucci officially states that it has chosen a Chinese supplier for the technological know-how and manufacturing capabilities best suited to meeting the performance and quality standards it sought – much as it has done in recent years with Swiss and Japanese suppliers for watches and eyewear – the issue is not merely about the ‘Made in Italy’ label, but what ‘Made in Italy’ has to offer in terms of craftsmanship, at a time when China is increasingly establishing itself as a manufacturer of premium-quality trainers. Take, for example, vulcanised rubber, which forms the basis of any sports shoe. In Italy, this remains a centre of artisanal excellence, concentrated mainly in Puglia, in Barletta, and in the Marche region; yet whilst for brands such as Golden Goose – which is entirely made in Italy – its positioning is defined by the customisation of the upper within a range of relatively classic models, including the soles, there is no evidence to suggest that the Gucci model could have been produced by an Italian manufacturer with the same characteristics sought by Demna, who—incidentally, and despite declaring in a charming little letter sent to the guests’ homes that he spent his first year at Gucci trying to understand ‘what Gucci stands for’ and that he found it in a ‘mix of good and bad taste, whatever that means’ While he articulates this position effectively, Demna does not live in Florence, where Gucci was founded, but in Los Angeles, a situation that reportedly causes some anxiety among the creative team based in Milan. And so the question we must ask ourselves once again – twenty years after Patrizio Bertelli declared that what mattered was ‘Made in Prada’ – is what ‘Made in Italy’ actually is, where and how it should be produced today, and how much it deserves investment, including in terms of government support and industrial plans. In Gucci’s case, we must simply take the board’s statements at face value, namely that Italy has not lived up to expectations – as it has in other sectors, such as watchmaking. And at this point, the problem becomes political, systemic, and relates to that famous ‘Made in Italy’ industrial plan promoted by sector associations, from Confindustria Moda to Unic, which has yet to take root.