Aisle 9: Did Maria Grazia Chiuri Actually Leave a 'Mess' at Dior? Gemini Says 'No'

Aisle 9 Cleanup: Suzie Q’s use of the word ‘mess’ to describe Jonathan Anderson’s challenges at Dior, created by former creative director Maria Grazia Chiuri, ran counter to everything I knew about her tenure at the #2 brand at LVMH.

Anne is sharing Gemini’s response verbatin to my query for confirmation of this assertion.

For clarification about what in the world Anne is doing with this post — Aisle 9 Cleanup??? — read my overview Aisle 9 Cleanups: Correcting the Record on Gross Errors and Lies About Brands and Business. [link].

Hope Springs Internal

Today, I just don’t know what to make about Anderson’s Dior — although clarification might come Monday, with his Couture show in Paris.

I’ve been really confused by the persistent statements that it could take 4-5 years for Anderson’s Dior vision to codify — including by the designer himself.

Today, we stay focused on that topic. Also Anne clarifies what might be a misunderstanding of what these writers are actually saying, compared to what she’s inferring from their words.

Is the 4-5 Year Designer Vision Window Understood in Luxury Brand Analysis?

Reading Cathy Horyn’s insightful review of the Dior Men 2026 by Jonathan Anderson show last week got me thinking.

Like her analysis for The Cut, I loved Anderson at Loewe. AOC is full of admiration and accolades for the designer.

Cathy Horyn wrote about Anderson: “ . . . maybe I just spend too much time around fashion people for my own good”. That statement has big credibility points on AOC. It shows that Horyn is self-reflective about the positions she’s taking — which are affirmative for Anderson.

Horyn references Demna at Balenciaga taking 4-5 years to find his vision. Demna is now in the queue, as we dig into his performance at Balenciaga. It’s quite positive actually.

There has been a narrative since summer 2025, after Anderson’s first men’s show, that he might well follow this delayed success path. Anderson himself has referenced this timeline.

Above: Maria Grazia Chiuri with her friend Eleonora Abbagnato, the Director of Ballet at the Teatro dell’Opera di Roma. Related: Dior’s Maria Grazia Chiuri + Eleonora Abbagnato’s Ballet Costumes for ‘Nuit Blanche’. AOC New Humanism

My response to Anderson’s offer of a long timeline to get where he’s going was — and I paraphrase — if Maria Grazia Chiuri had walked into Dior saying she needed 4-5 years to figure out what she was doing, she would have been fired.

With Suzie Q’s Aisle 9 Cleanups piling up in the queue, Horyn’s comment on Demna taking 4-5 years to find his vision for Balenciaga prompted me to wonder if we have a communication breakdown.

I’ve been interpreting the extended time of 4-5 years for a creative director to get his/her bearings for a brand, to imply that the owners — LVMH stockholders in this case of Dior — might have to subsidize losses and a stock devaluation during that period.

In 2025 we watched LVMH stock lose value that defied all financial logic. 2026 brings a new set of crises, many created by American President Donald J. Trump.

Anne is very sensitive to markets — which doesn’t mean that the risk isn’t taken. But the risk is understood and acknowledged. A 5-year window for success sounds really dubious in today’s world.

We delve into this topic in the upcoming Celine under Hedi Slimane analysis. Suzie Q observed that Hedi took a long time to develop at Celine.

Gemini says Bullpuckey.

Branding Excellence vs Revenue and Profit

It never occurred to me that perhaps Suzie Q was suggesting that Hedi taking 4-5 years at Celine or Horyn referencing 4-5 years for Demna at Balenciaga wasn’t a financial-consequences opinion.

Rather, Celine had an excellent P&L [profit and loss statement] and all the annual goals were being met with the changes in play. But Hedi wasn’t satisfied with the actual brand positioning until 5 years into his tenure.

Both statements can be true simultaneously: that the brand is still making money, especially when the luxury house is backed up with strong accessories and beauty sales.

But branding and design is all over the map from one season to the next. I never had that feeling about either designer and Gemini does back me up with lots of facts and figures that the brands made serious money early on — especially at Slimane’s Celine.

I do need to get an answer for myself to this confusion, and it would be great for the writers to explain what they mean, with this 4-5 years window commentary.

Also, I can take up the issue with Gemini, getting an answer in 2 secs. That seems like a good route to take.

So now, we’re in cleanup mode. Did MGC really leave Dior in a mess, as Suzie Q alleges? ~ Anne

Gemini Talks Aisle 9 Cleanup Facts on the Alleged Mess — Suzie Q’s word — that Maria Grazia Chiuri Left at Dior

From a business perspective, the "mess" at Dior in 2025 is less a catastrophe and more a controlled, strategic restructuring driven by a necessary response to market slowdowns, rather than an existential crisis.

While analysts described the situation as challenging, characterizing Dior as a "problem child" compared to the high-flying Louis Vuitton, the brand's fundamental strength remained, according to 2025 reports.

Here is a breakdown of how bad the situation actually is:

1. The Financial Situation: "Resilient Slowdown"

Declining but Resilient: In the first half of 2025, the Fashion & Leather Goods division [including Dior] experienced a decline, but it was generally characterized by LVMH as showing "good resilience" amidst a very challenging global economic environment.

High Profitability: Despite a drop in top-line revenue, Dior maintained a very high operating margin [roughly 22.6% in H1 2025], proving its ability to command premium pricing and maintain brand desirability.

The "Base Effect" Problem: Much of the 2025 disappointment was due to comparing results against the extraordinary post-pandemic boom of 2023–2024, which was driven by unsustainable, pent-up consumer demand.

2. The Creative Shift: "Strategic Refresh"

The Change: Maria Grazia Chiuri departed after nine years, and Jonathan Anderson was appointed as creative director for both women's and men's collections, signaling a move toward unifying the brand's creative vision.

The Rationale: This move was designed to address "brand fatigue" and inject new energy into the label. While creative turnover causes short-term chaos for internal teams, it is viewed as a necessary move to avoid long-term stagnation.

Immediate Impact: Anderson's first collections were "tremendously well received," and he was immediately credited with high media impact value, suggesting a successful quick turnaround in brand perception.

3. Real "Mess" vs. Narrative: The Reality

Sweatshop Scandal: In mid-2025, reports regarding subcontracting and labor conditions in Italian workshops presented a significant reputation risk and a contrast to the luxury image, which was more of a reputational "mess" than the creative shift.

Regional Headwinds: The primary business issue was not a failure of the brand itself, but rather a sharp drop in Japanese sales—due to the end of a tourist spending boom—and a slower-than-expected recovery in China.

Summary of the Situation

The 2025 "mess" is a strategic adjustment to a mature market. Dior remains one of the strongest, most desirable, and most profitable luxury houses globally. The leadership changes in 2025 are designed to re-energize the brand for the next growth cycle, rather than to save a failing brand.