Hi, and welcome back to Line Sheet, your number-one source for… everything.

Before we get started, I wanted to let you know that my book, Selling Sexy: Victoria’s Secret and the Unraveling of an American Icon, has a pub date: October 8, 2024. (This means I will likely be missing the Miu Miu show that day.) Take this notice as a last call if you were contemplating becoming a source for me or my co-author, Chantal Fernandez, because we are almost very, very finished. I am biased, but it’s good.

Today, I’ve got some fun Cartier intel, crucial Ozempic updates, the latest from One World Trade (and WWD), and a revealing look at what Chanel really thinks about the secondhand market.

Need a last-minute gift idea? Don’t forget to check out our Guide to Mirth & Merriment (sorry, the mustard has sold out). Or better yet, give someone a subscription to Puck! Just use the code LINESHEET so that I am properly credited with your purchase. Lots of love.

Mentioned in this issue: Bruno Pavlovsky, Cyrille Vigneron, Johann Rupert, Eugenia Miranda Richman, James Fallon, Cartier, Boet Brinkgreve, Jay Penske, Oprah, Roger Lynch, Ozempic, Olivier Combemorel, John Galantic, Joyce Green, Alain Wertheimer, Danielle Goldberg, Chanel, Seth Weisser, #WGACA, and many more…

• WWD has a new editor-in-chief…: I was just thinking: Whatever happened with Jay Penske’s search for a new lead for the fashion trade? (I wrote about it all back in April, in one of the first issues of Line Sheet.) Yesterday, the company announced internally that Eugenia Miranda Richman, currently the editor-in-chief of SheKnows, another Penske Media-owned property, would be taking the role. As for whether she is going to report to editorial director James Fallon, which was a requirement when they were searching for candidates earlier this year…it sounds like she will. More on this next week, maybe, if you’re interested?

• Cartier has been developing a makeup line… for two years: File this under Things Everyone Knows But Nobody Says in Print: Cartier, the Richemont-owned fine jeweler and one of the best brands in the world, has been developing a makeup line for the past two years. (Whoever gets the “exclusive” on this better credit me or I will publicly embarrass them.) I only bring this up now as the beauty division at Richemont is in a bit of an upheaval with the arrival of Boet Brinkgreve, who was appointed C.E.O. of Laboratoire de Haute Parfumerie et Beauté, a newly created role, in September.

  Brinkgreve’s background is in the supply chain, and my understanding is that he isn’t convinced Richemont brands should be building their own products from scratch, à la Chanel and Hermès. Instead, he wants to go the traditional licensing route, and has been calling the usual suspects (of the Estée Lauder Companies, L'Oréal, and Interparfums variety) to see what’s possible. I also hear he’s not convinced that Cartier, which already has fragrances, should be expanding into makeup before skincare. (A rep for Cartier said that the company doesn’t comment on speculation.)

  Coupla things… First off, I understand the hesitancy to do this all by yourself when there are presumably eager and willing partners with far more expertise who can do it more cheaply. That said, luxury fashion, accessories, and jewelry are already vertically integrated businesses, and moving into owned beauty—as LVMH already has, as Kering is trying to—is the way of the future. The investment upfront may be bigger, but the potential profit is significantly greater. (It also gives brands more control over the look, feel, and presentation of the product.)

  As for makeup versus skincare, the truth is that skincare is a harder category to break into because consumers expect real expertise behind the formula. (See the success of Augustinus Bader, Dr. Sturm, and Vintner’s Daughter as proof points.)

  All of this is bubbling up this week amid a report in Astrid Wendlandt’s newsletter suggesting that Cyrille Vigneron, the C.E.O. of Cartier, will exit the business by 2025 on account of disagreements he’s been having with Johann Rupert, the South African billionaire chairman of Richemont. People with direct knowledge of the dynamic say that Vigneron’s contract is near its end, and he’s also in his mid-60s so he might just want to retire. A person close to Richemont said that he is too young for that at 63. And anyway, he hasn’t expressed any plans to leave. I’m sure he and Rupert butt heads sometimes, but Vigneron has essentially doubled Cartier’s annual revenue since joining the business, and is well-liked by pretty much everyone. So let’s wait and see. (A corporate rep declined to comment.)

• Ozempic’s net promoter score: As Oprah recently proudly attested (love her), weight-loss-drug mania is still very much a thing. But are people on Ozempic happy with Ozempic? According to a recent survey of nearly 388 users of GLP-1 drugs (Ozempic, Wegovy, and the like) by The New Consumer, 46 percent expressed concern about the long-term effects, but 86 percent said they feel like a different person. They were also spending less money on food and snacks, which is a good thing, I guess?

  On average, those surveyed gave the class of drugs a net promoter score of 11—doesn’t sound great to me since NPS, which measures customer loyalty and satisfaction, ranges from –100 to 100, but according to the author of the report (who happens to be my husband, Dan Frommer, another journalist, full disclosure), anything positive is considered good. This year’s Consumer Trends 2024 report, which Dan releases in partnership with investment firm Coefficient Capital, also has a whole section on the still-new TikTok Shop. It’s worth taking a look. I promise I wouldn’t recommend it otherwise, really!

• Roger Can No Longer Dodge: Condé Nast C.E.O. Roger Lynch met with his board on Monday. I’m told by some that it was “rough,” and by others that “Roger is telling everyone it went really well.” My guess is that, as long as he is hitting his Condé-adjusted EBITDA, his job is completely secure. The last thing the Newhouses want to do is run another national search for a job that produces this many headaches. (Yes, it’s unlikely it would go to an internal person.)

  This morning, Lynch addressed his troops from London at a company-wide meeting. Dressed in a navy suit against matching navy curtains, he told employees via Zoom that year-over-year company revenue was flat through November, and that he hopes to beat the 2022 numbers after December financials close. (Digital subscription and consumer revenue are up, which somewhat offset the declines in print revenue.) Lynch did acknowledge that a traffic decline “accelerated” around June due to changes in Facebook/Meta referrals, in particular. As for whether the company is profitable? He did mention the word “profitability” at one point, and did say that profits will allow the company to reinvest in the business.

  At the end, Lynch also answered questions from employees. He noted that this was the first “significant” round of layoffs in three years and said that “a lot” of the layoffs have already occurred, but the rest will take a few months to roll out and that there are no plans to close or sell “certainly any of our major brands.” He also mentioned that the company is saving a lot of money on real estate by moving the U.K. team into one building and reducing the amount of space rented in One World Trade.

At the time, about 55 percent of heavy consumers of luxury had bought secondhand, according to a BCG report, and that number was rising fast, mostly thanks to the emergence of upscale secondhand online retailers like The RealReal and Vestiaire Collective. The Chanel presentation spelled out the nuanced problem at hand: Nobody wanted aftermarket products floating around, but executives also recognized that these items were gateway purchases for future brand consumers. “Our key interests in the secondhand market are [to] protect our product and brand, [and] understand and connect with the future Chanel client—particularly the younger generation,” read one of the presentation slides. “How can we address threats from the secondhand market while exploring the opportunities it provides through actions in both the firsthand and secondhand markets?”

The presentation hit every mark: The Chanel executives who put it together recognized the importance of the secondary market to the modern consumer’s customer journey, but they also addressed how hard it would be to make it a part of the Chanel journey. Refurbishing quilted flap bags, bouclé jackets, and ballet flats can be an expensive, intensive process. What would it take to get it right, and was it worth the trouble? The company was even considering partnering with one of the top resellers, or a rental platform, instead of managing the channel itself. The report, 71 pages long, dug deep into the services offered by different retailers, and how much money customers spent on Chanel items on their platforms.

In the end, Chanel didn’t move forward with any secondhand sales plan, but not every executive agreed that was the right path. “What was the rationale… for Chanel not doing directly?” John Galantic, the company’s former president and chief operating officer, who stepped down this past June, emailed Chanel’s U.S. president of fashion Joyce Green a few months later. In response, Green noted that Alain Wertheimer—then the global C.E.O. of the business, and a member of the family that owns Chanel—was the final decision-maker. “I do remember that our reason for not selling directly was not so convincing,” Galantic wrote.

With that, Green responded, “Please keep to yourself—I am quite frustrated with him right now between us.” Less than a year later, Chanel sued The RealReal for trademark infringement, alongside New York-based secondhand retailer What Goes Around Comes Around, which was founded on West Broadway in 1993 but has since expanded into selling secondhand luxury goods online, and also to other retailers. (A spokesperson for Chanel said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation.)

Regardless of how the trial nets out, it says a lot about the state of the luxury industry, and how much of the selling journey brands can, and should, control. Pre-internet, stores like WGACA could exist in a bubble. They weren’t globally recognized retailers, so luxury brands could generally ignore them. But their proliferation online—combined with the rise of extremely good counterfeits, which can occasionally slip through the authentication process—has made them more threatening. And there are things some of these retailers do that damage brand sentiment, whether that’s marketing them in an unclassy way or being careless about authentication. But the reality is, as the secondhand luxury goods market has expanded, so has the firsthand market for luxury goods. Chanel generated $17.2 billion in revenue 2022, up 17 percent from a year earlier.

I’ve long thought that luxury brands would be best off participating in the secondhand market, partnering with retailers like WGACA, but also creating their own resale channels. Some labels—like Gucci, Dries Van Noten, and Armani—have started the process. Kering, the owner of Gucci, Saint Laurent, and Bottega Veneta, even took a 5 percent stake in Vestiaire Collective in 2021.

As I’ve written before, the business model for these mass secondhand retailers isn’t so clear, and it is expensive to build an archive of sellable goods. One of the slides from the 2017 presentation highlighted non-fashion luxury brands that controlled their secondhand business. It’s simpler with hardware—Apple computers, for instance, or a Rolex watch—because those products are easier to repair. (A tear in a piece of leather isn’t a straightforward fix.) But it’s a genie-out-of-the-bottle situation in the eyes of many Chanel executives.

As for WGACA, co-founder Seth Weisser told me that while the past five years of litigation have cost the company millions of dollars in legal fees, they didn’t settle with Chanel because one of the stipulations was admitting to wrongdoings he didn’t believe had been committed. He has a brand to protect, too.

“Contrast Hearst and Condé over the past decade or so. Hearst Magazines has pulled $2 billion more in profit out of the business over the period at a minimum. Condé arguably has better brands and products in categories where they compete. So, has Condé's investment paid off? On the surface, it appears as though it has not. Mismanagement, legacy tension, hubris, or an impossible market? What else should they have done? Massively cut costs? Learned harder into commerce and affiliate? Shed brands? Stomach revenue loss with a harder drive at subscriptions? More events? Pimp out brands via an aggressive licensing play? These are difficult choices and tradeoffs. It’s a good thing the company is owned by a patient investor.” —A media executive

On Greta Lee’s mega red carpet run: “Someone should give [stylist] Danielle Goldberg an Oscar, too.” —An important brand consultant

On Mansur Gavriel: “Loved the Mansur piece. So many brands I have worked with have this same journey on a sliding scale of scale.” —A good P.R. person

Gosha Rubchinskiy designing for Yeezy? The saga continues. [Complex]

The amount of money this guy (wearing Balenciaga and Beverly Hills Hotel merch) has raised to build a utopian city is… enough to build one building, maybe? [New York Times]

In believable Richemont-C.E.O.-exiting news, Riccardo Bellini is out at Chloé, replaced by Laurent Malecaze, who comes from Dunhill, another Richemont-owned brand. [WWD]

Normcore is not dead. [BoF]

Eek! All around re: Farfetch. [WWD]

Sarah Andelman, the co-founder of Colette, is launching an exhibition at Le Bon Marché next year. [Vogue Business]

Amanda Mull found out what actually happens to your returns after you send them back. [The Atlantic]

Love this story about this Hermès heir adopting his gardener to make sure he is taken care of. [People / Shame on Everyone Who Put This Story Behind a Paywall]

And finally… But what’s gonna happen to New Guards Group?