Fear of God recruits Catherine Jacquet as director of operations
To achieve this, the CEO called on an expert in the premium and luxury sectors: Catherine Jacquet. General manager of Maison Michel, a milliner part of the Chanel galaxy, between 2014 and 2018, general manager of the high-end Parisian brand Lemaire from 2019 to 2022 and having advised numerous premium brands and designers on their structuring, the executive has been supporting the brand since the beginning of the year and has been appointed Director of Operations.
Fear of God, founded in 2013, currently relies on a main line in which beautiful sleeved pieces combine with ample suits in Italian fabrics and rub shoulders with denim and knitwear, with a more casual spirit. The brand also offers a second line, christened "Essentials," composed of more accessible basics with T-shirts and hoodies, mostly plain. In fact, it was around a collaboration between the NBA and this line initiated in 2018 that the label, which is said to generate sales of between 150 and 200 million euros, was present in Paris during the last Men's Fashion Week.
The brand has also signed an agreement with Adidas for the development of a technical line, with sneaker launches starting in 2021. With a presence in over a hundred retailers, the brand has also grown in department store networks, notably with corners at Nordstrom and Selfridges.
The brand, whose primary markets are the United States and Great Britain, is increasingly taking care of its image. It has asserted its premium positioning with Zegna. And it plays on the fluidity of its wardrobe, dressing more and more women in its campaigns with its pieces exploited for oversize silhouettes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Local France
9 hours ago
- Local France
'Rules have changed' - Préfecture confirms they can refuse French citizenship to retirees
Retirees in France have recently begun running into problems with the citizenship applications, with numerous reports of citizenship being refused due to not having sufficient French income. The change appears to be linked to a recent circulaire from the Interior Minister - but now one préfecture has confirmed to The Local that they are indeed treating applications differently, and are routinely rejecting people whose income is mainly derived from a pension from another country. The préfecture of Deux-Sèvres told The Local that the "rules had changed after May 2nd", which is when French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau sent out a circulaire (memo) clarifying how préfectures should process citizenship applications. READ MORE: Why do French ministers love to send 'circulaires'? The spokesperson said: "Each application is subject to an individualised, in-depth, and reasoned review, in accordance with the applicable regulations. "Prior to the circulaire of May 2nd, 2025, naturalisation applications were processed based on a comprehensive and global assessment of the applicant's situation. Advertisement "Thus, retirees receiving only a foreign pension as income could have their naturalisation application accepted, as long as the necessary conditions were generally met. "After May 2nd, the rules changed. In order to assess the applicant's financial independence, income derived mainly from abroad is no longer taken into account (except in very limited circumstances), on the basis that the applicant's centre of interest has not been completely transferred to France. READ MORE: What counts as 'French income' when it comes to citizenship? "Based on this criterion alone, the application for naturalisation may be refused. For practical purposes, people who are refused naturalisation do have legal avenues and time limits for appeal. These are referenced in their notification of rejection." What does this change mean practically? This insistence on French-sourced income would seem - if applied strictly - to make it impossible for people who have retired to France (as opposed to those who worked in France and then retired) to ever gain citizenship. Two foreign retirees who both met the other criteria for French nationality, such as language acquisition and integration in their local community, were denied citizenship by the Deux-Sèvres préfecture on the basis that they did not have sufficient French income. READ MORE: 'Doesn't seem fair' - British pensioners speak out over apparent change to French citizenship rules A circulaire is not supposed to change the law, just clarify how administrative staff interpret it. So far, it is clear that the préfecture of Deux-Sèvres has taken a strict interpretation of the circulaire and has interpreted it as a 'rules change'. This does not mean that other préfectures have taken the same approach, and it is common for variations to exist between préfectures. However, The Local has received reports of other retirees being rejected in recent weeks for the same reasons in the préfectures of Gironde and Haute-Garonne. The Local reached out to the Interior Ministry and other préfectures to confirm whether there has been a change in procedure. Advertisement Meanwhile, several of the retirees who told The Local they were rejected have appealed, which means they may still have a chance of gaining nationality, depending on the interpretation of the administrative court of Nantes. It is also possible that the interior ministry will offer more clarification in the future to préfectures on how to approach retirees with a majority non-French income. Crucially, these changes are being applied to people who made their applications months or sometimes years ago. This is contrary to full legal changes - such as the revised standards for French language levels - which can only be applied to new applications . What did the circulaire say exactly? To clarify, a circulaire cannot change the law, but it can offer 'clarification' for how préfecture staff ought to process citizenship applications. In the third section of the circulaire - titled 'the autonomy of the applicant' - Retailleau instructed staff on what to consider regarding l'insertion professionnelle (professional integration) and le niveau et l'origine des revenues (the amount and origin of income). Retailleau wrote: "You will also, with some exceptions, reject applicants whose income comes mainly from abroad, as this shows they have not completely transferred the centre of their interests to France." Retailleau did not reference any exceptions for retirees, though he did remind préfecture employees not to reject applications with 'insufficient income' if the applicant is ill or disabled. The interior minister also explained that this requirement is to demonstrate 'integration' to France and a long-term commitment to the country. He also wrote: "The applicant's autonomy must be based on proven and sustainable professional integration that provides them with stable and sufficient resources. "This not only demonstrates the stability of their settlement in France, but is also an essential element of their integration into the national community. "The applicant's autonomy must be based on proven and sustainable professional integration that provides them with stable and sufficient resources."
Fashion Network
10 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
Fashion Network
10 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
