How the CEO of Moët Hennessy NA Is Modernizing Luxury Brands
I sat down with Chris Gabaldon, CEO of Moët Hennessy North America, who is just over a year into his role. It's his first time leading a company as CEO, and yet the portfolio he oversees is anything but novice. Moët & Chandon, Hennessy, Dom Pérignon — these are just some of their brands woven into cultural milestones for centuries. What struck me wasn't just the weight of the legacy he's stewarding, but how grounded and candid he was about the challenge.
Chris didn't come up through the alcohol industry. He built a career in hospitality — starting as a room service waiter and eventually working with brands like The Ritz and St. Regis at Marriott. That experience, he says, taught him to value the customer connection. But it also underscored one of the fundamental differences he now faces: You can't personally walk over and fix someone's glass of Dom if they had a bad experience. When your product is filtered through layers of distributors, retailers and events, how do you maintain that intimacy?
Related: What Quiet Leadership Looks Like in a Loud World — and How It Took This Company to $3B in Revenue
The conversation quickly expanded from the story of his leadership path to the broader challenges facing the alcohol industry today. Sales are down amongst many alcohol brands, especially among younger consumers who are drinking less and seeking more from the brands they support. Chris was clear: Younger people may be drinking less, but they're willing to pay more for quality, for craft, for a story. That's where he sees the opportunity — not in pushing volume, but in doubling down on excellence and the experience.
We also talked about how legacy brands adapt. It's not about abandoning heritage, but evolving without compromising authenticity. Chris cited collaborations with cultural icons like LeBron James and Beyoncé not as marketing gimmicks, but as bridges — ways to introduce the next generation to brands with centuries of substance. That kind of evolution takes time, he admitted. Headlines come fast, but credibility is earned slowly.
One thing I appreciated was how open Chris was about the realities of leadership. He acknowledged how hard it was to start a new role and immediately face layoffs. It wasn't something he shied away from. "Being the one to make that final decision — it's a different kind of pressure," he told me. For someone stepping into a legacy-laden organization amid shifting consumer trends and economic uncertainty, that honesty stood out.
Chris came across as thoughtful and competent — someone who genuinely respects the weight of the brands he leads while staying attuned to how quickly the world around them is changing. He doesn't have all the answers, but he's asking the right questions. And for Moët Hennessy North America, that may be the leadership style this moment calls for. And, of course, I'm a big fan of their brands.
Related: How the CEO of This Iconic Pizza Brand Is Building on 50 Years of Deep-Dish Dominance and Fueling Sustainable Growth
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Skift
a minute ago
- Skift
One Association CEO on Elevating the Role of Planners
This association exec says planners are much more than just a final check — and often have the final say where meetings are concerned. P Joanne Ray, principal at Consultants in Association Philanthropy, has spent much of her career in leadership roles at various associations, including CEO of the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation and the Urgent Care Association, and executive director of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, among others. While leading these organizations, some with staffs as big as 75 people, she always has had her hand in meeting planning. She's also seen some planners elevate their roles to become valuable consultants to association leadership. Skift Meetings sat down with Ray to get her perspective on planners' value to associations, and how they can build successful working relationships with the C-suite. As a CEO, how involved were you in your organizations' annual meetings? I would say that for most organizations that I've been with, we would meet weekly, starting three to four months out from the meeting. Some organizations had two major meetings; when I first started with the Urgent Care Association, we had a big spring meeting and a big fall meeting. So you jumped right out of one and into another. The meetings included the key staff: the meeting planners and the director-level staff. What details did you work on with your meeting planners? I was involved with site selection and contracting and went on site inspections. Also, when it came to entertainment or keynote speakers, I would bring the final couple of choices to a planning committee of volunteers, industry members who made those decisions. Programmatically, I was not involved because I was working for medical associations where my education directors managed teams of subject matter experts who put the content together. As far as site selection, why is it important for planners to be looped in from the start? The planner has to be in on the conceptual stage enough to know what we're looking for in a site. And if next year's meeting is going to be dramatically different than this year's meeting, the planner needs to conceptually understand what are we incorporating that we didn't have, like adding a gala that we didn't have the year before, or adding an off-site activity. How important is it to have a planning committee? It's important because they bring the knowledge of the hot topics, prominent presenters, and what the pain points are for the attendees. What makes for the best working relationship between a planner and an association CEO? Under the best scenario, the head meeting planner is part of the strategy team. They're at the board meetings, so they know the leadership. They're integrated into the program planning because they need to assign the rooms. They're also integrated into the funding and sponsorship because, depending on how well-versed they are, they might end up helping sponsors understand what opportunities there are. How important is it for planners to understand the association's culture? Very important. They need to understand the members well enough to know that you don't plan a meeting for emergency nurses the same way you do for restaurant owners and operators, or for veterinarians. Every group has its own kind of culture. Do you believe associations can have the same experience using outsourced meeting planners as they can with planners who are on staff? At the Urgent Care Association, we outsourced planning to a meeting planning group that was with us for my last three years and then for a couple of years after I moved on. And it worked, because they became a part of the team. When we had a weekly or a biweekly meeting, they were part of that meeting. They weren't on site, but they were local. Or they would join electronically. So they were part of the planning process, and they actually ran those meetings. Have you had planners overturn your decisions? Absolutely. I can think of instances where they would say, 'There's no way you can schedule this like this. There's not enough time for people to move from one session to the next.' Things like that. They are the check, if you will — almost to the extent to be the final say, unless there's really an issue. What do you think planners can do to get that proverbial 'seat at the table'? I'll answer you the same way I've answered dozens of aspiring association directors over the years: You've got to get your blinders off and think beyond your job. You can't be siloed. You've got to understand how your job integrates with the others. And that's a two-way street. The CEO needs to set a culture that is inclusive and to include the planners in the right meetings and the right settings, and to show that he or she recognizes their value.
Skift
a minute ago
- Skift
Speaker Training Firm Shuts Down, Cites ‘Serious Financial Irregularities'
When allegations of misconduct surface, even tight-knit professional networks like those found at ImpactEleven can unravel. This shutdown removes a prominent player from the professional speaking ecosystem. ImpactEleven, a professional speaking training company, has shut down after the discovery of 'serious financial irregularities,' according to a letter from company founders obtained by Skift Meetings. 'Effective immediately, ImpactEleven will cease operations. The discovery of serious financial irregularities and further investigation into potential misconduct, has rendered the business completely insolvent,' said the letter addressed to speakers bureaus. 'Like you, we were surprised and deeply saddened by what we have discovered, and the impact on the mission we have invested so fully in.' The company's website shows an error page as of Friday. 'In spite of the insolvency of ImpactEleven, every penny of outstanding commissions and expense reimbursements owed to our Bureau Partners will be paid immediately and in full by the Founding Partners personally,' the letter said. The letter was not dated, but several employees posted on LinkedIn that the firm shut down last week. CEO and co-founder Jordan Broad was not among those who signed the letter and his LinkedIn profile shows his role at the company ending in July. Skift contacted Broad on LinkedIn but he did not respond to a request for an interview. 'While the investigation into the misconduct is still ongoing, we feel it's important to share that the Founding Partners have never received any compensation or distributions from ImpactEleven. In fact, we personally invested millions of dollars of our own savings — and countless hours of our time and energy — to build and serve this community. This has been emotionally devastating and extremely damaging financially for so many people,' the letter says. ImpactEleven also ran a membership program and in a separate letter to subscribers, the founding partners state they are actively developing a 'make good' plan to 'deliver on the value of your membership to the very best of our ability.' The founding partners who signed the letters are: Seth Mattison, Josh Linkner, Peter Sheahan, and Ryan Estis. They did not respond to requests for comment. From High Valuation to Collapse Founded to support speakers through live events, coaching programs, creative services, and tiered membership subscriptions, ImpactEleven worked closely with speakers bureaus including BigSpeak, Gotham Artists, and Worldwide Speakers Group. Membership fees reached $1,495 per month for its Platinum tier, plus a $2,495 onboarding fee. The company also offered speaker boot camps with tickets starting at $7,000. Community members had access to discounted rates. In April 2024, the company raised nearly $1 million on Netcapital and had a $20 million valuation. A follow-up fundraising campaign this April attempted to raise $3.6 million but brought in only $550,000. Among those affected was keynote speaker Nolan Nichols, who credits the group with helping his career. 'I was working a full-time job when I attended one of their speaker boot camps in Austin in 2023. That experience changed my career, my life,' said Nichols. 'It's as if the doors of my college have shuttered. I have such pride and allegiance for what this organization did.' Nichols described the life of a keynote speaker as 'often lonely,' adding that ImpactEleven provided an unmatched sense of community and mentorship.
Gizmodo
a minute ago
- Gizmodo
Trump Admin Has Dropped a Third of All Investigations Into Big Tech, Advocates Say
Trump talked a big game during the election about taking the fight to Silicon Valley. But, since taking office, the former reality star seems to have done little to make good on that promise. In fact, a recent survey of his actions claims that Trump, whose political victory was partially propelled by gargantuan gobs of cash from tech firms and their executives, has dropped a third of all investigations and enforcement actions against tech companies since taking power. The report, published by the advocacy organization Public Citizen, notes that, at the start of Trump's second term, there were at least 104 tech companies facing at least 142 federal investigations and enforcement actions. As of August, 47 of the enforcement actions against 45 of those tech companies 'have been withdrawn or halted (38 withdrawn, nine halted).' Companies that have had enforcement actions 'paused' or 'frozen' since the beginning of the year include big-name firms like Meta, PayPal, and Tesla. In many cases, enforcement actions have also been dismissed or withdrawn, including against prominent crypto companies like Coinbase, and Kraken. The cryptocurrency industry was, notably, a big contributor to Trump's campaign last year. Those same companies whose executives and investors have recently felt the regulatory heat ease off their backs made significant political financial contributions since the beginning of 2024, the bulk of which totals some $1.2 billion, according to Public Citizen's tally. Most of the contributions were given to the GOP, and some of them went directly to Trump (either to his businesses or his inauguration fund). The contributions were also made by the companies' executives and investors. Humorously, the Public Citizen report includes an entire section on Elon Musk. Indeed, of the total political spending mentioned in the report, nearly half is attributable to Musk. The report points out that, among those executives who attended Trump's inauguration, Musk—who would go on to lead Trump's DOGE initiative and serve (for awhile, at least) as the president's 'first buddy'—is the CEO 'whose businesses face the most federal enforcement actions – at least 19 separate sets of allegations from at least nine federal agencies.' Unfortunately for Musk, a lot of those cases remain up in the air. The report notes that, amidst the ongoing spats between the Tesla billionaire and the president, there continues to be 'uncertainty into what will come of the investigations and enforcement lawsuits against Musk's corporations.' The loss of interest in tech company probes may be part of a broader trend of regulatory disinterest, as the report notes that the administration has 'withdrawn or halted enforcement actions against 165 corporations of all types' this year, including the aforementioned tech companies. 'This massive retreat from enforcement and dropping categories of cases involving corporate misconduct is something I've never seen before,' Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen's President's Office and the author of the report, told 404 Media. 'Many of these cases being dropped now originated in the first Trump administration. They were, correctly in my view, pursuing crypto scams.' The report also dutifully notes that the 'existence of investigations and/or allegations of misconduct do not necessarily mean that any laws were broken, or that an enforcement action necessarily would have been brought under a different administration.' Gizmodo reached out to the Trump administration for comment.
