The breadth of Armani’s product range — which spans its EA7 sportswear line, through to its accessible casual wear label Armani Exchange and the high-end Armani Privé line — may also act as a deterrent to buyers.
Some luxury executives believe the variety of products bearing the Armani name serves to dilute the brand and confuse consumers. As well as beauty and fashion, the Armani group owns restaurants, hotels and a high-end home design line.
Pierre Mallevays, co-head of merchant banking at Stanhope Capital, said a standalone Armani group “works very well, but it’s hard to see a big strategic buyer being genuinely interested in all of its operations”.
While LVMH is viewed in the luxury industry as the most likely buyer, the group’s upmarket positioning implies it will have little interest in the more affordable lines in the Armani stable, which contribute a significant portion of its €2.4 billion annual revenue.
LVMH also tightly controls product distribution to enable it to charge higher prices, while Armani products, which are distributed through wholesalers, are often discounted.
One leading Italian executive said it was hard for any strategic investor to buy an asset and “sit on it” for a while before “deciding what to do with its various parts in the longer term”.
“That’s what the prospect of buying Armani would look like,” they said.
In his will Armani raised the possibility of a public listing of the business if plans to sell a stake failed. That would see Armani follow in the footsteps of other Italian family-owned fashion brands, such as Prada, Cucinelli and Moncler, which have gone on to list on the public markets. In each case the brand’s family owners have retained a controlling stake.
In several interviews with the FT, the late designer, who led his company until his passing this month, said his priority was to protect his legacy.
Armani’s executive committee said in a statement after the will was made public that the foundation would act “as a permanent guarantor of compliance with the founding principles”.
Two industry executives said Armani might have named LVMH, L’Oreal and EssilorLuxottica because they have the scale and financial clout to secure the group’s future and his legacy.
Armani’s desire to sell a stake to a larger group makes sense, according to Bernstein analyst Luca Solca, because there is a “lot of work to be done to ensure the continuation of the Armani brand legacy”.
“[Armani] liked to run his own business and there is an element of vanity when you are a very, very important designer — you don’t want to be part of a much bigger group. [But] today we are seeing a more rational side”.
Silvia Sciorilli Borrelli & Adrienne Klasa © 2025 The Financial Times Ltd.
This article originally appeared in The Financial Times
