Between fashion and beauty: luxury brands and the challenge of coherence
It’s the beauty of luxury. When you read that L’Oréal just bought Gucci, it feels natural. But in reality, this alliance between fashion and beauty is a challenge. Each brand has its own ritual, its own way of doing things and its own universe. How can we unite them without disturbing their image and their demanding customers? If in unity there is strength, the real strength is sometimes in accomplishing union.
You are there. Avenue Montaigne or the Champs-Élysées; you have just passed through the security barriers of your favourite luxury brand. Your eyes are drawn upward and you see its logo. The brand’s colours, harmoniously laid out across the floor, the walls and the sales staff’s uniforms, guide you along wide, uncluttered aisles. You feel transported into another world, a coherent universe in which everything seems to have a place, where everything appears to be exactly in its rightful place. You move slowly and something catches your eye: on the shelf to the right, the fragrance you were looking for gleams beside the bag of your dreams. You call over a sales assistant to ask a question, but unfortunately he does not know the answer: he works in leather goods, not fragrance.
An alliance without coherence is missing its point
In the world of luxury, some brands have two faces: one for fashion and one for beauty, often managed by separate entities. This dual configuration is not just a question of communication; it is a strategic challenge: how can brands maintain a consistent image in the eyes of customers when, internally, decision-making processes, budgets and launch timelines can vary significantly between these two entities?
In October 2025, L’Oréal announced the historic acquisition of Kering’s beauty division for 4 billion euros. The deal includes long-term licences for brands such as Gucci, Balenciaga and Creed. L’Oréal’s CEO, Nicolas Hieronimus, also took the opportunity to confirm the group’s intention to acquire a 15% stake in the Armani Group, in line with the late designer’s last wishes. Building a coherent brand means consolidating a strategic economic and cultural asset. The luxury industry is worth nearly 1.5 trillion euros and accounts for roughly 3% of France’s GDP. But the alliance between beauty and fashion is not simply a matter of adding one business to another; it is a lever for governance and identity reinforcement.
The challenges
Luxury houses such as Giorgio Armani, Valentino and Gucci compartmentalise their fashion and beauty activities into two distinct entities. Each has its own objectives, its own budgets and its own business model. This duality creates a paradox. Externally, the brand seems perfectly coherent. Internally, however, the processes, governance and customer journeys are fragmented, which can generate frustration and confusion.
Read also: Is Zara the anti-Shein?
Starting with the customers’. A fragrance may be unavailable in the ready-to-wear boutique of the same brand; sales teams may be unable to answer questions spanning both worlds; and customer journeys sometimes vary from one point of sale to another. This lack of operational coherence exposes brands to tangible risks: mismatches in tone, cannibalisation of brand messaging, or disappointing customer experiences. These are all points of friction that can undermine brand perception over time. Our qualitative study confirms this: internal coordination is often limited to major decisions.
Therefore, how can brands shift from surface-level coherence to lasting, resilient internal cohesion?
We interviewed numerous industry professionals with diverse roles: advocacy and influence, VIP relations, education and customer experience, marketing, production and operations. Four key observations emerged:
Identity and image: a primarily symbolic coherence
Luxury houses structured around two entities often project strong brand elements: logo, colours, imagery, archetypes and heritage, which create the impression of symbolic uniformity. For consumers, this visual coherence is usually sufficient to create a perception of continuity, even when organisational structures, targets or channels differ between entities. However, this apparent homogeneity remains fragile if it is not underpinned by genuinely shared mechanisms, such as a common strategy, coordinated processes, governance rituals or tools common to both entities.
Centralised coordination, fragmented execution
Coordination between entities is often concentrated around key moments, such as approving brand ambassadors or launching major campaigns. By contrast, at the operational level, where team training, distribution rules, harmonisation of customer journeys and synchronisation of calendars are concerned, it remains uneven. This fragmentation weakens the customer experience and increases reliance on a limited set of shared visual codes, leaving inconsistencies perceptible to attentive consumers.
The point of breakdown: the customer experience
The in-store experience illustrates the potential gap between brand intent and service reality: customers steered towards a product from the other brand entity (fashion versus beauty, or vice versa) that is unavailable in the current channel; teams insufficiently trained to overcome this duality and create value (explanation, alternatives, storytelling). The risk of attrition is real. In the eyes of demanding customers, these frustrations contradict the promise of unity projected by brand communication.
Consumer perception, overall coherence, local ambiguity
These ambiguities (differences in tone or misunderstandings around distribution boundaries) are often tolerated by customers as long as they do not hinder their journey. But as soon as an obstacle arises, the perceived unity becomes superficial.
Our recommendations for practitioners
To turn superficial coherence into a genuine competitive edge, several levers are available.
Establish formal identity governance
Create an inter-entity committee including the image, marketing, legal, distribution, retail and data departments, to resolve tensions and protect the brand’s non-negotiables. Develop a shared brand book defining values, registers, tones, storytelling codes and best practices by channel, with annual updates and internal precedents to guide decision-making.
Develop useful tools for day-to-day operations
Coherence is built week by week thanks to concrete rituals and tools: a consolidated launch calendar, a single sign-off point for images, a shared asset library, alignment checklists and escalation processes in the event of misalignment. KPIs can be used to measure coherence: perceived confusion rates, customer service contact drivers, and retention rates following inter-channel redirection.
Rethink the customer experience to make the duality invisible
Train retail teams in offer architecture, short educational scripts and cross-entity storytelling. Introduce intelligent signage with QR codes, inter-network click-and-collect options, and assisted ordering to avoid customers leaving empty-handed.
Synchronise communication and portfolios
Messages and offers must move at the same pace: coordinate launch windows, harmonise storytelling, and adapt fashion-beauty brand expressions without contradictions. A pre-project assessment grid helps anticipate risks of brand identity dilution and ensures a halo effect across the core range.
The unity of dual-entity brands currently rests largely on visible signs. To secure their long-term value, they must strengthen internal cohesion through clear governance, tools common to both entities and measurable KPIs, while providing a seamless customer experience. Orchestrating identity, operations and customer journeys as a single system enables luxury houses to transform perceived coherence into a genuine competitive advantage, able to withstand changes in brand ambassadors, stylistic shifts, and portfolio extensions.
This article draws on our master’s thesis research on dual-entity luxury brands combining fashion and beauty. It is based on a literature review, expert interviews and fieldwork, and aims to draw practical insights for practitioners and decision-makers. As our study relies on a limited sample and partial access to internal mechanisms, caution is required: the ideas presented cannot be generalised and would need to be tested across other cases and markets to be properly validated.
