TODAY’S PAPER | September 10, 2025 | EPAPER

NYFW faces identity crisis

Big-name defections spark reform push as over 60 brands prepare to showcase


Reuters September 10, 2025 1 min read
A model presents a creation from Michael Kors during New York Fashion Week Fall-Winter 2025 in New York City, on February 11, 2025. Photo: Reuters

print-news
NEW YORK:

Established apparel brands including Coach, Michael Kors and Calvin Klein will hit the runway alongside emerging labels at the New York Fashion Week (NYFW), which kicks off on September 11.

Yet, the event's unity is being tested as some of its most influential designers are opting to stage their shows outside the official calendar. Marc Jacobs, owned by French luxury conglomerate LVMH, presented his Fall 2025 collection back in July at the New York Public Library, while Ralph Lauren will host a private showing at his studio on September 10, ahead of the official start.

Their absence from the core schedule has sparked renewed concerns about the relevance and reach of New York's biggest fashion event.

"When big anchor designers like that leave, it inevitably means fewer people from out of town are going to make the trip," Nicole Phelps, global director of Vogue Runway and Vogue Business, said in an interview.

The New York event's fragmented structure has prompted calls for reform, with critics arguing NYFW lacks the cohesion and prestige of its European counterparts.

In response, fashion platform KFN, created to reform the NYFW, is spearheading a revitalisation effort in partnership with the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA).

The initiative aims to expand NYFW's physical and digital footprint and create more accessible avenues for designers to showcase their work.

One of the most ambitious proposals slated for this season includes a network of 10 venues set within a 15-minute perimeter of each other, offered free of charge for designers.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ