Galliano for Zara: the case study we’re building
Another article written together, born from a conversation between Romina Tosi and Matteo Pegoraro:
Re{form}, expectations of the product and the first reviews. With one question still open: what are we paying for, and what do we find when we open the box?
Matteo’s Mary Janes are still pending. Our conversation about Galliano for Zara, meanwhile, hasn’t stopped.
First we discussed the project. Then the photographs, the prices and the construction details we wanted to examine. Now the conversation includes reviews from people who have received the products or seen them in person. Some describe disappointment; others offer a less clear-cut picture.
We haven’t examined the garments ourselves yet. That needs saying at the outset: this case study is developing through public information and a professional discussion, rather than our own hands-on assessment of the collection.
The desire, though, we’ve already established. We like the shoes. Quite a lot. It’s everything else we’re still asking questions about.
How we got here
The conversation began after my article on Galliano, the Met and Zara. Matteo wrote to me and, from that first exchange, we went on to write “Fashion moves fast. But what is it building?” together.
We wanted to understand how Galliano’s work could find room within Zara’s organisation. How much time for research? What expertise? What conditions would preserve the design when it had to become a product that could be reproduced consistently?
At first, I tended to see the project as a possible change in Zara’s DNA. Matteo introduced a distinction that helped me refine my thinking: the same organisation can support different propositions, with resources and supply chains suited to each. A more complex collection doesn’t, on its own, show that the whole brand is changing.
I agree with that reading. But I’d like to see how much of the work developed for Re{form} stays within the project and how much might become part of the wider offer.
We don’t know the actual development times, the commercial arrangements or the internal production decisions. Zara’s size tells us what it could support. We need to look at the products to assess the result.
“Too expensive for Zara”
At one point, we carried out two small experiments, with no claim to be describing the market.
Matteo had asked a friend whether, looking at the collaboration, she saw Zara or Galliano. Her answer was immediate: Galliano.
I’d sent photographs of the Mary Janes to a friend who regularly buys luxury shoes. She liked them, but thought they were too expensive for Zara.
That “for Zara” still interests me.
Matteo finds it reductive to ask which of the two names we’re buying. If the product is extraordinary and the person who wants it can afford it, it can convince on its own merits. Value also comes from what Galliano and Zara manage to build together.
I go back to the moment before that: before picking it up, someone must already have found that level of spending credible. The name can draw them towards the product or make them hesitate.
Both observations can hold. One customer may come for Galliano and be impressed by the product. Another may stop at the price because Zara remains their reference point. We don’t know how widespread these reactions are. We do know that, in our conversation, they led to different questions.
The shoes we wanted to turn upside down
We spent a long time on the Mary Janes.
I was looking at the heel rising up the back, its junction with the sole, the line that changes how the shoe reads. Matteo, who has worked on women’s formal footwear, wanted to understand how the underside had been constructed.
In the photographs, he’d spotted a criss-cross detail that reminded him of traditional craftsmanship in formal footwear. It was a reading of the image, to be confirmed with the shoe in hand.
That distinction matters. Seeing an interesting technique doesn’t yet tell us how it’s been executed, how precise it is in the less visible areas or how it behaves in use.
Matteo had also begun considering a purchase so he could study and keep the shoe. His sister, initially the possible recipient of the gift, was already at risk of losing it before it arrived.
That brought another question about the audience into our discussion. Someone buying for an archive is looking for something different from someone who wants to wear the product every week. A second purchase means something different, too: coming back to complete a collection doesn’t tell the same story as returning because a shoe fitted well.
Then the reviews arrived
Among the material I shared with Matteo is Sia’s reel. In the caption reproduced in our conversation, she declares her love for Galliano and says she’d waited months for the collection; she then complains about glue and untidy finishing.
That account belongs to the person publishing it. We haven’t checked it against the product, and we aren’t using it to describe the whole collection. What interests us is the shift she describes: expectations were already high, and the product she received appears to have dented that enthusiasm.
Andrea Cheong’s review, published on 1 October, adds a more detailed reading. Cheong found her encounter with Re{form} better than she’d expected and praises the execution of some garments in difficult fabrics. With others, she questions materials, finishing and value for money. She also asks whether certain edges and traces of construction read clearly as deliberate choices. These are assessments of the pieces she examined, rather than a check of the entire production.
Considering different observations together is more useful than looking only for confirmation of our own position. A well-made garment deserves recognition. A documented problem needs to be identified precisely and understood.
Complexity doesn’t certify execution
Matteo makes a precise distinction: the complexity of the design and the quality of its execution need to be assessed separately.
A construction can involve a great deal of work and still reach the customer with poor finishing. A simpler solution can be executed with considerable care. To understand what we’re looking at, we need to examine the detail.
Deconstruction calls for the same attention. A raw edge can be part of the design. To assess it, I need to understand how it’s been cut, where it sits, what stresses it will face and how it’s intended to behave. Looking irregular isn’t enough to make it a defect; referring to the designer’s language isn’t enough to make it successful.
With a possible trace of glue, however, the check concerns that particular area, the material and the cleanliness of the finish. The name on the label can’t provide the answer.
We don’t have the evidence to attribute the reported problems to a particular stage. They might concern execution, inspection or something else: further checks would be needed. But we can frame a question that makes it possible to investigate: which item, which area, what problem, and how often?
Time matters, but what are we using it to assess?
Matteo continues to reserve judgment on the collection as a whole: first see the product, then give it time.
I felt the need to clarify that second step.
Time will help us understand how the garments age, whether they hold their shape and whether the people wearing them want to return. It will also let us observe whether the collaboration can sustain itself creatively and commercially.
Some checks, though, begin when the box is opened. If glue residue or parts sticking where they shouldn’t are confirmed, an answer is needed straight away. Waiting a season won’t make that problem any clearer.
Matteo agrees with the clarification: “The quality of execution can already be assessed at the first contact with the product.” He distinguishes that initial check from the time needed to understand its behaviour and durability, and from the time it will take to assess the project’s continuity.
He then adds another point: after the box is opened, the product will need to “keep earning its place in the wardrobe”. The comparison between expectations and the garment received starts straight away and continues through wear. As for the complete look, he confirms that the temptation remains.
From opening the parcel to the next purchase
In my article on the product page as the customer’s first fitting without the garment, I focused on the information needed to choose online. Now the discussion moves to what happens after payment: what arrives, how it fits and how closely it matches what we’d understood.
Matteo’s question about value remains open. An industrial and distribution system different from that of a fashion house can support a sophisticated product with a different economic structure. To compare them, though, we need information about the products and the conditions that make them possible. A lower price than luxury doesn’t certify a bargain; a higher price than Zara’s usual offer doesn’t prove that the garment isn’t worth it.
Meanwhile, the Mary Janes still need examining. I’d still like to see the dress outside, inside and in motion. Matteo would also like to see how the pieces work together, as well as individually.
The case study continues with those checks still to come.
For anyone who has already bought Re{form}: once you opened the parcel, which detail confirmed or changed the opinion you’d formed from the images?
Romina Tosi & Matteo Pegoraro
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article reflect our personal analysis of the information available at the time of publication. The sources consulted are publicly available and include, where relevant, official documents, trade union statements, press articles and other freely accessible materials. Artificial intelligence tools were used to help identify and consult sources, carry out preliminary checks on them, and find and check the links included in the article. Before publication, we reviewed the relevant sources and verified that the links corresponded to the materials cited. AI assistance does not replace our editorial judgement; we remain responsible for the final text. Links were checked on the date of publication and may subsequently be changed, moved or removed by their respective publishers. We do not disclose confidential information or information obtained through privileged professional access. Facts, statements, allegations and opinions are presented as such. Any references to individuals, companies or specific cases serve to examine issues of broader interest to the industry. They are not intended to allege unlawful conduct beyond what is expressly documented in the cited sources. Assessments of industrial strategies, financial decisions and production models constitute personal opinions, not findings of fact or definitive judgements.
If you notice an error or inaccuracy, please let us know. We will check the information and correct it if necessary.
The purpose of this article is to contribute to an informed discussion, not to harm individuals, companies or organisations.
Comments