The Emergence of Italy As A Fashion Coun PDF

Business History
ISSN: 0007-6791 (Print) 1743-7938 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fbsh20
The emergence of Italy as a fashion country:

Nation branding and collective meaning creation
at Florence’s fashion shows (1951–1965)
Valeria Pinchera & Diego Rinallo
To cite this article: Valeria Pinchera & Diego Rinallo (2017): The emergence of Italy as a fashion
country: Nation branding and collective meaning creation at Florence’s fashion shows (1951–1965),
Business History, DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1332593
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2017.1332593
Published online: 11 Jun 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fbsh20
Download by: [Università di Pisa] Date: 11 June 2017, At: 23:39

Business History, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2017.1332593
The emergence of Italy as a fashion country: Nation branding

and collective meaning creation at Florence’s fashion shows
(1951–1965)
Valeria Pincheraa and Diego Rinallob,c
a
Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; bMarketing Department, KEDGE
Business School, Marseille, France; cCERGAM, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche en Gestion d’Aix-Marseille,
Aix-en-Provence, France
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
We analyse the emergence of Italy as a fashion country with a Fashion; fashion shows;
reconstruction of the history and impact of the collective fashion Italian fashion; nation
shows that Giovanni Battista Giorgini organised in Florence in 1951– branding; Renaissance;
1965. Our cultural analysis highlights the role events play in the collective brand; meaning
creation; Florence; Giovanni
mobilisation of local actors and the creation of nation brands, which Battista Giorgini; haute
we conceive as ongoing narrations built on a country’s material and couture; prêt-à-porter; field-
symbolic resources that differentiate its image in valuable ways for configuring events
export markets. Despite their decline, the Florentine shows created
an intangible asset that facilitated the ascent of Milan as Italy’s fashion
capital in the 1970s.
Introduction
‘Just like the Chianti. Italy’s fashions are becoming as well-known as its table wine’. That was
the headline of an April 1952 article in the US magazine Life.1 ‘Paris has a rival’, read the
caption of an article in a UK magazine during the same period.2 How could a country like
Italy, so shortly after the Second World War, come to challenge Paris’s (and France’s) long-es-
tablished fashion hegemony? Historical analyses on the emergence of Italy as a fashion
country have highlighted the important role that Giovanni Battista Giorgini’s collective fash-
ion shows in Florence played in the development of a distinctly Italian fashion that provided
North American department stores and consumers with an alternative to French fashion for
the first time.3 This paper extends studies on this crucial period by means of an in-depth
analysis of the Giorgini archive and other data sources, which we interpret by using a con-
ceptual framework to link together cultural views on collective marketing events and their
role in nation branding.
More specifically, our study is theoretically informed by the cultural approach that has
provided a theoretical basis for studies of markets for more than 30 years, and has recently
also been advocated in the field of business history.4 Our goal is to critically examine
Giorgini’s nation branding strategy, based on the use of the Florentine shows he organised
CONTACT Valeria Pinchera [email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 V. PINCHERA AND D. RINALLO
as a promotional platform aimed at the North American market. Studies based on a cultural
approach focus on the meanings and narratives key actors use to make sense of events,
phenomena, organisations and their broader context. Nation branding is based on the dif-
fusion of meanings resulting from coding and encoding processes that use selective read-
ings of the past and which other actors often contest and contrast.5
In particular, in this period of Italian fashion history, the key actors were the US fashion
press,6 which supported Giorgini strongly, acting as an important source of legitimacy for
his fashion shows, and the other Italian fashion organisations which, to a great extent, con-
trasted with Giorgini’s activities. Each of these organisations, localised in different cities and
representing the interests of local governments and entrepreneurial associations, engaged
in concurrent nation branding initiatives and lobbied to obtain Italy’s central government
support. As we show in our empirical analysis and discuss in our conclusions, these concur-
rent efforts were detrimental to Giorgini’s initiatives and fragmented the emerging Italian
fashion field that could have possibly achieved more had it presented to export markets a
united front. Based on these premises, our research questions are:7 (i) What meanings did
Giorgini attribute to the emerging Italian fashion? (ii) How did the US media interpret the
emerging Italian fashion? And (iii) how did contemporaneous Italian fashion organisations
react to Giorgini’s initiatives? Beyond the specificities of the empirical context and the his-
torical period investigated, our underlying research question is: what role do collective events
play in the mobilisation of local actors and the creation of nation brands?
From a methodological point of view, our study is mostly based on data from the Giorgini
Archive of Italian Fashion, which contains over 12,000 records, including press clippings
(mostly from US and Italian newspapers and magazines), press releases, promotional mate-
rials, letters, pictures and other miscellaneous sources covering 29 editions of the collective
fashion shows that Giorgini organised and supervised between 1951 and 1965. We combined
data from the Giorgini archive with additional material collected from the Archive of the
Florence Chamber of Commerce, the Archive of 1900s Fashion (Archivi della Moda del ‘900),
the Pitti Immagine Archive and relevant audio-visual documents from the Istituto Luce and
the Rai Teche. While our account emerges from our data gathering and analysis activities,
we selectively integrated findings from other published accounts of fashion history in the
period under investigation. This enabled us to better reconstruct the context in which the
emergence of Italian fashion occurred and to enrich our findings with data from different
sources.
Our research findings show that, for the first time, Giorgini’s nation branding strategies
created a widespread perception of Italy as a country of fashion creators. By promoting
frequent interaction with foreign buyers and media, driving innovation efforts, adapting the
latter to evolving market conditions and manifesting the intangible meanings that were
associated with emergent Italian fashion in a tangible form, the fashion shows Giorgini
organised provided a focal point for the collective action of Italian couturiers and other
sectors of the Italian fashion system (e.g. leather, textiles, shoes and millinery). As Belfanti
also highlights, a key theme in Giorgini’s nation branding strategy was the (historically inac-
curate) narrative that Italian fashion was the direct heir of the Renaissance craftsmanship
tradition.8 This narrative played a major role in defining and legitimising Italian fashion in
foreign markets (notably, the US), but it only had limited effects on bringing Italian couturiers
together in a unitary export-promotion project. As we demonstrate in this article, tensions
BUSINESS HISTORY 3
rose among groups of couturiers based in different parts of Italy and eventually contributed
to the demise of the Florentine fashion shows.
The rest of this article is structured as follows. First, we propose a conceptual framework
that links place branding with meaning creation and the uses of history in the context of
collective events such as Giorgini’s fashion shows. We continue with a contextual analysis
of Italy before the 1950s, in which we compare Italy’s attempts to create a national fashion
during the Fascist regime against the backdrop of French haute couture and its key organ-
isation, the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Française. Subsequently, to better set the back-
ground of our analysis, we describe the Turin, Milan and Rome-based organisations that
acted as rivals of Giorgini’s nation branding activities and, to some extent, undermined these
activities’ results. Having described the context, we provide an in-depth analysis of Giorgini’s
promotional strategies and an account of these strategies’ reception in the US press and by
internal stakeholders. We conclude with a discussion of our findings, which offers a more
nuanced view of the decline of Florence as Italy’s fashion capital and subsequent
developments.
Our theory-informed analyses allow our study to contribute to previous accounts of this
crucial period in Italian fashion history by linking together Giorgini’s promotional strategies
and uses of the past, their external reception by foreign media, and domestic competition
with other Italian fashion organisations. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first attempt
to examine the emergence of Italian history by means of a theoretical framework linking
nation branding with the creation of a ‘made in Italy’ intangible asset (a collective nation
brand) that, long after the demise of Giorgini’s Florentine shows, contributed to the inter-
national affirmation of Italian pret-à-porter in the late 1970s and 1980s.9 Moving beyond
our empirical context, our longitudinal study contributes to the literature on nation branding
by shedding light on the features and dynamics of promotional strategies based on collective
marketing events.
Nation branding, narration, and collective marketing events

Most studies of fashion, including traditional business history analyses, have examined the
socio-cultural and economic contexts that provided the conditions for the emergence – and
subsequent development – of national fashion industries characterised by a distinct style.10
Khaire, however, recently noted that studies on fashion history have not sufficiently examined
how the actions of key actors contribute to creating an identity for the industry.11 In this
article, following the lead of Khaire and others who have contributed to highlighting the
role of key actors in fashion history,12 we focus on Giovanni Battista Giorgini. We examine
how the collective fashion shows that he organised in the 1951–1965 period strengthened
the outside recognition of Italy as a fashion country. Beyond Giorgini, our analysis also follows
two other important actors in the period under investigation: the foreign media and the
other Italian fashion organisations that competed with Giorgini, eventually contributing to
the end of the Florentine fashion shows.
Nation branding activities such as those developed by Giorgini are typically carried out
by trade associations, export-promotion agencies and other collective actors with the goal
of developing a positive nation image and successfully transferring it to its export.13
Consumers often consider country of origin as an indicator of product quality and they might
even pay a premium price for products from countries that have a good reputation in a
specific product category.14 By building or reinforcing country-of-origin effects, nation brand-

ing initiatives support the development of intangible assets that all firms from a given coun-
try can exploit.
Most nation branding approaches are built on already-existing national stereotypes,
which can be an advantage in international markets; for example, France’s long-established
association with taste and luxury, Germany’s superior technology and Italy’s recognised
product aesthetics. However, in her critique of these approaches, Hansen suggests that place
branding is best understood as the construction of powerful narratives that create resonant
cultural meanings about a country and its products.15 In other words, meaning is not inherent
in a place, but rather culturally produced by carefully selecting (from among countless alter-
natives) those narratives that have the potential to be more persuasive for foreign target
markets. Thus, nation branding is about telling stories about a country by using a self-ro-
manticizing mix of fact and fiction that is both credible and effective in generating favourable
symbolic meanings. Narratives constructed around the past can therefore serve as strategic
resources that frame the way relevant audiences view the country.16
There are various strategies that can be used to promote a country’s image. In this paper,
we focus on collective marketing events that bring together, albeit for a limited period of
time, numerous suppliers who present their offer to buyers, the media, and other purchase
influencers. Trade shows are the most studied among such collective marketing events.
Economists consider these events as transaction cost-saving institutions, because by locating
those actors representing the supply and demand in the same time and space, they can
significantly reduce the costs that buyers incur when searching for suitable suppliers.17 Most
marketing literature on these events focuses on individual suppliers (‘exhibitors’ in the con-
text of trade shows) and provides insight on how to maximise their returns on
investments.18
More recently, a new generation of studies has looked at the broader effects of these
events on their underlying industries. In marketing, scholars have looked at the ritual nature
of these events, which are meeting places for professional communities and key sites for
meaning generation and public memory.19 In organisation studies, a stream of research on
‘field-configuring events’ suggests that these events can affect the innovation trajectories
of underlying industries.20 Building on a knowledge-based view of the firm and of territorial
agglomeration, economic geography has reinterpreted trade fairs and other events as tem-
porary clusters where forms of organised proximity between suppliers and buyers provide
platforms for observation and interaction that accelerate learning and innovation.21 Research
on temporary clusters also highlights various functions of these events, two of which are
particularly important in the context of our study.22 First, by highlighting the history of the
national industry and educating the market about the key functional and/or symbolic dif-
ferences in product quality, trade shows and other collective events can be utilised as stra-
tegic tools to generate meaning. Secondly, local trade show organisers, supported by local
governments and industry actors, often compete against each other; this leads to smaller
events that are ill-suited to attracting foreign buyers and generate confusion in the
market.
In this paper, we build on these conceptual developments with respect to the culture-
producing function of collective events and their role in nation branding. We suggest that
the Giorgini organised fashion shows were instrumental in creating an internationally recog-
nised Italian fashion. Fashion shows are promotional events specific to the fashion field,
BUSINESS HISTORY 5
originating from the practices adopted by French couturiers, who employed ‘mannequins’
(in-house models) to show clients their latest creations.23 By 1910, these practices had evolved
into ‘fashion parades’ – scheduled events, repeated every day over the course of a few weeks,
where mannequins modelled the new couture collection sequentially. By 1918, fashion houses
started organising their fashion shows on fixed dates to facilitate the travels of foreign buyers,
which was the start of organised collection presentations, known today as fashion weeks.
Contrary to trade shows, which are collective exhibitions based on the display of products
that clients can physically examine, fashion shows are spectacular events that, since their
origins, have been inspired by the world of performing arts.24 Both fashion weeks and trade
shows, however, are collective promotional events where suppliers meet buyers. The organ-
isers of these events coordinate the promotional initiatives of the participating suppliers by
providing their product presentations with temporal or spatial order: spatially, in the case
of trade shows, by arranging the exhibitors in the exhibition layout; temporally, in the case
of fashion weeks, by arranging fashion shows according to the calendar, that is, at a specific
day and time. Literature on these events can therefore be aptly employed to make sense of
the role that the Giorgini organised fashion shows played in the emergence of Italy as a
fashion country.
Antecedents: The supremacy of Paris and Italy’s fascist-era emancipatory

attempts
For most of French fashion history, dressmakers were skilled artisans who did not create
original styles, but instead fashioned garments based on their client’s specifications.25 New
styles, originating from elite women who, due to their exquisite taste and social status, served
as opinion leaders, were diffused by means of the French and international fashion press.26
The first couturier (in the modern sense of the term) was an Englishman residing in Paris,
Charles Frederick Worth (1825–1895), who opened his highly successful maison de couture
in 1858.27 Self-portraying as artists and arbiters of taste, Worth and the other couturiers, who
soon established their fashion houses in Paris, became the ultimate fashion authorities,
imposing their views on how women should be dressed.28
Only ten years later, couturiers funded the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Française,
whose goal was to promote individual couture houses and Parisian couturiers as a collective.
The members earned the right to label themselves a maison de couture by adhering to strict
quality requirements. The Chambre Syndicale played a key role in the organisation of haute
couture, educating the workforce, protecting its members against mutual threats, lobbying
public authorities, organising the fashion show calendar, and jointly promoting the sector
in the domestic and international market.29 French haute couture, located in Paris, was there-
fore internationally recognised, well-organised and cast its cumbersome shadow over foreign
emancipatory attempts.
The idea of creating recognisably Italian fashion had circulated since the country’s unifi-
cation in the 1860s, but it was only in the 1920s and 1930s, with the advent of Fascism, that
serious attempts started to be made in this direction. With its political project of developing
an independent cultural identity, the Fascist regime tried to persuade Italians to avoid French
fashion in favour of dresses and accessories based on traditional regional clothing. In 1932,
the Ente Autonomo per la Mostra Nazionale Permanente della Moda (EAMNPM, Authority
for the Permanent National Fashion Exhibition) was established in Turin with the goal of
nationalising Italian fashion production by means of a biannual national fashion show and
exhibition taking place in spring and autumn.30 Given the institution’s limited impact regard-
ing changing Italian consumers’ and dressmakers’ reliance on Parisian couture, a new law
modified the constitution of the Ente Autonomo in the second half of 1935. The institution
was renamed Ente Nazionale Moda (ENM, National Fashion Authority) and given broad pow-
ers to grant an Italian ‘guarantee label’ (marca di garanzia) to dressmakers. Nevertheless, the
extremely bureaucratic process, the focus on the internal market and the lack of business
logic compromised its operations severely.31
Under the new regime, dressmakers had to declare their activities to the Authority and
mark at least 25% of their models with a label attesting to the design and production’s
‘Italianness’. To do so, they needed to send the Authority, at their expense, a photo and fabric
sample of each model, as well as pay a fee for each item granted the label. Tradespeople
considered the entire top-down process questionable. How could the Authority staff judge
fashion items by merely looking at photos? Indeed, the Authority granted most of the prod-
ucts requesting one, including low quality ones, a marca (label). In 1939, a new law deter-
mined that the marca d’oro (golden label) would only be granted to Italian haute couture
houses. Despite these attempts, most dressmakers continued to take inspirations from
French collections. In a first phase, even women’s magazines kept reporting on Paris fashions,
lamenting the unavailability of photos of Italian fashion products, which the Authority –
required to protect dressmakers’ intellectual property – was unwilling to provide.
In sum, the Authority, backed by the Italian government, adopted a top-down approach
to rid Italian fashion of French influences. They left creative decisions in the hands of Italian
dressmakers and tailors who, working in small ateliers and producing handmade items,
worked in isolation, never engaging in the kind of cooperative efforts that would have made
a recognisable unitary Italian fashion possible.32 In addition, the Authority made no signifi-
cant effort to promote Italian fashion internationally. Nonetheless, the Authority’s import-
discouraging activities stimulated the development of ‘autarchic’ textiles and materials,
which would later play a role in the development of Italian fashion.
The lack of a commonly recognised Italian style did not mean that Italian dressmakers
were not internationally acknowledged, in the pre-Giorgini era. The Roman dressmaker and
artist Maria Monaci Gallenga received the Grand Prix in 1925 at the International Exposition
of Decorative and Industrial Arts in 1925, eventually opening an atelier in the centre of Paris.33
International markets also appreciated Italian (especially Florentine) artisanal leather acces-
sories and footwear, which was mostly due to the achievements of Salvatore Ferragamo and
Guccio Gucci. Ferragamo, after a long and successful period in Hollywood, where he had
established himself as the shoemaker to the stars, returned to Italy in 1927. He opened a
workshop in Florence for the artisanal production of high-quality women’s shoes, which
rapidly attracted a noteworthy international clientele, including royals and actresses.34 In
1937, the American fashion magazine Vogue honoured Ferragamo’s ability and creative
genius by calling him ‘the wonderful little shoemaker of Florence’.35 Gucci started in 1921 as
a producer of equestrian-inspired leather luggage. By the mid-1930s, he had extended his
business to bags, wallets and belts. Owing to the word-of-mouth of foreign tourists visiting
Florence and Rome, where the company opened its second shop in 1938, he soon had an
international reputation.36
In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, American consumers had more
chances to notice and appreciate Italian products. Several factors facilitated this exposure,
BUSINESS HISTORY 7
including the economic recovery of Italy stimulated by the American financial support (ini-
tially by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration [UNRRA] and then, from
1948, by the European Recovery Program [Marshall Plan]).37 The re-opening of the interna-
tional trade and the development of tourism also contributed to the exposure. The supply
of wool and cotton yarns obtained in the context of the UNRRA aid programme, meant that
the production of Italian knitwear had recovered, as early as in 1947. Firms such as Luisa
Spagnoli and, from 1949 Laura Aponte, Marisa Arditi and Mirsa by Olga di Grésy exported
their knitwear (to the US, but also to UK).38 Clothes designed by Simonetta (nobly born as
Simonetta Visconti di Cesarò) in Rome were featured in a two-page fashion spread in the US
edition of Vogue in 1947. The same year, Neiman Marcus, the US luxury department store,
bestowed its prestigious award on Ferragamo. The following year, the winter edition of
Harper’s Bazaar fashion magazine published an article with four pictures of the women’s ski
outfits that marquis Emilio Pucci had created.39 The presence of US movie stars in Rome,
whose Cinecittà studios made it ‘the Hollywood on the Tiber’, also provided the city’s tailors
and dressmakers with an opportunity to gain international fame.
During this time, however, the popularity of the limited number of Italian couturiers and
accessory producers did not play a particularly strong role in spreading the idea of Italy as
a country of fashion creations. While there were established fashion houses with solid tech-
nical skills and a local reputation, they were still dependent on Parisian models, which they
adapted to Italian consumers’ tastes by simplifying the cuts and decorations that Italian
women would have considered excessive or even ridiculous.40 Pucci, Ferragamo, and
Simonetta were therefore outliers – exceptions to the rule that fashion was French. Their
international notoriety was the result of their individual promotional efforts, rather than an
organised collective action. The media treated them as individuals, rather than as specific
manifestations of an Italian style characterised by common characteristics. A recognised
‘made in Italy’ collective brand, while building on these antecedents, had yet to be
created.
Creating Italian fashion: Many contenders fighting each other

After the end of the Second World War, in Italy, various local organisations attempted con-
currently to organize and promote Italian fashion internationally. These organisations were
located in different cities, all of which had the ambition to become Italy’s fashion capital.
This resulted in conditions quite different from those that, 90 years before, had facilitated
the collective organisation of haute couture in France: the co-localisation of all haute couture
houses in the same city and the establishment of a single organisation representing the
interest of the entire couture field. To better understand the background of our analysis of
Giorgini’s activities, we describe the Italian fashion organisations active in the period
1945–1951.
The Ente Italiano Moda (EIM, Italian Fashion Authority), building on the heritage of the
almost homonymous Fascism-era Ente Nazionale Moda, was established in Turin in 1945,
soon after the end of the Second World War. The city of Turin and the local industry actors
strongly supported the re-foundation of the Ente, albeit for different reasons.41 The Chamber
of Commerce and the Industrial Union sustained the Ente financially and felt its activities
would benefit the textile industry, which was important for Piedmont’s economy. Count
Dino Lora Totino of Cervinia (1900–1980), from an old family of wool manufacturers in Biella
(an important wool processing district in Piedmont), was the first President of the Ente.42
The general manager was Vladimiro Rossini, who had fulfilled the same function at the
previous Fascist-era fashion authority and remained in office until November 1970, playing
a key role in the Ente’s direction as well as in Italian fashion. In October 1946, the Ente organ-
ised its first National Exhibition of Fashion Art in Turin’s Royal Palace. A total of 75 Italian
fashion houses (and a few French ones), including some of the most important Italian dress-
makers from Rome (Fontana and Antonelli) and Milan (Biki, Fiorani and Vanna) participated
in the Exhibition.
In 1949, a second fashion organisation appeared in Milan, the Centro Italiano Moda (Italian
Fashion Centre). This organisation, ‘the Lombard response to the Turin’s authority’43 was
aimed at coordinating all Italian fashion activities, whose ‘dispersion’ was ‘without any doubt
the greatest obstacle to its expansion in Italy and outside Italy.’44 Franco Marinotti (1891–
1966), headed the Centre as well as being the President of SNIA Viscosa (Società Nazionale
Industria e Applicazioni Viscosa, the National Rayon Manufacturing and Application
Company).45 Milan was regarded ‘as the city of commerce, of industries, of international
exchanges, of practical sense, of speed’,46 which motivated the choice of this Lombard city
as the Centre’s headquarters. The city was thought to provide the best context to facilitate
achieving the new organisation’s goals. Through its interlocking directorate with SNIA
Viscosa, the organisation also guaranteed the link to Italy’s textile industry.
Despite being located in Milan, the Centre organised promotional activities in other cities,
which served as effective commercial showcases for Italy’s fashion. In April 1949, the Centre
organised a show in Rome, during which 15 high fashion houses from Milan, Rome and
Florence presented their models to the public at the Opera Theatre.47 In September 1949
and 1950, the Centre also organised a Fashion Festival in Venice, to benefit from the inter-
national attendance and media visibility of the city’s International Film Festival. In the years
that followed, the Centro Internazionale delle Arti e del Costume (CIAC, International Centre
for the Arts and Costume) – a separate organisation, but with strong links to the Milanese’
Centre, continued to organise Venice’s Fashion Festival. Franco Marinotti founded the
Venetian Centre in 1951 and his son, Paolo Marinotti directed it. The Milanese Centre also
organised commercial missions abroad, the first of which was in Zurich (April 1950) with the
presentation of the collections of some of Italy’s most important creators (including Antonelli,
the Fontana sisters, Marucelli, Simonetta Visconti and Veneziani).
In 1949, the founding in Rome of a new organisation further complicated the map of the
emerging Italian fashion field. Earlier in the year, on 27 January, the Roman wedding of the
American stars Tyrone Power and Linda Christian had cast an international spotlight on
Rome’s haute couture:48 the bride’s wedding gown was a creation of the Fontana sisters,
while the Roman tailors Brioni and Caraceni had dressed the groom. In May 1949, Rome’s
Chamber of Commerce organised the First Fashion National Congress, which paved the way
for the constitution of the Comitato della Moda (CM, Fashion Committee), on 5 November.
The Committee’s goal was to ‘strengthen and increase the productive activities to the max-
imum’ and ‘maintain constant and active relationships with all national and foreign fashion
centres for the technical, artistic and professional development of the national production’.49
Despite its ambitious goals, the CM had appeared on an already crowded and conflictual
scene, with constrained margins for manoeuvring, thus limiting its activity.
To sum up, in the years following the Second World War, various Italian organisations
attempted to concurrently coordinate Italian fashion, based on different constituencies,
BUSINESS HISTORY 9
interests and resources. Located in different cities, these organisations engaged in collective
promotional activities requiring the support of fashion houses in other parts of the country.
On 17 February 1951, the Italian Government recognised Turin’s Authority and granted it
‘specific responsibility regarding the subject of fashion and clothing’ under the supervision
of the Minister of Trade and Industry,50 thus acquiring a position of supremacy over the other
organisations. This was the context that the marquis Giovanni Battista Giorgini (1898–1971)
faced when his activities added Florence to the Italian fashion map.
Giorgini’s nation branding strategy

Claims that the day that Giorgini organised his first collective Italian fashion shows in Florence
(12 February 1951) marks the birth of Italian fashion might be exaggerated given the various
promotional initiatives that had already occurred after the end of Second World War. However,
this event did represent a turning point in the emancipation of Italy from French inspirations,
in the stabilisation of relationships with North American buyers and media, and in the dif-
fusion of a coherent symbolism that could be superimposed on the material elements of
the collections presented on Italy’s catwalks. Having been an independent resident buyer
of Italian (especially Tuscan) craftsmanship for some prominent US department stores since
1923, Giorgini had extensive first-hand knowledge of the North American market. Between
1944 and 1946 he managed a gift shop for the Allied troops in the centre of Florence.51 It
was during this time that he started thinking about promoting Italian production on the
international market. The first step toward this goal was an exhibition that he conceived and
arranged, entitled ‘Italy at work. Her Renaissance in Design Today’. It opened in November
1950 at the Brooklyn Museum in New York City and represented a first, positive test of the
idea of promoting Italy’s contemporary productions by linking them to the Italian
Renaissance.52
Giorgini identified clothing as the most suitable Italian product for export to the United
States. In November 1950, Giorgini, using his wide-ranging knowledge of the North American
market and extensive network, sent out formal invitations to some of the most important
North American buyers (including Bergdorf Goodman of New York, I. Magnin of San Francisco
and Henry Morgan of Montreal) to attend the ‘First Italian High Fashion Show’ in Florence.
The invitation consisted of a card decorated with a reproduction of Raphael’s ‘Portrait of
Maddalena Strozzi’ and the lily symbol of Florence, along with an English-language brochure
on the history of Italian fashion and its artistic tradition.53 Having secured an audience,
Giorgini convinced a group of Italian dressmakers to take part in the initiative, with the
recommendation that they present only Italian-inspired creations in order to prove the ‘orig-
inal excellence of the Italian fashion tradition’:
In the interest of the houses themselves, it is a categorical condition that the designs that will
be presented be of pure and exclusive Italian inspiration. In this first show next February, it will
not be easy to have many American buyers attending, as they are convinced that Italian fashion
is derived from Paris […] It is therefore up to us to demonstrate that Italy, which through the
centuries has always been an authority in the field of fashion, has retained its genius and can
still create with genuine spirit.54
The first Italian collective fashion show took place in Giorgini’s palatial residence, Villa
Torrigiani, immediately after the Parisian shows. In the presence of six of the important
American buyers and five fashion reporters, a group of 13 Italian couturiers from Milan, Rome
and Florence displayed their creations, for a total of 180 different models.55 Despite the
limited audience, the event found enormous resonance, principally due to well-known jour-
nalists’ flattering accounts in the most important international (especially US) newspapers
and fashion magazines. The second edition of the Florentine fashion show in July 1951
marked the definitive consecration, as the number of Italian couturiers in attendance
increased from 13 to 15 and the number of models shown grew from 180 to 700. More
importantly, the participation of buyers rose sharply: from six to more than 300, which
required moving the show to a larger venue, Florence’s Grand Hotel.56 Given the city of
Florence’s support, Giorgini was able to relocate the shows to the White Hall (Sala Bianca)
of the Palazzo Pitti, a (mainly) Renaissance palace previously owned by the Medici family
and the former residence of the grand dukes of Tuscany, in July 1952.
Giorgini’s nation branding strategy was multifaceted and remarkably innovative in com-
parison with those adopted by the other Italian fashion promotion organisations. First, in
terms of product mix, he successfully differentiated Italy’s fashion offer from that of France.
As previously noted, Giorgini required the participating fashion houses to present original
models without a trace of French influence. Conversely, the other Italian fashion organisa-
tions did not constrain the creativity of the houses participating in their promotional initi-
atives. Furthermore, Giorgini not only included producers of haute couture in his shows, but
also houses specialising in the so-called boutique fashion – high-quality artisanal ready-to-
wear clothing characterised by being casual and sporty, for example knitwear, blouses, pants
and jumpsuits.57 Boutique fashion had attracted the attention of American department
stores since the late 1940s, and was an original element of the emerging Italian offer.58 Finally,
Giorgini invited producers of complementary items, including accessories (bags, hats, gloves,
shoes, bijouterie). Presented as such, Italian fashion was intended to be more wearable and
suited to American consumers than its French counterpart.
Secondly, the fashion shows’ format was designed to facilitate the audience’s selection
of models to buy or write about. The Florentine catwalks were collective in kind, as they
adopted a ‘unique runway’ system. In other words, instead of having buyers and journalists
move from one atelier to the next in a stressful and exhausting tour de force as they did in
Paris, fashion creators would present their collections one after another on the same runway
and in front of a seated (and more relaxed) audience. As a result of this innovation format,
the fashion show programme was arranged according to product categories (e.g. haute
couture, boutique fashion, etc.). Giorgini also limited the number of designs each house
could present (60 models for high fashion, 20 for boutique collections). The reason for this
limit was time management, but it also compelled fashion houses to showcase only their
best proposals and prevented the long, repetitive and, to some extent, boring presentations
that were the norm in Paris.59 Buyers and the media, tired of the opulence and mannerism
of French couturiers, immediately took to the new formula.60
Finally, at the symbolic level, Giorgini insisted on presenting Italy’s fashion as one founded
on the Renaissance tradition. Such was the strength of France’s long-held association with
fashion that a powerful origin myth was required to legitimise Italy as a country of fashion
creators. Florence’s historical, artistic and architectural heritage provided the material and
symbolic bases to infuse the collections showcased at the Pitti Palace with resonant cultural
meanings.61 First, the physical environment of the city of Florence, as well as the venues for
the fashion shows and ancillary events, contributed to making the link between Italian fash-
ion and the Renaissance tangible and credible. After the shows, buyers would go to the
BUSINESS HISTORY 11
Palazzo Strozzi for negotiations with the fashion houses. In the evenings, they would attend
receptions, balls and parades that often had a historical theme and were organised in sug-
gestive venues. For example, in January 1953 Giorgini organised a re-enactment of the
wedding of Eleonora de’ Medici and Vincenzo Gonzaga in the Palazzo Vecchio in January
1953, with actors chosen from Florence’s aristocratic families.62 Fashion models were often
photographed inside or against the backdrop of the palaces and gardens of Florence’s nobles.
Many of the fashion creators belonged to the Italian aristocracy, including Emilio Pucci (a
marquis), Tessitrice dell’Isola (the baroness Clarette Gallotti) and Mirsa (the marquise Olga
di Grésy).63 Giorgini’s public relations with the media and buyers, based on extensive personal
correspondence and missions abroad, often leveraged the links Italian fashion had with the
Renaissance and aristocracy. For example, in February 1956 he organised a two-week journey
to New York City on the cruise ship Cristoforo Colombo to present the latest Italian fashion
creation with eight mannequins from noble families – an initiative that was really successful
with the American media.64
Having ensured that Florence would be a stop on buyers’ grand tour in Europe, Giorgini
tried to stabilise the initiative. First, to obtain institutional and financial support, he built
relationships with the EIM and the leading Italian textile companies of the period (Italviscosa,
Cotonificio Val di Susa and Lanificio Rivetti). In 1953 and 1954 these companies co-sponsored
the Pitti fashion shows, providing financial support, respectively, of $8,000 and $12,800 for
each of them.65 When these actors failed to renew their sponsorship, Giorgini secured the
financial support of the local stakeholders – the Municipality of Florence, the local Chamber
of Commerce and Industrial Association, and the Tourist Board – providing varying contri-
butions of between $24,000 and $32,000 per year.66 In 1954, these actors also helped Giorgini
create the Centre of Florence for Italian Fashion (Centro di Firenze per la Moda Italiana),
which assumed the responsibility for organising the Florentine fashion shows and promoting
Italian fashion.
During these years, Giorgini continued to broaden and adapt the content of the fashion
shows to follow evolving market needs and emerging opportunities. From July 1954 onwards,
he brought in new artisanal businesses by setting up an Accessory Exhibition at the Grand
Hotel. In later years, he introduced new fashion categories, such as the earliest models of
prêt-à-porter (1956), teenager fashion (1962) and lingerie (1964), as well as securing the
presence of new designers such as Lancetti (1961) and Valentino (1962) for haute couture,
and Ken Scott (1962), Krizia and Mila Schön (both 1965) for boutique fashion.67 As the market
evolved, Giorgini gradually shifted the focus of the Pitti presentations to boutique and sports-
wear fashion and ended up changing their name from ‘High Italian Fashion Show’ to ‘Italian
Fashion Show’ in January 1961. Finally, in January 1963, he admitted Italian buyers that had
previously been excluded, as the models presented in Florence were expressly designed for
international markets.68
In the second half of the 1950s, the number of buyers and press at the Pitti fashion shows
increased considerably, reaching 600 people from 13 countries in 1959, although the figure
mainly comprised German and US buyers.69 Between the end of the 1950s and the beginning
of the 1960s, the number of fashion houses participating in the Pitti fashion shows rose
significantly, as did the clothing designs presented to 2,000–3,000 models. Nevertheless,
the other Italian fashion organisations’ competitive moves, which resulted in the withdrawal
of some well-known haute couture and boutique fashion designers, undermined the prom-
inence and the image of the Pitti fashion shows. Before turning to these difficulties, we
analyse the external reception of Italian fashion and the way in which the media interpreted
Giorgini’s nation branding.
External reception: Foreign media interpretations of Italian fashion

The press are important gatekeepers whose role in fashion history has been at the centre
of various analyses.70 In this section, we highlight how the foreign press contributed to
Giorgini’s nation branding by reinforcing his narratives and linking them to some of the more
favourable of Italy’s established national stereotypes (e.g. Italy’s creativity and joie de vivre
– instead of, say, laziness and organised crime).71 Our analysis also highlights that not only
were the fashion media instrumental in promoting the emerging Italian fashion to North
American retailers and consumers, but they also provided – for Giorgini and individual cou-
turiers – important feedback on what the North American market appreciated. In line with
findings from literature on field-configuring events and temporary clusters,72 the Florentine
shows provided opportunities to learn from the market and, through this mechanism, influ-
ence the innovation trajectories of the emerging Italian fashion field.
The North American press, confronted with the task of reporting on emerging Italian
fashion, engaged in extensive descriptions and evaluations, often in comparative terms:
that is, by showing the key points that distinguished it from French fashion, which was more
familiar to them and their readers. What follows is the result of a qualitative content analysis
highlighting the most frequently recurring elements employed to qualify Italian fashion.
Most observers focused on the products themselves and their material attributes: the supe-
rior fabrics, considered ‘among the best in the world’, the excellent craftsmanship (‘the fine
Italian hand’), the new combination of colours, the innovative designs of boutique garments
and the beautiful accessories. The US press also noted that the prices of Italian fashion
products were significantly lower than those of their French counterparts:
Why do buyers and private customers flock to Italy? The prosaic fact is that Italian fabrics are of
the most tempting quality. Also a frock in Italy costs about a third of the French price. Also the
perfection of main d’oeuvre allows great variety in trimming and most especially embroidery.73
To better understand the impact of Italian’s fashion quality/price ratio, one has to consider
how the luxury and exclusiveness meanings associated with French fashion were attributed
to a wide range of market offerings in North America. Christian Dior, which had the most
extended product portfolio in the US, is a case in point.74 American buyers could choose
between an ‘original’ Dior dress made in France; a Dior dress made in the US by Dior-New
York, specifically designed to appeal to American women; licensed copies by luxury retailers
(such as Ohrbach’s, Macy’s and Gimbels), reproduced in original materials but often adapted
for practical reasons and to suit American consumers’ tastes; and unauthorised imitations
from local manufacturers sold for a few dollars, which specific Dior models nevertheless
inspired.75 This situation was confusing for the market and specifically for elite women, who
risked ending up wearing dresses remarkably similar to those their husbands’ secretaries
wore.
While the average price of a Parisian haute couture daytime dress was about $500, the
Italian prices ranged from $90 to $150 for haute couture dresses and from $12 to $48 for
boutique garments.76 The licensed reproductions that department stores sold, which could
be easily confused with unauthorised knock-offs, could not compete with the prices of the
‘original’ boutique products that came directly from Italy. Examples of such products were
BUSINESS HISTORY 13
the sweaters and cardigans by Mirsa, which the American department store I. Magnin sold
for between $12.95 and $18.95; the ‘puffy playsuit’ by Simonetta, which was available at
Bergdorf Goodman for $40 and the stripped cotton shirt by Cosetta Innocenti, which was
priced as little as $3.77 The affordable prices of Italian fashion, along with a favourable lira–
dollar exchange rate (625 lira for a US dollar) allowed US buyers to buy the original models,
especially the boutique collections, thus eliminating (at least at the outset) the need for
copies or adaptations of French haute couture creations.78 Furthermore, direct imports of
Italian fashion products allowed American consumers to experience the purchase of original
garments in the ‘easy casual’ Italian style and appreciate their high quality stitching and
fabrics.79
On a broader front, the US press realised that Italian fashion was different from its French
counterpart because the collections’ overall wearability was simpler, more modern and char-
acterised by a more casual and innovative style (especially regarding sportswear). The col-
lections also served different functions, which were more in line with US women’s needs.
Italian style [is] less extreme than those of French designers, more adapted to requirements of
American women – Italians design for individuals […] they look at woman herself and attempt
to dress her, rather than put her into a creation dreamed up for art’s sake only.80
To boost sales, some of the most important US department stores, including I. Magnin,
Gimbels and Bergdorf Goodman, promoted their newly introduced boutique fashion col-
lections through fashion shows and large advertising campaigns directed at the press. These
promotions helped spread the image of Italy as a fashion country as much as France, as well
as making the made in Italy label a legitimate alternative to the made in France label.81
Beyond product attributes and their functional benefits, the media characterised these
fashion proposals at the symbolic level as ‘completely Italian’,82 that is, as stemming from
specific elements of Italy’s pre-existing image:
Italy is a country where good wine, and warm hearts abound, has given the world its art inspira-
tion for centuries […] Like the Italian sun rich things are plentiful here, Palatial rooms, servants,
flowers, wine, carriages and rich silks are as abundant as the grape, and the opulence of Italian
living is manifest in the magnificent clothes that we along the visiting world press have seen
[…] Italy’s clothes, like the country itself, are most ‘bellissima’. Since this is only the second time
this country has shown its great soul to the world, it makes one anticipate all that is to come
from this land of art.83
At the same time, negative stereotypes about Italy were rarely remembered in this early
phase, and if they were recalled they were debunked as pre-conceived ideas that did not fit
with the image emerging from Italy’s fashions:
Everything that Italy had to offer converged in Florence […] Let’s hope that the myth of Italian
laziness will at last be added to the dustheap of bromidic fallacies! For this marvellous taste is
accompanied by great industry as is apparent in the beauty of the materials shown.84
Overall, the Giorgini promotional activities supported the idea of continuity between the
past glories of Italy’s fashions:
Centuries of elegance and good taste distinguish Italian fashion. Fourteenth-century Tuscan
elegance, the Italian Renaissance, seventeenth-century pomp and luxury, eighteenth-century
Venetian refinement spread all over Europe and it was then reputed fashionable and smart to
dress in the Italian way.85
Following Giorgini’s storytelling, observers kept on remarking that the country’s historical
heritage inspired Italian fashion. By linking the products’ characteristics with the presence
of a ‘genius loci’ (that is, the spirit of the place) these cultural intermediaries were forging a
cognitive link between the emerging Italian fashion and desirable benefits such as elegance
and good taste, in their audience:
Italy is a country of skilled artisans and the encouragement of native crafts was the surest way
of attracting foreign visitors to buy from an inexhaustible market of fine goods […] But, after all,
there is another very simple explanation for this tremendous vitality and inventiveness. They may
well be due to the fact that the Italian people have such a rich heritage of visual beauty. What
goes to make up the life of this lovely land seems to have been handed down from generation
to generation and the habit of living in beautiful surroundings tends to give every Italian an
instinctive talent for harmonious design.86
More generally, the availability of an alternative to Paris at a significantly lower price raised
doubts regarding to whether the high prices of French fashion were justified, which led to
the polarisation of trades people’s opinions:
There are two schools of thought on the high prices of the models. One group is of the opinion
that Paris is pricing itself out of the market. This contingent also points to the fact that many of
the couturiers have tieups with American manufacturers to produce a special line. They say this
has the tendency to take away some of the value of their purchases. The second group feels that
Paris is the inspirational center for the fashion business and that the creator is worth the price
he is getting. They accent the ingenuity of the couturier and the cost of making the creation
as justifying the asking price. It is noted that the prices of the Italian […] creations are quite a
bit lower but purchasers say that it is as yet a secondary high-style market compared to Paris.87
Put another way, and keeping literature on country-of-origin effects in mind, Paris was
still the top of the ideal world fashion capitals’ hierarchy. It commanded higher premium
prices than non-French products, but no longer had a monopoly and the presence of Italian
alternatives was weakening some buyers’ willingness to pay. The foreign media not only
described and evaluated Italian fashion for their readership (women as well as department
stores), but were also acting as surrogate consumers. These media provided Giorgini and
Italian couturiers with significant feedback on adapting their collections to the needs of the
US market. Specifically, the most influential journalists proscribed imitations of French styles
and supported the development of a specific Italian creativity built on the country’s strengths.
For example, Vogue wrote in 1952 that ‘the Italians need to be encouraged […] to develop
their native specialties and urgently discouraged from French adaptations’.88
Similarly to export-oriented trade fairs,89 the Florentine fashion shows not only provided
Italian couturiers with an opportunity to promote themselves to foreign markets, but also
to learn about market needs. This occurred through countless informal interactions with
buyers and journalists. The Sala Bianca’s shared catwalk was one opportunity for such inter-
actions: it not only produced visible audience reactions, but also led to buyers’ orders, whose
total amounts quantified the market’s appreciation for whole collections and individual
products, as well as to media reports, which made couturiers visible and highlighted news-
worthy trends and products. Such learning fed back into the collection development, helping
couturiers develop their individual style, and Italian fashion as a whole become sufficiently
different from the French (without becoming extravagant) and sufficiently suited to the
needs of the American market (without losing its creativity).
After the early years, with Florence having firmly established itself as one of Europe’s
fashion capitals and retaining the occasional reference to its heritage, the foreign press kept
on reporting on Italian fashion.90 Beyond the descriptions and assessments of individual
collections, the press kept on comparing Italy with France and frowned upon unfavourable
BUSINESS HISTORY 15
similarities. For example, one journalist ‘was left with the unhappy feeling that much of what
was shown belonged to six months ago in Paris, rather than to new interpretations of a
silhouette’.91 On other occasions, reporters criticised the lack of novelty: ‘The Italian couture
this season […] has produced very few brand new ideas. It appears that there is an inverse
proportion at Italian showings each season between commercial success and original talent.
The greater, the one, the less the other’, Women’s Wear Daily wrote in 1961 in reference to
the ongoing conflict between artistic creativity and commercial sensitivity that has been a
leitmotif of fashion reporting ever since.92
As the Florentine shows established themselves, exports of Italian fashion skyrocketed.
Between 1950 and 1957 the exports of Italian readymade women’s clothes rose from approx-
imately $72,000 to $2.88 million, and those of knitwear from $332,800 to $30.4 million – with
a growth rate significantly greater than that of the overall Italian exports.93 Between 1953
and 1963, clothing was one of Italy’s most dynamic sectors, increasing its weight from 3.5%
to 6.2% of total manufacturing exports.94 Within a decade, Italian clothing and accessory
exports to the United States surpassed those of France: more than $35 million, with the total
fashion exports as much as $745 million, compared with France’s approximate $20 million.95
In the meantime, especially German and English buyers and press increasingly attended the
Florentine shows. By 1957 their numbers exceeded those of the Americans.96 Paradoxically,
this huge achievement triggered feuds not only between couturiers, but especially between
the different Italian fashion organisations.
Italy’s fashion civil wars

Despite the gratifying feedback obtained from the international press and market, the fash-
ion shows in Florence faced numerous difficulties from the outset. The literature on trade
shows as temporary clusters shows that collective events – and the industry actors support-
ing them – often compete against each other, resulting in a proliferation of activities. Likewise,
centrifugal forces and delegitimising moves from the existing fashion organisations, which
reacted negatively to the presence of yet another contender, thwarted Giorgini’s attempts
to unify the country’s fashion producers under one (prestigious) roof – that of the city’s Pitti
Palace. To further complicate matters, minor bodies were also created in other cities after
1951, including in Naples and Palermo, bringing the total number of Italian organisations
promoting fashion to 13.97
This confusing situation led to uncertain alliances. Immediately after the first edition of
the International Italian Fashion Show, Giorgini sought the patronage of the EIM. However,
the Turin-based organisation’s initial reaction to Giorgini’s initiative was far from positive. In
July 1951, EIM’s general manager Rossini sent a letter to the member fashion houses that
had not attended the Florentine presentation. In this letter he remarked that it was a ‘private
enterprise’, ‘organised outside any EIM intervention’, while acknowledging the festival’s suc-
cess.98 The organisation also announced that it would manage contact with the foreign press
and buyers in the future. Rossini later officially presented Italy’s government agencies with
a schedule of fashion presentations, first in Rome and then in Florence at the fashion houses’
own ateliers, without any reference to Giorgini’s collective event.99 In November 1951, in
partnership with Milan’s Centro Italiano Moda, the EIM established the ‘Italian Fashion
Service’, whose mission was to organise and regulate fashion events in Italy. At the end of
December of the same year, the new agency sent a newsletter to the foreign press,
communicating the presentations of Italian fashion in Milan, Rome and Florence the follow-
ing January, without specifying the dates.
While covering the ‘battle for fashion supremacy’, the Italian and foreign press often drew
on Italian history to make sense of a situation that, to external eyes, was difficult to under-
stand. Again, the period of reference was the Renaissance, but instead of focusing on the
artistic achievements of the period, journalists remembered the political turmoil and the
frequent wars between Italian city-states. The unstable alliances and the attempts to dele-
gitimise Florence were seen as conspiracies against Florence and Giorgini.100 Reporting on
the feud between Rome and Florence, the foreign press reminded its readers that until
80 years earlier, Italy had been a collection of rival city states and that Giorgini’s ‘labor of love
and patriotism’ was even more admirable given the difficulties (‘conflicting temperaments
and jealously guarded local interest’) he had to face.101 An account by journalist Vera Vaerini,
which appeared in the newspaper Il Popolo di Roma in February 1952, clearly outlined these
domestic struggles and blamed not so much the centres in Turin and Milan but above all
the textile industrial groups SNIA Viscosa and Marzotto, the real sponsors of the Italian
Fashion Service with the blessing of the Minister of Trade and Industry102:
At the beginning of December a new institution, the ‘Italian Fashion Service’, a parent–child
relationship of the reconciliation between the Turin Fashion Centre and the Milan Fashion Entity
appeared. The representative of the two institutions had contact with adv. Cingolani Guidi under-
secretary of the Ministry of Industry and Trade […] and […] succeeded in obtaining a subsidy,
some say of 30 million lire, others say 100 million lire. Marinotti and [Gaetano] Marzotto, who
were contacted, also responded with generosity […] The Italian Fashion Service […] first of all
attempted to agitate the dressmakers belonging to the Giorgini group to leave Florence; having
failed in that, it formed a group of dissidents led by a Roman dressmaker […] As a result, nobody
understands anything any longer.103
Common enemies sometimes led to unlikely alliances. In 1953, Giorgini obtained the
support of the EIM, Milan’s Centro Italiano Moda, and the textile industry for his fashion
shows. This common front formed by Turin, Florence and Milan, resulted in a Roman defec-
tion. That same year, eight important Roman couturiers (including Fabiani, Simonetta,
Schuberth, the Fontana sisters, Ferdinandi and Carnet) founded the Sindacato Italiano Alta
Moda (Italian High Fashion Syndicate). They began showing their collections in their own
ateliers in Rome, two days before the Florentine presentations, with the endorsement of the
local institutions and part of the press.104 One element of dissatisfaction was Giorgini’s focus
on boutique fashion and accessories, which would distract buyer and press attention from
haute couture proposals. There was also the ‘unique runway’ formula, much appreciated by
the foreign buyers, which clashed with the couturiers’ need for ‘protagonism’, because it
reduced the number of models that could be shown. More importantly, this formula, made
the audience’s occasional lack of appreciation for some proposals and rivals’ successes visi-
ble.105 Finally, Italy’s capital had better international access and accommodation than
Florence. The press, reporting on the rivalry, often took sides with one or the other of the
contenders:
The inconvenience most often mentioned [by the Americans] is that there is not a ‘fashion
centre’, a geographical centre, over here. In France there’s Paris, in Italy there’s Rome, Florence,
Milan, Turin and sometimes Venice. The Americans who come to Italy to buy or describe and
praise the models don’t like going back and forth between one city and the other and would
rather concentrate all their activity in one city only […] Buyers and journalist come to Italy before
going to seeing Paris’s collections and would like to complete to their business in 10 days or so
BUSINESS HISTORY 17
[…] the Americans would like to see Rome also become the capital of fashion, because Rome is
beautiful, pleasant, offers perfect hotel accommodation and is a stopover for all airlines. Florence
didn’t leave them with good memories, due to the lack of convenient accommodation and, last
summer, although the exhibition that a private citizen organised was a triumph, foreign guests
didn’t always find the welcome they had expected.106
The Italian situation was unstable, and year after year there were new twists, to the extent
that foreign observers suggested the battle between Rome and Milan came ‘complete with
style espionage, midnight meetings, and unscheduled showings’.107 In 1955, after two years
of continued backing, the EIM ceased its support of the Florentine shows. Season after
season, Roman couturiers kept on going back and forth, alternating between individual
Roman and collective Florentine presentations to follow the business.108 Even the partnership
with the textile industry ceased in July 1955, as textile producers needed to take part in two
new and more strategic EIM-sponsored trade shows: SAMIA (International Market Exhibition
of Apparel, in Turin, first held in November 1955) and MITAM (International Market of Textile
for Clothing and Furniture, in Milan, first held in July 1957), both under the direction of EIM’s
Vladimiro Rossini.109 The fate of the Palazzo Pitti’s shows therefore lay with the revenue
generated by the fees, the security deposits paid by buyers, and the Municipality of Florence’s
public funding, which respectively amounted to about 50–60% and 30% of the operating
costs.110 In contrast, the subvention paid by the Minister of Trade and Industry to Giorgini’s
organisation, despite increasing from $800 in 1952 to $4,800 in 1954, covered just 10% of
the total costs.
The situation remained unsettled and chaotic during the following years. In 1961, the
Italian Prime Minister’s Office sent a note to Giorgini highlighting the need for the high
fashion shows be moved to Rome.111 This city was ‘from many quarters’ supposedly consid-
ered to be the most appropriate location for such a presentation. In particular, the memo-
randum highlighted the disordered state in which the sectors of haute couture, boutique
fashion and accessory production found themselves. Nevertheless, the memorandum also
noted that the situation was not due to ‘objective and serious economic troubles’, but rather
to the ‘peculiar natures’ of the fashion houses, which were ‘managed with egotistic stand-
ards’.112 The note pointed out that the overlapping missions and lack of coordination between
the various Italian fashion centres made it impossible for Giorgini to unite Italian fashion
under one roof – an unfair accusation, given that the Italian government had contributed
to the situation.113 In 1962, a few well-known Roman designers (Capucci, Fabiani and
Simonetta) deserted all the Italian catwalks to present their collections at the fashion shows
in Paris. Italian fashion houses had not only divided themselves between fashion cities, some
of them had now even left the country. This renewed the debate on the problematic state
of Italian fashion. The press hinted at the possibility of a French conspiracy, supposedly
supported by the prestigious US magazine Women’s Wear Daily, which aimed to weaken
Italian fashion by taking away some of its leading elements. Echoes of these suspicions even
reached the Italian Parliament.114 In a letter to the journalist Irene Brin, Giorgini bitterly noted
that stronger support for the shows he had organised since 1951 could have prevented the
crisis:
It is needless to close the stable door after the horse has bolted and cry crocodile’s tears. If, during
these years, everyone had understood my problem and all the forces had tightened their grip
around the Florentine initiative, this would have become an unassailable stronghold. Do all
critics realise that I created this huge movement without a penny’s help from the government?
[…] An initiative that gave Italy tens of billions of liras in advertising and hundreds of billions
in exports, but no minister or director or president of the ICE [Istituto per il Commercio Estero,
Institute for Foreign Trade] ever realised what the Pitti Palace was! […] Capucci says its unique
runway was Florence’s mistake. Is it possible that he doesn’t realise that it was precisely the
unique runway that made his fortune?115
In September 1962, in order to increase collaboration between the Italian fashion houses,
a new body (created in 1958, but idle until then) was tasked by the most important fashion
bodies (Turin’s EIM, and the fashion centres of Florence, Milan, Rome and Naples) to coordi-
nate the chaotic Italian fashion show calendar. The Camera Nazionale della Moda (CNM,
National Chamber of Fashion), modelled after the French Chambre Syndicale de la Couture
Française, had Giorgini as its first president. Nevertheless, the establishment of the CNM
contributed to the demise of Florence as the capital of Italian fashion, because the new body
granted Rome a more central role.116 In October 1964, Giorgini’s suggestion that the Pitti
fashion shows gradually open to the emerging ready-to-wear sector offered Roman houses
the opportunity to definitely abandon Florence for good.
You have probably heard that Galitzine, Forquet, Valentino, Lancetti and maybe De Barentzen
have decided that they will not join the Palazzo Pitti showings next January but they will show
in Rome in their own premises. The first one to take this decision was Irene Galitzine: she said
that to make a collection for the Sala Bianca is too engaging and expensive (personally I think
she was too jealous of the success of the others). Tired of all this, I had almost decided to close
Palazzo Pitti.117
The coup de grace came in January 1965, with the defections of some Milanese couturiers,
including Jole Veneziani and Olga di Grésy (Mirsa), who had presented their collections in
Florence from the start and were long-time friends of Giorginis.118 The mediocre outcome
of this edition led an embittered Giorgini to give up the organisation of his fashion shows
in April of the same year.119 With Giorgini’s departure, the direction of the Palazzo Pitti show-
ings was initially taken over by Emilio Pucci (1965–1967), followed by others.120 By the spring
of 1965, the fashion calendar coordinated by the CNM became operational, sanctioning a
division of promotional labour built on each city’s vocation. Florence would start with bou-
tique fashion, knitwear and, until 1973, ready-made high fashion shows (that is, serial indus-
trial reproductions of haute couture dresses, with lower quality fabrics and simpler cuts).
Rome would conclude Italy’s presentations with haute couture shows (women’s, men’s and
children’s collections).121 In between, there would be the trade shows in Turin and Milan
dedicated to manufactured clothing and textiles (SAMIA and MITAM). Overall, the number
of buyers increased during this period – mostly due to of Italian and other European bou-
tiques and retailers, which reduced Italian fashion’s dependence on North American depart-
ment stores.122
Despite the difficulties caused by the economic crises of the 1970s, the Pitti showings
continued until 1982. During this period, Florence’s portfolio of fashion events expanded
further with new specialised initiatives (Pitti Uomo, for men’s clothing and accessories from
1972; Pitti Bimbo, dedicated to children’s wear from 1975; Pitti Filati, focused on yearns for
knitwear in 1977 and Pitti Casual, for casual wear, in 1978). In this phase, however, the key
contender was no longer Rome but Milan, which with the advent of prêt-à-porter and
designer–manufacturer collaborations became Italy’s new fashion capital.123 Nevertheless
the legend of Florence’s Sala Bianca as the birthplace of Italian fashion is so well-established
that it eclipses all other narratives.124
BUSINESS HISTORY 19
Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, building on the literature on collective marketing events and their role in nation
branding, we analysed the emergence of Italy as a fashion country. In particular, we focused
on the promotional activities of Giovanni Battista Giorgini and on the collective shows he
organised in Florence in the period from 1951 until 1965. Specifically, our study shows how
Giorgini strategically differentiated the emerging ‘made in Italy’ fashion from French haute
couture, by keeping the needs of the North American market clearly in mind and building
on existing material and cultural resources. As a result, the idea of an Italian fashion built on
the Renaissance tradition and which could be an alternative to French fashion, was firmly
established in the discourse and practices of foreign buyers and journalists. Giorgini’s success,
however, triggered various tensions and rivalries between Italy’s many potential fashion
capitals. Competing organisations, which leveraged other sources of legitimacy (including
Turin’s state support; Rome’s image produced by Cinecittà and American movie stars and
Milan’s preferential relationships with textiles and, later, clothing manufacturers), attempted
to counter-organise Italian fashion. This created a hard-to-understand situation that
reminded foreign observers of the centuries-old struggles between Italian city-states before
the country’s unification. Nonetheless, Giorgini’s initiative acted as a catalyst that accelerated
the coalescence of the emerging Italian fashion field and its interaction with strategic export
markets. Consequently, Italian fashion creators did not only benefit from a highly visible and
prestigious promotional window, but they also learned from and adapted their offerings to
evolving market needs.
Despite being negatively affected – and to some extent, marginalised – by the prominence
of Rome on the Italian fashion calendar during the 1960s, Pitti’s Florentine fashion shows
left an intangible legacy that would benefit the Italian fashion system in years to come. While
the connection with Renaissance art was lost with the demise of Florence, the ‘made in Italy’
country-of-origin effect had been created and lingered on, giving US media and consumers
an established term of reference to make sense of the subsequent market offering originating
in the Belpaese. American journalists had already familiarised their readers with ‘made in
Italy fashions’ in 1951 as they already had ‘with spaghetti, olive oil and grand opera’.125 Italy’s
new reputation for fashion also tied in with other sectors of Italian exports. The general
media, while reporting about Giorgini’s initiative, noted that ‘made in Italy’ had become a
brand of excellence that extended to numerous other products, including sewing machines,
calculators and films. By the time of the advent of prêt-à-porter in the late 1970s, the idea
that Italy was a country of fashion creators had already been circulating in international
markets for more than two decades. This was, as a matter of fact, an intangible asset that
the new generation of fashion designers could easily exploit. As a case in point, a special
issue of Women’s Wear Daily dedicated to the 25th year of ‘Italian ready to wear’ in 1976,
found similarities between the style of the new prêt-à-porter brands being shown in Milan
(such as Basile, Callaghan and Genny) and some of their haute couture predecessors from
Pitti’s Sala Bianca (Capucci, Mirsa and Pucci).126
Our historical reconstruction of the emergence of Italy as a fashion country sheds light
on some features of nation branding that previous literature has neglected. First, successful
nation branding initiatives lead to the creation or reinforcement of favourable country-of-
origin effects, whose content is based on product imagery built on the country’s material
and symbolic resources as well as on selective, strategic readings of its history. Second, nation
branding is a territorial form of collective branding that is built over time and requires the
orchestration of firms and other stakeholders (in our case, local governments, the State, and
various trade associations) with regard to joint promotional efforts. Third as Giorgini’s strat-
egies show, effective nation branding should be based on differentiating the country’s image
in ways that the export markets will find valuable; that is, which results in retailers and
consumers from import markets showing willingness to pay a premium price. Fourth, nation
branding relies on firms (that is, individual brands) and their products that provide the basic
material resources upon which national brand storytelling can be built. In other words, not
only does a nation’s image connote the products of local firms, but local brands also connote
their nation’s image, through their products and their brand image. Finally, the contributions
to – and benefits from – nation branding initiatives are unevenly distributed across the
participating actors. Smaller or younger firms with limited brand awareness and access to
international market benefit the most from joint promotional initiatives, but their presence
contributes only marginally to the nation brand. Conversely, firms with stronger brand image
and access to international markets can legitimise collective branding initiatives with their
presence, but receive little from the co-presence of other, rival firms. Their incentives to
participate in joint promotional projects are therefore more limited.
By highlighting the dynamics of event-based nation branding initiatives, our study also
contributes to the literature on marketing, economic history and organisation studies that
examines promotional events and their impact on underlying organisational fields. First, as
firms grow bigger, better known and internationalised, dependence on collective promo-
tional projects decreases, which potentially leads them to abandon these initiatives. In our
case, this is best exemplified by the Roman couturiers who, at a moment when they were
fairly well-established, resented the excessive cost of participating in the Florentine shows
(implicitly, in respect of the benefits they could obtain). Event-based brand nation projects
are therefore inherently unstable, and those who organise them need to manage their life-
cycle carefully by maintaining a dynamic balance between known brands and emerging
ones. Second, with its comparatively recent national unity and many fashion capitals, Italy
highlights that federating a country’s actors under the banner of a common project is no
easy task. Utilising different sources of legitimacy, these actors may compete against each
other not only for the attention of external audiences, but also for the support of local firms
and other domestic stakeholders. In other words, the scale of place branding initiatives is
not necessarily the nation. In this sense, French couturiers were in an ideal, but not necessarily
typical situation. They were all located in the same city, Paris and just one organisation, the
Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Française represented all of their interests. Many countries
do not have an undisputed fashion capital, for example, Madrid vs. Barcelona in Spain and
Montreal vs. Toronto in Canada; as a result, these countries’ nation branding dynamics might
resemble the Italian case more than the French one. When internal competition occurs and
too many incompatible narrations are diffused at the same time, a clear nation brand posi-
tioning is unlikely to emerge, which creates a situation that will mostly benefit foreign rivals.
As is often the case, when two dogs fight for a bone, a third runs away with it.
Notes
‘Italian imports. Just like the Chianti.’ Life, 14 April 1952, 89–92: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 5, n. 102.
1.
J. Nicholson. 1952 ‘Florence declares fashion war. Paris has a rival.’ Picture Post, 1 March: ASF,
2.
AMIGBG, Album 1, n. 340–342.
BUSINESS HISTORY 21
3. Merlo and Polese, ‘Turning Fashion’; Paris, ‘Fashion as System’ and Oggetti Cuciti; Pinchera, Moda
in Italia; White, Reconstructing Italian Fashion.
4. For business history: Hansen, ‘Networks, Narrative’; Mordhors, ‘Arla and Danish’. For marketing
and consumer research: Arnould and Thompson, ‘CCT’ and ‘Consumer Culture Theory’;
McCraken, ‘Culture and Consumption’.
5. Thompson and Tian, ‘Counter-memories’.
6. In the post-war period, the US were the only possible market for luxury products such as
European fashion. See White, Reconstructing Italian Fashion; Merlo and Polese, ‘Turning Fashion’.
7. Our focus on Giorgini does not imply that we subscribe to the so-called ‘great man theory
of history’. However, both journalistic accounts of the period and other works investigating
the emergence of Italian fashion tend to focus on Giorgini. We also follow this convention,
because, at the beginning of our observation period (1951–1954), Giorgini’s initiatives were
frequently criticised for being one man’s private initiatives; it was only with the creation of the
Centro di Firenze per la Moda Italiana (Florence Center for Italian fashion, 1954) that he gave
the Florentine fashion shows a more formal organisational structure.
8. Belfanti, ‘History as Intangible’ and ‘Renaissance’.
9. Merlo and Polese, ‘Turning Fashion’, 430–438; Segre Reinach, ‘Italian Fashion Revolution’, 65–70.
10. See, among others, Djelic and Ainamo, ‘Coevolution’; Kawamura, Japanese Revolution; Rantisi,
‘Ascendance’; Steele, Paris Fashion and Fashion Italian Style.
11. Khaire, ‘Indian Fashion Industry’, 345–347; Khaire and Hall, ‘Medium and Message’, 846–847.
12. Merlo and Polese, ‘Turning Fashion’; Paris, Oggetti Cuciti; Pouillard, ‘Keeping designs’.
13. Kaneva, ‘Nation branding’.
14. Al-Sulaiti and Baker, ‘Country’; Verlegh and Steenkamp, ‘Country-of-origin’; Dinnie, ‘Country-
of-origin 1965–2004’.
15. Hansen, ‘Narrative nature’.
16. See also literature in organisation studies on the strategic uses of the past. For a review of the
relevance of this literature for business history, see Foster et al. ‘Strategic use’.
17. Florio, ‘Fairs Trades’.
18. Gopalakrishna and Lilien, ‘Three Stage Model’; Smith, Gopalakrishna and Smith, ‘Complementary
Effect’.
19. Borghini, Golfetto and Rinallo, ‘Ongoing Search’; Rinallo, Borghini and Golfetto ‘Exploring
Visitor’; Peñaloza, ‘Commodification’.
20. Lampel and Meyer, ‘Field-configuring’.
21. Bathelt, Golfetto and Rinallo, Trade Shows; Bathelt and Schuldt, ‘Luminaries and Meat’; Maskell,
Bathelt and Malmberg, ‘Temporary Clusters’; Rinallo, Bathelt and Golfetto, ‘Economic Geography’.
22. Rinallo and Golfetto, ‘Exploring the Knowledge-based’; Bathelt, Golfetto and Rinallo, Trade
Shows.
23. Kawamura, Fashion-ology, 83–84.
24. Duggan, ‘Greatest Show’ and Troy, Couture Culture.
25. Kawamura, Fashion-ology, 93.
26. Kawamura, Fashion-ology, 73–76; Steele, Paris Fashion, 104–105 and 115–118.
27. Kawamura, Fashion-ology, 64–66; Steele, Paris Fashion.
28. Troy, Couture Culture.
29. Pouillard, ‘Managing fashion creativity’.
30. The Duce himself was behind the creation of the Ente, whose initial capital was predominantly
constituted by the City of Turin together with various other Turinese or Piedmontes organisations
representing industrial and commercial interests. Its first president was Silvio Ferraccini,
followed in Paolo Ignazio Maria Thaon de Revel, who was at the time Podestà (mayor) of Turin.
Vladimiro Rossini, who played an important role in Italian fashion until 1970, was appointed
general director of the Ente. Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 17–20; Gnoli, Donna, 89–90; Discussione e
approvazione del disegno di legge: Costituzione dell’Ente autonomo per la Mostra permanente
nazionale della moda in Torino (Discussion and approval of the draft law: Establishment of the
Authority for the Permanent National Fashion Exhibition in Turin), Atti Parlamentari. Camera
dei Deputati, 6 December 1932, 7502–7509.
31. Gnoli, Donna, 91. The first President of the Ente Nazionale Moda was Giovanni Vianino, who
had previously been appointed vice-president of the EAMNPM and, after Thaol de Revel’s
resignation, had substituted him as President. Vladimiro Rossini kept hold of the post of general
manager for the new Ente.
32. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 269.
33. Capalbo, Storia della moda, 82–86.
34. Ricci, ‘Salvatore Ferragamo’, 13–15.
35. ‘Fine Italian Hand for Shoes.’ Vogue, 15 July 1937.
36. Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 98–99.
37. White, Reconstructing Italian Fashion, 12–17; Pinchera, ‘Provvedimenti economici’, 487–489; on
the general impact on the Italian economy: Fauri, Piano Marshall e l’Italia.
38. White, Reconstructing Italian Fashion, 39–41; Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 28.
39. Capalbo, Storia della moda, 130; Mannucci, Marchese rampante, 187–188; White, Reconstructing
Italian Fashion, 75–83.
40. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 184–185.
41. Ibid., 241–243.
42. After Lora Totino of Cervinia, the Ente was presided over by Filippo Alberto Giordano delle
Lanze (1875–1952) and Furio Cicogna (1891–1975), both coming from an industrial background.
In 1953, the Ente, which was under the control of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, was
put under the administration of an external commissioner: Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 75; Paris,
Oggetti Cuciti, 249.
43. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 187.
44. Ibid., 189.
45. SNIA Viscosa, founded in 1917, in the 1930s was already a global leader in the artificial and
synthetic textile fibre industry. Franco Marinotti became the director and president of SNIA
Viscosa in 1939. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 188; Spadoni, Gruppo SNIA.
47. Ibid.
48. Capalbo, Storia della moda, 131; White, Reconstructing Italian Fashion, 136–149.
49. Capalbo, Storia della moda, 142.
52. Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 33–34; Belfanti, ‘History as Intangible’, 74–76.
54. ASF, AMIGBG, Album 3, n. 20, Letter 28 December 1950. Originally in Italian, our translation.
55. Vergani, ‘Sala Bianca’, 44–47.
56. Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 31.
57. Caratozzolo, ‘Reorienting Fashion’, 51–52; Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 218–231.
58. Paris, ‘Fashion as system’, 534–535.
59. The runway show of Christian Dior’s Autumn/Winter collection 1950–1951 had more than
250 models and lasted about 3 h: ‘Prèmiere de la mode d’automne chez Dior.’ Paris Match, 12
August 1950; Erti. 1951. ‘La moda italiana alla conquista dell’America.’ Grazia, 10 November:
ASF, AMIGBG, Album 1, n. 175.
60. ASF, AMIGBG, Album 3, n. 150; B. Griggs. 1960. ‘Italian fashions on the right lines,’ The Star, 18
January: GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 9, n. 84; N. Salvalaggio. 1961. ‘La moda italiana si impone a Londra.’
Il Giornale d’Italia, 16 January: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 44, n. 161.
61. McCracken, ‘Culture and Consumption’.
62. Among numerous others: C. Snow. 1953. ‘Italian fashion have a real meaning.’ New York Journal,
15 February; C. Snow. 1953. ‘Italian coats and suits feature colorful design.’ New York Journal, 16
February: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 9, n. 9 and 14.
63. Belfanti, ‘History as Intangible’, 84–85.
64. ASF, AMIGBG, Album 20 and GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 6, n. 386–478, in particular n. 471–473 ‘Italy
Four Roman beauties, in dresses for the new Italian Collections.’ Vogue, 15 March 1956.
65. ASF, AMIGBG, Ente Italiano Moda 1953–1962, File 1.
BUSINESS HISTORY 23
66. ASF, AMIGBG, Ente Italiano Moda 1953–1962, File 2; I. Brin. 1955. ‘Il giudizio dei buyers.’ Settimana
Incom, 6 August 44: GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 5, n. 360–362; and see the section Italy’s fashion civil
war below.
67. ASCCF, Enti di Iniziativa 1933–1962, Box 19 Centro di Firenze per la Moda Italiana 1952–1962,
File 3; programmes and reports on the Pitti fashion shows.
68. ASF, AMIGBG, Album 44, n. 61, Report on XXI Presentation and n. 42, Program XXI Italian Fashion
Show, 14–20 January 1961; Album 51 n. 62, Report on XXV Presentation, 19–24 January 1963.
69. ASF, AMIGBG, Album 28, n. 62, table on buyer firms’ attendance 1954–1959.
70. Kawamura, Fashion-ology, 89; Khaire and Hall, ‘Medium and Message’; Pouillard, ‘Fashion for
All’; White, ‘Italy: Fashion’.
71. Ortoleva, ‘Buying Italian’; Steele, ‘Italian fashion’.
72. Lampel and Meyer, ‘Field-configuring’; Bathelt, Golfetto and Rinallo, Trade Shows; Bathelt and
Schuldt, ‘Luminaries and Meat’; Maskell, Bathelt and Malmberg, ‘Temporary Clusters’; Rinallo,
Bathelt and Golfetto ‘Economic Geography’.
73. C. Snow. 1953. ‘Italian fashions have a real meaning.’ New York Journal, 15 February: ASF, AMIGBG,
Album 9, n. 9.
74. In the 1950s Christian Dior couture house represented more than 50% of the overall French
haute couture export, and the overseas sales of Dior products accounted for about two-thirds
of his entire business: Okawa, ‘Licensing Practices’, 91.
75. Jones and Pouillard, ‘Christian Dior’, 10–11; Palmer, Dior, 58–61 and 78–82.
76. B.J. Perkins. 1953. ‘Collections opens today in Florence. Boutique, Millinery, Fabric and
Accessories lines will be shown at Giorgini’s event.’ Women’s Wear Daily, 22 July; ‘Masters of
Fashion From France and Italy.’ The Milwaukee Journal, 8 January 1952, ASF, AMIGBG, Album 4,
n. 160; Album 9, n. 109; Palmer, Couture, 176–178.
77. Palmer, Dior, 78–83; ‘Paris, Italian Import Copies Dominate N.Y. Sunday Ads.’ Women’s Wear
Daily, 30 September 1954; ‘Italian imports. Just like the Chianti.’ Life, 14 April 1952, 90; ‘Resort
Fashions from Italy.’ Women’s Wear Daily, 18 September 1956: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 12, n. 5 and
Album 20, n. 101.
78. Italian imports. Just like the Chianti.” Life, 14 April 1952; M. Hall. 1952. ‘N.Y. Rome: our new
fashion capital?.’ Post, 12 January; L. Averill. 1952. ‘Originals from the Italian couture seen at
luncheon show.’ Los Angeles Times, 19 March 1952: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 4, n. 160 and 170. By
the mid-1950s the increasing success of Italian fashion in the American market pushed the
low price department stores to reproduce Italian models.
79. C. Snow. 1951. ‘Italy gets dressed up, A big hectic fashion show attracts U.S. style leaders, poses
a challenge to Paris.’ Life, 20 August, 104–112; C. Snow. 1951. ‘Italian Designers’ Grand Entrance.
The Smart Set.’ New York Journal, 26 August; ‘Italian imports. Just like the Chianti.’ Life, 14 April
1952: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 1, n. 49 and 50.
80. H. Gaggiottini. 1952. ‘Italians accent simplicity in bid for fashion lead.’ Chicago Daily Tribune, 15
October, and also F. de Santis. 1952. ‘Fashion of Italy today.’ The Hartford Bulletin, 14 December:
ASF, AMIGBG, Album 5, n. 160 and Album 1, n. 28.
81. Among others: Babette. 1952. ‘I. Magnin’s presents Italian originals.’ The Examiner, 18 March; L.
Averill. 1952. ‘Originals from the Italian couture seen at luncheon show.’ Los Angeles Times, 19
March; D. O’Neill. 1954. ‘Foreign fashions and American copies defy identification at showing
in store.’ Times, 17 March; J. Worth. 1954. ‘Low cost copies of chic imports.’ The New York Daily
Mirror, 30 March: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 1, n. 297 and 283 and Album 9, n. 290 and 295.
82. C. Snow. 1952. ‘Hand painted fabrics in spotlight at Italy shows.’ San Francisco Examiner, 15
August: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 1, n. 453.
83. Spadea. 1952. ‘Fashion jottings from fabulous Italy.’ Times Union, 15 February: ASF, AMIGBG,
Album 1, n. 338, and on the American stereotypes about Italy: Steele, ‘Italian fashion’, 496.
84. C. Snow. 1951. ‘Italian Designers’ Grand Entrance. The Smart Set.’ New York Journal, 26 August.
85. Interview by G.B. Giorgini, ‘Fashion is a wonderful thing.’ St. Louis Dispatch, 6 December 1957:
ASF, AMIGBG, Album 22, n. 162; Belfanti, ‘History as Intangible’.
86. C. Snow. 1951. ‘Italy’s artistry lends enchantment to fashion world.’ New York Journal, 27 August:
87. F. Engle. 1953. ‘Record U.S. turnout seen for Paris openings the fashion markets of Europe will
attract a near if not record crowd for the fall couture showings.’ Women’s Wear Daily, 15 July:
88. ‘Italian Collection Notebook.’ Vogue, 15 September 1952: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 5, n. 154.
89. Bathelt, Golfetto and Rinallo, Trade Shows; Rinallo and Golfetto, ‘Exploring the Knowledge-
based’.
90. ‘Italy’s fashion industry-still young but challenging Paris.’ Business Week, 15 August 1959; J.W.
Cohn. 1960. ‘Italy couture gathers strong buyer support.’ Women’s Wear Daily, 21 January; C.
Donovan. 1961. ‘Designer’s fancy turns to thoughts of Romance.’ The New York Times, 16 January:
ASF, AMIGBG, Album 28, n. 65; Album 44, n. 67 and GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 9, n. 92.
91. ‘The eye of the beholder.’ The Times, 27 January 1958: GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 7, n. 20.
92. E. Massai. 1961. ‘Italian couture.’ Women’s Wear Daily, 20 January: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 44, n. 63.
93. L. Olivetti. 1958. ‘La moda in cifre.’ La Nazione, 30 December; E. Ferro. 1958. ‘Le cifre delle
esportazioni provano lo sviluppo della moda italiana.’ L’Avvenire, 7 January: ASF, AMIGBG, Album
27, n. 181 and 182.
94. Between 1958 and 1963 the average annual growth rate of the Italian leather and clothing
sectors was more than 23% (the average annual growth rate of the Italian manufacturing
industry was nearing 16%): Gomellini and Pianta, ‘Commercio’, 408 and 412–413.
95. Data reported in J. Troxell Stark. 1960. ‘The Italian influence.’ Look, 5 January, 35; ‘Italy’s fashion
industry-still young but challenging Paris.’ Business Week, 15 August 1959: ASF, AMIGBG, Album
30, n. 63.
96. ASF, AMIGBG, Album 28, n. 62, Table of buyer firms’ attendance 1954–1959.
97. I. Brin. 1955. ‘Conservare il posto e il prestigio della moda italiana.’ Bellezza, Marzo: GCPP, AG,
CD-Rom 5, n. 253.
98. G.B. Giorgini, typewritten memorandum: ASF, AMIGBG, Ente Italiano Moda 1951–1963.
100. Among others, V. Vaerini. 1953. ‘La moda italiana respinge l’aiuto del Governo.’ La Patria, 2
March; I. Brin. 1953. ‘La moda a Firenze. Una polemica che deve finire.’ Il Giornale d’Italia, 29
July; F. Hammond. 1953. ‘Rome, Florence Battle for Fashion Supremacy.’ Los Angeles Times, 2
August: GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 2, n. 213 and CD-Rom 3, n. 52 and 59.
101. M.J. Harlepp. 1957. ‘Florence: two cities bury the hatchet.’ The Times, 22 July: ASF, AMIGBG,
Album 22, n. 94.
102. Marzotto was one of the most important and large Italian wool textile company, with 15,000
employees in 1948. During the early 1950s, the company integrated downstream in the
production of ready to wear clothing for men and women. In the 1960s, both Marzotto and
SNIA Viscosa were important financial supporters of the Camera Nazionale della Moda: Paris,
Oggetti Cuciti, 188–195; idem, ‘Fashion as system’, 528–529; Roverato, Casa industriale.
103. V. Vaerini. 1952. ‘Un mondo illusorio e scintillante di cui si misconosce la vita.’ Il Popolo di Roma,
24 February: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 5, n. 170.
104. Capalbo, Storia della moda, 145.
105. Capalbo, Storia della moda, 143–144; V. Lucci. 1953. ‘Le dannose concorrenze di un inutile
campanilismo.’ Il Giornale d’Italia, 1 March: ASF, AIMGBG, Ente Italiano Moda 1953–1962.
106. E. della Giovanna. 1953. ‘Il pericoloso successo della moda italiana negli Stati Uniti.’ Il Giornale
d’Italia, 18 April: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 9, n. 105.
107. B. Bruce. 1957. ‘A fashionable rivalry.’ The Journal American, 23 July: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 22,
n. 103.
108. A. Rizzotti Veronese. 1956. ‘Roma non vuole che Firenze voglia.’ Le Ore, 15 December: GCPP,
AG, CD-Rom 6, n. 373–377.
109. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 272 and 294; E. Nasi and F. Ducry Giordano. 1969. ‘Impegno di Torino per
la moda italiana.’ Torino, January/February, no 1, 50–55.
110. ASCCF, Enti di iniziativa 1933–1962, Box 19 Centro di Firenze per la moda italiana 1952–1962,
Files 2–3-4.
111. Ibid., File 5.
112. Ibid.
BUSINESS HISTORY 25
113. On the debate about the numerous fashion centres in Italy: M. Gobessi. 1956. ‘La pianificazione
della moda.’ Cronaca Italiana, 28 July: GCPP, AG, CD-Rom 6, n. 225; E. Robiola. 1960. ‘Troppi
centri di moda in Italia?.’ Bellezza, September: ASF, AIMGBG, Ente Italiano Moda 1953–1962.
114. Speech by E. Savio to the Minister of Industry and Trade E. Colombo, Atti Parlamentari. Camera
dei Deputati, 27 October 1961, 25,713–25,714.
115. Letter from G.B. Giorgini to Irene Brin, 18 April 1962: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 48, n. 228.
116. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 231–240 and 459–463.
117. Letter from G.B. Giorgini to Fay Hammond, 1 December 1964: ASF, AMIGBG, Correspondence
13 1962–1969, Correspondence designers’ defection 1964–1968; E. Robiola. 1965. ‘Nuvole
nere su una moda rosa.’ Il Tempo, 10 February; I. Brin. 1965. ‘Moda braccio di ferro.’ Il Giornale
d’Italia, 10 June: Album 57, n. 92 and Album 58, n. 219.
118. Letters from Jole Veneziani to G.B. Giorgini, 24 April 1965, and from Olga di Grésy to G.B.
Giorgini, 11 May 1965: ASF, AMIGBG Correspondence 13 1962–1969, Correspondence
designers’ defection 1964–1968.
119. Letter from G.B. Giorgini to Olga di Grésy, 18 May 1965: ASF, AMIGBG Correspondence 13
1962–1969, Correspondence designers’ defection 1964–1968; L. Griffo. 1965. ‘Roma contro
Firenze. Inasprita la polemica sulla moda.’ La Nazione, 24 April; ‘Riunione al Centro della Moda.’
La Nazione, 23 April 1965: Album 58, n. 95 and 96.
121. ASF, AMIGBG, Camera Nazionale della Moda 1963–1970; Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 240.
122. Pinchera, Moda in Italia, 315–319 and 328–336.
123. Paris, Oggetti Cuciti, 484–494; Merlo and Polese, ‘Turning Fashion’, 431–434; Segre Reinach,
‘Italian Fashion Revolution’, 65–70.
124. Stanfill, ‘Introduction’, 15.
125. H. Carlton. 1951. ‘Designers flock to Florence for three day fashion show.’ New York Herald
Tribune, 21 July: ASF, AMIGBG, Album 1, n. 31.
126. ‘Italian ready-to-wear in its 25th year,’ Women’s Wear Daily, 1 October 1976: 19–20; Merlo and
Polese, ‘Turning Fashion’, 415–416.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the guest editors, Patricio Sàiz and Rafael Castro, for their support, and two
anonymous referees for their constructive criticism. We are also grateful to the staff of the Florence
State Archive and the Costume Gallery Pitti Palace, Florence, for the documental support. A preliminary
version of this paper was presented in 2015 during research seminars at the Cass Business School,
London, and the Skema Business School, Lille. We are indebted to Professors Fleura Bardhi, Daniel
Kjeldgaard, Nil Özçağlar-Toulouse, Davide Ravasi and many others colleagues for the helpful sugges-
tions received on those occasions.
Disclosure statement
The study upon which the article is based was not financially supported by any institution or corpo-
ration. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the research described
in the paper.
Notes on contributors
Valeria Pinchera is associate professor of economic history at the University of Pisa. Her research
interests include Italian fashion history and the history of consumption.
Diego Rinallo is associate professor of marketing at Kedge Business School, Marseille, and associate
researcher at CERGAM, Centre d’Etudes et Recherche en Gestion d’Aix-Marseille. His research interests
include trade shows and other collective marketing events, fashion and consumer culture theory.
References
Archival sources
ASF, AMIGBG (Florence State Archive, Archive of Italian Fashion Giovanni Battista Giorgini), Florence:
Albums 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 20, 22, 27, 28, 30, 44, 48, 51, 57 and 58; Camera Nazionale della Moda
1963–1970; Ente Italiano Moda 1953–1962, Correspondence 13 1962–1969, Correspondence
designers’ defection 1964–1968.
ASCCF (Historical Archive of the Florence Chamber of Commerce), Florence: Enti di Iniziativa 1933–1962,
Box 19 Centro di Firenze per la Moda Italiana 1952–1962, files 1-2-3-4-5.
GCPP, AG (Costume Gallery Pitti Palace, Archive Giorgini), Florence: CD-Roms 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9.
Bibliography
Al-Sulaiti, K. I., and M. J. Baker. “Country of Origin Effects: A Literature Review.” Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 16, no. 3 (1998): 150–199.
Arnould, E. J., and C. Thompson. “Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research.” Journal
of Consumer Research 31, no. 4 (2015): 868–882.
Arnould, E. J., and C. Thompson. “Consumer Culture Theory: Ten Years Gone (and beyond).” In Research
in Consumer Behavior. Consumer Culture Theory, Vol. 17, edited by A. E. Thyroff, J. B. Murray, and R. W.
Belk, 1–21. Bigley: Emerald, 2015.
Bathelt, H., F. Golfetto, and D. Rinallo. Trade Shows in the Globalizing Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014.
Bathelt, H., and N. Schuldt. “Between Luminaries and Meat Grinders: International Trade Fairs as
Temporary Clusters.” Regional Studies 42, no. 6 (2008): 853–868.
Belfanti, C. M. “History as an Intangible Asset for the Italian Fashion Business (1950–1954).” Journal of
Historical Research in Marketing 7, no. 1 (2015): 74–90.
Belfanti, C. M. “Renaissance and ‘Made in Italy’: Marketing Italian Fashion through History (1949–1952).”
Journal of Modern Italian Studies 20, no. 1 (2015): 53–66.
Borghini, S., F. Golfetto, and D. Rinallo. “Ongoing Search among Industrial Buyers.” Journal of Business
Research 59, no. 10–11 (2006): 1151–1159.
Capalbo, C. Storia della Moda a Roma. Sarti, Culture e Stili di una Capitale dal 1871 a Oggi [History of
Fashion in Rome. A Capital’s Dressmakers, Cultures and Styles from 1871 to Today]. Roma: Donzelli,
2012.
Corattozolo, V. C. “Reorienting Fashion: Italy’s Wayfinding.” In The Glamour of Italian Fashion Since 1945,
edited by S. Stanfill, 46–57. London: V&A Publishing, 2014.
Dinnie, K. “Country-of-Origin 1965–2004: A Literature Review.” Journal of Customer Behavior 4, no. 2
(2004): 165–213.
Djelic, M. L., and A. Ainamo. “The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms in the Fashion Industry: A
Historical and Comparative Study of France, Italy, and the United States.” Organization Science 10,
no. 5 (1999): 622–637.
Duggan, G. G. “The Greatest Show on Earth: A Look at Contemporary Fashion Shows and Their
Relationship to Performance Art.” Fashion Theory 5, no. 3: 243–270.
Fauri, F. Il Piano Marshall e l’Italia [The Marshall Plan and Italy]. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010.
Florio, M. “Fair Trades by Trade Fairs: Information Providing Institutions under Monopolistic Competition.”
Small Business Economics 6, no. 4 (1994): 267–281.
Foster, W. M., D. M. Coraiola, R. Suddaby, J. Kroezen, and D. Chandler. “The Strategic Use of Historical
Narratives. A Theoretical Framework.” Business History (Forthcoming). doi:10.1080/00076791.2016.
1224234.
Gnoli, S. La Donna, l’eleganza, il fascismo: la moda italiana dalle origini all’Ente nazionale della moda
[Woman, Elegance, Fascism: Italian Fashion from the Origins to the National Fashion Authority].
Catania: Edizioni del Prisma, 2000.
Gomellini, M., and M. Pianta. “Commercio con l’Estero e Tecnologia in Italia negli Anni Cinquanta e
Sessanta [Foreign Trade and Technology in Italy in the 1950s and 1960s].” In Innovazione Tecnologica
e Sviluppo Industriale nel Secondo Dopoguerra [Technological Innovation and Industrial Development
BUSINESS HISTORY 27
in the Second Post-War Period], edited by C. Antonelli, F. Barbiellini Amidei, R. Giannetti, M. Gomellini,
S. Pastorelli, and M. Pianta, 359–594. Roma: Laterza, 2007.
Gopalakrishna, S., and G. L. Lilien. “A Three Stage Model of Industrial Trade Show Performance.” Marketing
Science 14, no. 1 (1995): 22–42.
Hansen, H. R. “The Narrative Nature of Place Branding.” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6, no. 4
(2010): 268–279.
Hansen, P. “Networks, Narratives, and New Markets: The Rise and Decline of Danish Modern Furniture
Design, 1930–1970.” Business History Review 80, no. 3 (2006): 449–483.
Jones, G., and V. Pouillard. Christian Dior: A New Look for Haute Couture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School (HBS case no. 9-809-159), 2013.
Kaneva, N. “Nation Branding: Toward an Agenda for Critical Research.” International Journal of
Communication 5 (2011): 117–141.
Kawamura, Y. Fashion-ology. An Introduction to Fashion Studies. Oxford: Berg, 2005.
Kawamura, Y. The Japanese Revolution in Paris fashion. Oxford: Berg, 2004.
Khaire, M. “The Indian Fashion Industry and Traditional Indian Crafts.” Business History Review 85, no.
2 (2011): 345–366.
Khaire, M., and E. V. Hall. “Medium and Message: Globalization and Innovation in the Production Field
of Indian Fashion.” Organization Studies 37, no. 6 (2016): 845–865.
Lampel, J., and A. D. Meyer. “Field-configuring Events as Structuring Mechanisms: How Conferences,
Ceremonies, and Trade Shows Constitute New Technologies, Industries, and Markets.” Journal of
Management Studies 45, no. 6 (2008): 1025–1035.
Mannucci, E. Il marchese rampante. Emilio Pucci: Avventure, Illusioni, Successi di un Inventore della Moda
Italiana [The Marquis Rampant. Emilio Pucci: Adventures, Illusions, Successes of One of Italian
Fashion’s Inventors]. Milano: Baldini & Castoldi, 1998.
Maskell, P., H. Bathelt, and A. Malmberg. “Building Global Knowledge Pipelines: The Role of Temporary
Clusters.” European Planning Studies 14, no. 8 (2006): 997–1013.
McCracken, G. “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of
the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods.” Journal of Consumer Research 13, no. 1 (1986): 71–84.
Merlo, E., and F. Polese. “Turning Fashion into Business: the Emergence of Milan as an International
Fashion Hub.” Business History Review 80, no. 3 (2006): 415–447.
Mordhorst, M. “Arla and Danish National Identity: Business History as Cultural History.” Business History
56, no. 1 (2014): 116–133.
Okawa, T. “Licensing Practices at Maison Christian Dior.” In Producing Fashion. Commerce, Culture, and
Consumers, edited by R. L. Blaszczyk, 82–107. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
Ortoleva, P. “Buying Italian: Fashion, Identities, Stereotypes.” In Volare: The Icon of Italy in Global Pop
Culture, edited by G. Malossi, 46–54. Florence: The Monacelli Press, 1999.
Palmer, A. Couture & Commerce. The Transatlantic Fashion Trade in the 1950s. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001.
Palmer, A. Dior. London: V&A Publishing, 2009.
Paris, I. “Fashion as a System: Changes in Demand as the Basis for the Establishment of the Italian
Fashion System.” Enterprise & Society 11, no. 3 (2010): 121–155.
Paris, I. Oggetti Cuciti. L’Abbigliamento Pronto in Italia dal Primo Dopoguerra agli Settanta [Sewn Objects:
Ready Made Apparel in Italy from the First Post-War Period to the 1970s]. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2006.
Peñaloza, L. “The Commodification of the American West: Marketers’ Production of Cultural Meanings
at the Trade Show.” Journal of Marketing 64, no. 4 (2000): 82–109.
Pinchera, V. “I Provvedimenti Economici per la Ripresa del Secondo Dopoguerra: Strategie e Settori
d’Intervento. Promozione e Sostegno della Moda Italiana 1945–1970 [Economic Measures for the
Recovery in the Second Post-War period: Strategies and Sectors of Intervention. Promotion and
Support of Italian Fashion].” In L’Intervento dello Stato nell’Economia Italiana [State Intervention in
the Italian Economy], edited by A. Cova and G. Fumi, 485–513, Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2011.
Pinchera, V. La Moda in Italia e in Toscana. Dalle Origini alla Globalizzazione [Fashion in Italy and in
Tuscany. From the Origins to Globalisation]. Venezia: Marsilio, 2009.
Pouillard, V. “Fashion for All? The Transatlantic Fashion Business and The Development of a Popular
Press Culture During the Interwar Period.” Journalism Studies 14, no. 5 (2013): 716–729.
Pouillard, V. “Keeping Designs and Brands Authentic: The Resurgence of The Post-War French Fashion
Business Under the Challenge of US Mass Production.” European Review of History 20, no. 5 (2013):
815–835.
Pouillard, V. “Managing Fashion Creativity. The History of the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture
Parisienne during the Interwar Period.” Investigationes de Historia Económica 12 (2016): 76–89.
Rantisi, N. “The Ascendance of New York Fashion.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
28, no. 1 (2004): 86–106.
Ricci, S. “Salvatore Ferragamo: An Evolving Legend.” In Salvatore Ferragamo: Evolving Legend 1928–2008,
edited by S. Ricci, 13–26. Milano: Skira, 2008.
Rinallo, D., H. Bathelt, and F. Golfetto. “Economic Geography and Industrial Marketing Views on Trade
Shows: Collective Marketing and Knowledge Circulation.” Industrial Marketing Management 61,
February (2017): 93–103.
Rinallo, D., S. Borghini, and F. Golfetto. “Exploring Visitor Experiences at Trade Shows.” Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing 25, no. 4 (2010): 249–258.
Rinallo, D., and F. Golfetto. “Exploring the Knowledge-based Strategies of Temporary Cluster Organizers:
A Longitudinal Study of the EU Fabric Industry Trade Shows (1986–2006).” Economic Geography 87,
no. 4 (2011): 453–476.
Roverato, G. Una casa industriale. I Marzotto [An Industrial House: The Marzotto Family]. Milano: Franco
Angeli, 1986.
Segre Reinach, S. “The Italian Fashion Revolution in Milan.” In The Glamour of Italian Fashion Since 1945,
edited by S. Stanfill, 58–73. London: V&A Publishing, 2014.
Smith, T. M., S. Gopalakrishna, and P. M. Smith. “The Complementary Effect of Trade Shows on Personal
Selling.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 21, no. 1 (2004): 61–76.
Spadoni, M. Il Gruppo SNIA dal 1917 al 1951 [The SNIA Group from 1917 to 1951]. Torino: Giappichelli,
2003.
Stanfill, S. “Introduction.” In The Glamour of Italian Fashion Since 1945, edited by S. Stanfill, 8–31. London:
V&A Publishing, 2014.
Steele, V. Fashion Italian Style. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
Steele, V. “Italian Fashion and America.” In The Italian Metamorphosis, 1943–1968, edited by G. Celant,
494–505. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 1994.
Steele, V. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. Oxford: Berg, 1998.
Thompson, C., and K. Tian. “Reconstructing the South: How Commercial Myths Compete for Identity
Value through the Ideological Shaping of Popular Memories and Counter-memories.” Journal of
Consumer Research 34, no. 5 (2008): 595–613.
Troy, N. J. Couture Culture. A Study in Modern Art and Fashion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
Vergani, G. “La Sala Bianca: Nascita della Moda Italiana [The White Hall: The Birth of Italian Fashion].”
In La Sala Bianca. Nascita della moda italiana [The White Hall: The Birth of Italian Fashion], edited by
G. Malossi, 23–86. Milano: Electa, 1992.
Verlegh, P. W. J., and J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp. “A Review and Meta-analysis of Country-of-origin Research.”
Journal of Economic Psychology 20, no. 5 (1999): 521–546.
White, N. “Italy: Fashion, Style and National Identity 1945-1965.” In The Fashion Business. Theory, Practice,
Image, edited by N. White and I. Griffiths, 183–204. Oxford: Berg, 2000.
White, N. Reconstructing Italian Fashion. America and the Development of the Italian Fashion Industry.
Oxford: Berg, 2000.

The Emergence of Italy As A Fashion Coun PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emergence of Italy As A Fashion Coun PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Emergence of Italy As A Fashion Coun PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business History

ISSN: 0007-6791 (Print) 1743-7938 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fbsh20

The emergence of Italy as a fashion country:

Valeria Pinchera & Diego Rinallo

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2017.1332593

Published online: 11 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [Università di Pisa] Date: 11 June 2017, At: 23:39

The emergence of Italy as a fashion country: Nation branding

CONTACT Valeria Pinchera [email protected]

Nation branding, narration, and collective marketing events

specific product category.14 By building or reinforcing country-of-origin effects, nation brand-

Antecedents: The supremacy of Paris and Italy’s fascist-era emancipatory

Creating Italian fashion: Many contenders fighting each other

Giorgini’s nation branding strategy

External reception: Foreign media interpretations of Italian fashion

Italy’s fashion civil wars

Discussion and conclusion

You might also like