Milan Fashion Week was an era of infinite opinions. Who is fashion really for?

As Milan Fashion Week drew to a close, one thing felt undeniable: everyone is now a fashion critic. Not just the front row. Not just the legacy editors. But analysts, Substack writers, TikTok commentators, luxury consultants, meme accounts and armchair aesthetes alike.

The more interesting question is not whether opinions are polarised, they always have been, but whose approval brands genuinely need in order to succeed.

The Gucci case study

The first runway collection for Gucci under Demna was always going to be divisive. What was notable, however, was that the reaction felt less brutal than the reception that greeted his predecessor Sabato De Sarno, a debut widely considered commercially underwhelming.

The critique ecosystem is now sprawling. Luxury analysts such as Luca Solca, trade publications like WWD, institutional voices such as Business of Fashion, with revered authorities, alongside independent newsletters like Linesheet and Instagram commentators all weighed in.

Some declared it a successful reset, a necessary purge into Gucci’s next era. Others dismissed it as derivative of Tom Ford, even likening elements to the aesthetic of Philipp Plein. Certain observers praised the clothes; others fixated on casting, muscular “himbos” squeezed into hyper-fitted tees and trousers. Questions of aspiration surfaced. So did doubts about quality.

The camps were not just divided; they were speaking different languages. And when reactions fracture this sharply, the consumer is left wondering: whose authority counts?

Even critics have bias

Journalists, like designers, have preferences. Certain designers benefit from long-standing critical goodwill. When was the last time a major industry writer delivered a truly scathing assessment of Jonathan Anderson?

That is not necessarily criticism, merely a reminder that fashion commentary is rarely neutral. Writers interpret through personal taste, brand history, and intellectual framing. Some dissect meaning and narrative with surgical precision. Others prioritise wearability and product. Social media, meanwhile, often strips nuance entirely.

Bottega and the weight of expectation

At Bottega Veneta, Louise Trotter presented her second outing. Many considered it stronger than her first, a collection more resolved in tone and construction. Yet the oversized silhouette continued to divide opinion. For some, it signalled confidence and authority; for others, it felt cumbersome and distant from everyday wear.

The tension between runway theatre and real-world practicality is hardly new. But amplified commentary makes the gap feel wider.

Prada: Genius or isularity?

At Prada, the repeated runway sequence, models circling back to remove layers, revealing incremental shifts in silhouette, was hailed by some traditional critics as conceptual brilliance. Others questioned whether such exercises reflect designers speaking primarily to each other rather than to customers.

Is intellectual layering a masterstroke? Or evidence of creative insularity? The answer depends entirely on perspective.

The only verdict that ultimately matters

This is where the numbers intervene.

Parent group Kering has reported significant declines at Gucci over recent seasons, with revenues down sharply compared to peak performance during its previous creative high in 2022. When revenue tumbles that far, CEOs have to move heaven and earth to please investors, markets and customers.

As Chinese consumer spending gradually rebounds and global luxury demand recalibrates (depending if the tensions in the Middle East end soon), it will not be the runway reviews that determine success. It will be quarterly results.

Critics influence perception. Analysts influence investors. Social media influences buzz. But only customers influence balance sheets.

Perhaps the real shift at Milan this season was not aesthetic, but structural. The monopoly of opinion has dissolved. Authority is fragmented. Brands are no longer designing for fashion critics, if they ever truly were.

In an era where everyone has a platform to share opinions, the final arbiter is neither the old guard nor the algorithm.

It is the cash register.