Stone Island, the Hooligans Controversy and the Panerai Strategy

And what the story should teach us...

On August 24th, an article came up on "The Athletic" New York Times issue (link in comments) and it was a very surprising one.

It highlights how Stone Island became a staple for hooligans in UK.

It also talks about how soccer players and team managers are still used to wear a lot Stone Island items, without the famous badge because advertising is not allowed unless under official agreement on TV.

Weird thing is that it includes a contribution by the brand CEO.

In the article Stone Island CEO, Robert L. Triefus, highlighted that “In terms of football culture, they (fans) were wearing the brand to go to away matches over their team’s shirts. So that became a moment in the history of the company,” Triefus added:

“It was a kind of a phenomenon that was linked to the product itself, but also what the badge can represent in terms of self-reliance, confidence and so on.”

Self-reliance? Confidence? Hooligans?

The article continues, as written by its author "In the early 1980s, British hooligans shifted from traditional club colours to designer labels such as Stone Island, Burberry, CP Company and Lacoste, aiming to intimidate rival supporters with their style. "

And "Rooted in the 1980s, where fashion and football intersected, Stone Island quickly gained prominence. As English clubs celebrated European success, fans sought new experiences abroad, adopting diverse styles.

The surge of hooliganism in the UK further propelled Stone Island’s popularity, with expensive brands becoming favourites among ‘ultras’."

This article is pretty unexpected, and it would be great to understand from the brand press office, why this highlight in this moment, on the New York Times, including the interview with Stone Island CEO talking about this.

Is it because we expect a return of the Naughties Ninenties also fueled by the Oasis reunion announcement?

Is it just by chance?

Hooligans were not a nice chapter of UK history, and UK today is living, for other reasons, violence and attacks that are creating worries among the population.

Hooligans were not simply fans of soccer teams.

"Hooligan" means:

- Cambridge dictionary "a violent person who fights or causes damage in public places"

- Meriam-Webster "a usually young man who engages in rowdy or violent behavior especially as part of a group or gang"

- Collins "If you describe people, especially young people, as hooligans, you are critical of them because they behave in a noisy and violent way in a public place"

There is no positive meaning for a hooligan.

The synonim of “hooligan” is delinquent.

A 2005 movie "Green Street" highlights very well the level of violence evoked by these groups that rapidly became a social plague not only in UK but all over Europe.

The writer underlines “Stone Island gained recognition from English football supporters travelling across Europe.

Liverpool fans, in particular, played a pioneering role in adopting continental European fashions.”

We cannot forget the Liverpool hooligans provoking the massacre of the Eisel stadium in 1985 that saw 39 deaths among the Italian fans.

And the article continues "During the 1992 European Championship in Sweden, known for incidents of looting and rioting, an online myth has suggested England fans raided a clothing shop called Genius, seizing a treasure trove of Stone Island apparel and bringing it home.”

Why a smart brand like Stone Island should continue to associate, even indirectly, its image to the one of hooligans?

Why the CEO of the brand took part of the article with an interview?

Can’t Stone Island focus on its magnificent story of its founder, Massimo Osti, on the futuristic research and development on materials, on its allure and maybe also contribute to create a new storytelling?

Not everything that is part of a brand history is worth including in the brand narrative after 30 years.

This reminds me the spectacular work done by Richemont on Panerai.

When I joined the brand as Global Marketing Director the brand was still attached to its military roots, means fascism and it was celebrated by several groups of Paneristi for this reason.

As this point was considered not appropriate for the brand storytelling we started find other way to communicate the brand link to the sea and bravery instead of continuing to repeat the same, old, controversial story that was liked only by a few groups of fanatics.

It worked very well and it was worthy in order to broaden the focus on the customer target becoming more appealing to different generations of collectors more interested in the new mechanical movements and the link with Panerai and Florence rather than World War 2.

Why Stone Island is apparently insisting on THAT chapter of its story?

Article link https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5441980/2024/08/24/stone-island/

All rights for this document reserved. The text of this publication, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the written permission of the author/publisher.