Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. stands as one of the last great independent houses in Italian luxury. Its story is defined by two forces that rarely coexist for long: a deep devotion to heritage and a fierce refusal to be absorbed into the vast machinery of global conglomerates. This independence is a source of pride but also a source of strain.

The company was born from the technical genius of Salvatore Ferragamo, who built a reputation as the “shoemaker to the stars” and left behind more than 350 patents that now form part of Italy’s design canon. Yet his sudden death in 1960 forced the family into an unplanned succession that reshaped the brand completely.

His widow, Wanda, transformed a small Florentine workshop into a global fashion house; his children inherited a company whose identity was split between invention and continuity; and the next generations must now defend autonomy in a luxury market dominated by giants.

The Ferragamo succession is a lesson in how a family preserves unity, enforces discipline, and navigates the price of remaining independent.

The Founding Vision

Before establishing his company in 1927, Salvatore Ferragamo spent years in California, crafting shoes for the film studios and earning a reputation for being able to “make a shoe that fits the foot, not the other way around”.

He experimented relentlessly. He studied anatomy at the University of Southern California to understand the science of comfort, tested materials ranging from cork to raffia, and patented designs that changed the silhouette of twentieth-century footwear. The cork wedge, the steel-reinforced stiletto, the invisible sandal: each invention reflected a mind that saw shoes as both engineering and art.

By the time he returned to Italy, he was already known as a pioneer. Florence became the centre of his work, a place where artisans, master shoemakers, and apprentices gathered around a shared vision of precision and inventiveness. But the business he created remained small and centred entirely on footwear. It was a workshop, not yet a fashion house.

Salvatore intended to build something larger, but he never had the chance. His death in 1960 left behind a celebrated name, a devoted workforce, and an unfinished dream that his family would have to interpret and expand.

The Defining Crisis and Wanda’s Unlikely Accession

When Salvatore died unexpectedly, Wanda Ferragamo was 39 years old, mother to six children ranging from teenagers to toddlers, and had never intended to run a company. Yet Salvatore, aware of his fading health, had quietly given her the legal authority she would need. With the support of loyal artisans and managers, she stepped into leadership overnight.

The company she inherited produced around eighty pairs of shoes a day. It was admired for craftsmanship, but it lacked scale, structure, and diversification. The luxury market was shifting; a mono-product brand would not survive long on heritage alone.

Wanda understood this instinctively. She was determined to honour her husband’s name without imprisoning it in nostalgia. What followed was one of the most significant leadership transitions in modern Italian fashion.

From Footwear to “Total Look”

To stabilise the company and give it the breadth required to compete internationally, Wanda decided to make a bold move and extend Ferragamo beyond shoes. Under her guidance, Ferragamo entered apparel, leather goods, silk accessories, fragrance, and later hospitality: all designed to express a coherent “Ferragamo world”. Her attempt could have had a destabilising effect and turned into a failure, but somehow each new category increased resilience.

This expansion positioned Ferragamo as a fully fledged luxury house and secured the scale needed for global retail presence. Wanda did this while navigating a business culture dominated by men, earning a reputation as a calm but formidable leader. By the time she stepped back, she had held the reins for nearly sixty years.

Egalitarianism as Governance Architecture

With six children destined to inherit the business, Wanda confronted a classic family business dilemma: how to keep siblings united once the patriarch was gone. Her solution was radical in its simplicity but proved to be remarkably effective.

She insisted that all six children receive equal pay and equal shares in the family holding company. In a world where family firms often fracture over questions of seniority and contribution, this egalitarian stance prevented rivalry from taking root. This approach is not for every family, since equal isn’t always perceived as fair, but it did work for the Ferragamos. 

It allowed the second generation to work side by side, each taking responsibility for a part of the growing business:

  • Fiamma, whose Vara pump became a global icon.
  • Giovanna, who shaped creative and merchandising roles.
  • Ferruccio, who later became Chairman.
  • Leonardo, who expanded into men’s products and hospitality.
  • Fulvia, who built the silk division into a signature pillar.
  • Massimo, who led Ferragamo USA.

The structure held long enough to guide the company to the next turning point: the creation of formal governance, the IPO, and the challenge of integrating the third generation.

The Family Governance Framework

By the early 2000s, Ferragamo had grown into a global luxury house, yet its internal structure still reflected the era of Wanda’s stewardship: centralised, family-led, and reliant on informal consensus. The second generation recognised that the company needed a more formal framework to meet the demands of an international business and prepare for succession into the third generation.

A decisive transformation followed: the introduction of professional management, the creation of a holding structure, and the public listing that would redefine the relationship between family and market.

The family’s first significant step was to hire Michele Norsa, the first non-family Chief Executive Officer. His mandate was to modernise the business, strengthen systems, and prepare the company for a public listing.

The IPO, completed in June 2011, marked a major shift. Ferragamo S.p.A. became a listed entity on the Milan Stock Exchange, gaining access to the capital needed for global expansion. The listing required the company to adopt a more structured governance model, including:

  • independent directors,
  • formal board committees,
  • increased financial transparency,
  • adherence to the Borsa Italiana Corporate Governance Code.

The move signalled to markets that Ferragamo was willing to embrace professional standards while keeping family leadership at the centre. But going public also increased vulnerability: a company with strong brand equity and modest scale becomes an attractive target for acquisition. The family needed a shield.

That guard came in the form of Ferragamo Finanziaria S.p.A. (FF), the unlisted family holding company that remains the true anchor of the dynasty. FF controls the majority of the voting rights in the listed company and holds the authority to coordinate strategy across the group.

Its most powerful function is to prohibit the sale of second-generation shares. This rule protects the control block across generations, prevents fragmentation, and leakage of ownership.

The IPO, with FF’s locked-in structure, enabled the company to raise capital while the family retained strategic control. 

To reinforce their position even further, the family deployed two additional governance mechanisms: the Loyalty Shares (Maggiore Voto) and the Shareholders’ Agreement with Majestic Honour Limited (MHL), the Hong Kong–based Woo family investment vehicle whose aligned voting rights strengthen the family’s control block.

Under Italian law, long-term shareholders can receive enhanced voting rights. Ferragamo adopted this system, allowing FF’s majority share to translate into a supermajority of votes. As a result, 54% of equity becomes roughly two-thirds of voting power. This ensures that even with a substantial free float, the family can control board appointments, strategic decisions and extraordinary resolutions. 

To add an outer layer of defence, the family entered a voting syndicate with MHL, a long-time minority shareholder. Together, they command more than 60% of the voting capital: a unified front against any external actor attempting to gain influence.

The Trade-Off

Ferragamo’s governance architecture protects independence with extraordinary precision, ensuring that no outsider — not even a luxury conglomerate — can force strategic change.

But the model carries a burden. It reduces liquidity, limits valuation potential, and restricts access to the deep financial resources required for large-scale investments. The same independence that preserves identity can slow down transformation, especially in a market where LVMH, Kering, and Richemont operate with immense balance sheet power.

The question facing the next generation is simple but profound:
Can Ferragamo remain independent without falling behind? 

The answer depends on how the third and fourth generations balance discipline with adaptability. The next chapter begins with how they tried to solve one of the thorniest challenges in family business succession: managing the cousin generation.

The ‘Max Three’ Employment Policy

As the Ferragamo family grew, so did the complexity of its succession. Wanda and Salvatore had six children; by the time the family entered the third and fourth generations, the number of descendants exceeded seventy. What had once been a small artisanal firm was now a global public company owned by an expanding dynasty.

This is the phase where most family businesses falter. The cousin generation often arrives with overlapping ambitions, unclear roles, and uneven expectations. The Ferragamos confronted this risk early and decisively, adopting one of the most disciplined family–business interface policies in Italian luxury.

The second generation understood that Ferragamo could not absorb every descendant who might wish to join. Without clear boundaries, the business risked becoming a stage for internal politics. Their response was a formal rule limiting the number of family members working in Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. to a maximum of three at any time. This policy sends a clear signal to markets and employees: family presence is meaningful, but not automatic.

Limiting quantity was not enough. The family paired this rule with a demanding set of entry requirements for emerging heirs. Any third-generation member aspiring to join the business must demonstrate:

  • a completed university degree (preferably postgraduate),
  • at least two years of successful experience outside the family group,
  • fluency in English,
  • and strong digital, managerial, and cultural awareness.

In effect, only those who can earn a place in the modern luxury sector are eligible to serve within the brand that bears their name. This is meritocracy as governance: a way to protect the company from the dilution of competence that often accompanies generational expansion.

A Curated Inner Circle

The system has funnelled the most committed and capable family members into select leadership roles. Among them:

  • James (Giacomo) Ferragamo, now Chief Transformation & Sustainability Officer and widely seen as a leading figure of his generation.
  • Angelica Visconti, Vice Chair of the Board and global head of wholesale and travel retail.
  • Niccolò Ferragamo, serving as a non-executive voice on the board.

Others have found their place in the broader family enterprise:

  • Manuele Ferragamo in the Lungarno Alberghi hospitality portfolio,
  • Riccardo Ferragamo overseeing regions within the expanded group ecosystem.

The wider family remains connected through ownership, but only a carefully chosen few represent the surname in operational leadership.

This discipline has become one of the clearest sources of Ferragamo’s internal stability. It prevents overcrowding in management, maintains a professional environment, and upholds credibility with external investors.

Brand Reboot and CEO Turnover

By the early 2020s, Ferragamo found itself at a crossroads. The company had the heritage, the craftsmanship, and the global name recognition, yet it lacked the scale and pace of its conglomerate-backed competitors. Its aesthetic felt anchored in earlier decades, and its customer base was ageing.

The family recognised the need for a decisive reset that blended creative renewal with modern commercial discipline. 

In 2022, the family appointed Marco Gobbetti, a seasoned luxury executive with experience at LVMH, Céline, and Burberry, as Chief Executive Officer. His arrival signalled a clear intention: Ferragamo would modernise, and it would do so quickly.

Gobbetti’s approach centred on three pillars:

  1. A new aesthetic language, delivered through the appointment of British designer Maximilian Davis, whose clean, refined style promised relevance to younger clients.
  2. A visual and brand identity overhaul, including the simplification of the logo to a stark, contemporary “FERRAGAMO”, accompanied by a more streamlined palette and striking store imagery.
  3. Digital acceleration, with an emphasis on omnichannel capability and partnerships with major online luxury platforms.

The aim was to build a brand that could speak to Millennials and Gen Z without abandoning its Florentine origins.

Transformation carries a financial price, and Ferragamo felt it sharply. To introduce a new creative direction, the company had to move older stock off the shelves, resulting in higher inventory write-downs, reduced margins, and short-term contraction in revenue.

At the same time, global volatility — particularly in Asia-Pacific, a crucial region — placed further pressure on performance. Wholesale weakened, and store renovations demanded sustained investment.

The brand’s strategic shift was deliberate, but the financial discomfort was unavoidable. 

In March 2025, at the height of the financial strain, Gobbetti stepped down. The departure was sudden, and although described as a mutual agreement, it exposed the tension between the demands of an independent luxury house and the financial patience required for a long-term turnaround.

In response, the family turned to known figures. Leonardo Ferragamo, long-time Chairman, assumed executive powers to stabilise the transition. Michele Norsa, the former CEO who had guided the company through the IPO, returned as Special Adviser to the Chairman. James Ferragamo took on increased visibility and operational responsibility as part of the transition leadership group.

This move re-centred control around trusted family-aligned figures. It’s a familiar pattern: external leaders are welcomed to modernise the brand but are often recalled before the transformation reaches maturity. This process protects the family’s values and identity, but slows down the renewal the brand requires in a highly competitive market.

Current Market Dynamics and Financial Vulnerability 

The years following the brand reboot have placed Ferragamo under considerable financial pressure. Some of this strain came from global macroeconomic weakness; some from the unavoidable cost of transition; and some from the structural limitations of independence itself. Together, they created a moment of vulnerability that shaped leadership decisions and tested the family’s long-standing governance model.

Ferragamo entered the 2020s with solid brand equity but uneven momentum. As global demand softened and the luxury sector entered a period of caution, the company experienced a rapid decline in performance. 

Key indicators reveal the extent of the contraction:

  • 2024 full-year revenues fell by 10.5%, dropping to €1,035.1 million.
  • The Group posted a net loss of €68.1 million.
  • Asia-Pacific, historically a growth engine, weakened significantly, with double-digit declines across 2023 and 2024.
  • North America also contracted, reflecting a broader slowdown in wholesale and travel retail.

These trends signalled the fragility of an independent luxury brand operating without the extensive financial buffers available to conglomerate-owned houses. 

The company’s shift toward Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) — a necessary move for modern luxury — has not yet offset the drop in wholesale demand.

The financial picture grew more challenging as operational metrics continued to soften:

  • EBITDA fell from €117 million (H1 2024) to €73 million (H1 2025),  a drop of nearly 40%.
  • The net result swung from a €6 million profit to a €58 million loss in the same period.
  • Net financial position remained positive, at €119 million in H1 2025, though significantly lower than €167 million the year prior.

The company was still liquid, but the gap was narrowing as restructuring costs accumulated. Retail renovations, digital investments, and creative repositioning all required sustained capital that an independent house must generate largely on its own.

The family’s decisive move to stabilise leadership in early 2025 — returning authority to Leonardo Ferragamo and trusted advisers — must be seen against this backdrop of financial vulnerability. The brand’s next chapter will depend on whether the upcoming generation can balance independence with the necessity of transformation.

The Four Abundances: A Holistic View

The Ferragamo succession reveals a family that has preserved its independence through structure and discipline, yet continues to navigate the emotional and strategic tensions that come with multigenerational control. Their story comes into clearer focus when viewed through the lens of the Four Abundances.

Wealth

The company remains wholly anchored in a single, iconic brand that carries extraordinary heritage value but requires significant capital to modernise. The family has protected this wealth through a secure structure: a locked holding company, loyalty voting rights, a voting syndicate, and a governance model explicitly designed to prevent dilution. This ensures continuity, but it also limits liquidity and the ability to fund rapid expansion at the pace set by conglomerates. Their abundance is defensive strength; their constraint is financial agility. 

Relationships

The family’s relational abundance comes from deliberate design rather than emotional closeness. Wanda’s egalitarian approach established a foundation of unity during the crucial sibling phase. As the family expanded into the third generation, the dynamic shifted. With over seventy descendants, intimacy gave way to structure. The “Max Three” policy prevents overcrowding while channelling ambition into clear, narrow pathways. This creates a kind of respectful distance: relationships remain intact because roles are defined, expectations are managed, and conflict is pre-emptively contained. It is not a warm abundance, but a stable one.

Time

Ferragamo’s relationship with time is both its strength and its challenge. The family has shown extraordinary patience across generations: Wanda led for nearly six decades. The brand has been safeguarded through market cycles without panic.
Independence has been maintained even when the financial cost was high. Yet the contemporary luxury market moves faster than the rhythms that once sustained the house. Modernisation demands speed, capital, and sustained discomfort. The short tenure of external CEOs suggests that the family’s tolerance for long, difficult transitions remains limited. Their abundance is long memory and loyalty; their difficulty is adapting that patience to a market that no longer waits.

Purpose

On one hand, Ferragamo’s purpose is rooted in craft that remains a powerful foundation. On the other hand, purpose now demands cohesion across generations who did not live through the same defining moments. Ferragamo’s purpose is therefore evolving from preserving a legacy to actively shaping its meaning, from honouring the founder to translating his values into a digital, global future. Purpose is present, but still being refined for the fourth generation.

The Family Council Canvas in Action

The FCC provides a structured lens for aligning purpose with governance, something the Ferragamos have always valued, but often held implicitly rather than explicitly. If the Family Council Canvas had been part of Ferragamo’s evolution, it would have shaped the family’s succession at three critical pressure points:

  • the expansion from G2 to G3,
  • the transition from founder-led identity to modern brand repositioning,
  • and the tension between independence and the capital needs of contemporary luxury.

Dynamics

For decades, the family has defended autonomy without articulating the sacrifices it entails. The Canvas would have offered a forum to surface these difficult questions long before they became strategic bottlenecks:

  • How much financial discomfort is the family willing to tolerate during long turnarounds?
  • What does “independence” mean to G3 and G4 — heritage, control, pride, or strategy?
  • How should the family respond when external CEOs push harder than the balance sheet allows?
  • What expectations do G3 family members carry about visibility, employment, or leadership roles?

Had these conversations been formalised earlier, the company might have navigated the 2022–2025 reset with clearer internal alignment and fewer abrupt pivots.

Compass

The Ferragamos excel at identity — Italian, artisanal, family-owned — but they have not always articulated a shared strategic compass. The FCC would help them define what they stand for now, not only historically:

  • Is independence a non-negotiable principle or a strategic choice subject to review?
  • Should Ferragamo prioritise long-term brand equity over short-term profitability?
  • How should the business balance Salvatore’s technical heritage with Wanda’s broader “total look” ambition?
  • What level of external leadership is acceptable — operational, creative, or both?

A clear compass would allow the family to stay unified even when the market pressures intensify.

Journey

Ferragamo has a rich succession history, but much of it lives in memory rather than documented reflection. The Canvas would help turn that history into a shared narrative: Salvatore’s inventive mind and artisanal mastery, Wanda’s transformation into a fashion house and her egalitarian ownership model, the introduction of professional governance, the IPO, and the “Max Three” policy. The first major creative reboot since Wanda’s era, with financial volatility and leadership turnover.

This map becomes essential for G4, who will inherit not just a company, but a story in motion. Without documenting the rationale behind key decisions — especially Wanda’s equal-share model and the limits on G3 employment — later generations risk misunderstanding the structure they inherit.

Goals & Actions

Ferragamo’s governance is strong, but its strategic execution often falters at moments when investment costs peak and losses widen. The FCC would help the family turn abstract ideals into concrete commitments.

A clear mandate for external CEOs, such as:

  • Define acceptable investment loss thresholds.
  • Guarantee a minimum strategic horizon (7–10 years) before performance is judged.
  • Outline non-negotiable brand principles: heritage, craftsmanship, Italian identity.

Review and renew the “Max Three” policy:

  • Assess whether the rule still serves G3 and G4 fairly.
  • Consider pathways for family members beyond the corporate core (hospitality, real estate, projects).
  • Create transparent criteria for succession into senior governance roles.

The goal is not to increase family employment but to maintain relevance and fairness as the dynasty expands.

Align capital strategy with brand strategy:

  • Decide how much autonomy is worth — financially and emotionally.
  • Establish reserves or financing partnerships to endure multi-year creative resets.
  • Evaluate whether independence can be leveraged through storytelling rather than protected in silence.

A recurring brand identity review:

A formal mechanism for reconciling the different legacies of each generation cycle would guide decisions across creative directors, product lines, and marketing strategy.

The Family Council Canvas offers a way to bring reflection, transparency, and shared purpose into the centre of decision-making. If Ferragamo’s future rests on balancing heritage with renewal, then the Canvas gives the family a way to ensure that independence becomes a strategic strength.

What the Ferragamo Case Teaches Family Offices

Despite repeated macroeconomic shocks and intense competitive pressure, Ferragamo has remained intact across three generations. Three pillars explain this durability.

1. Transformative Leadership

Wanda’s decision to expand into apparel, accessories, and fragrance provided the commercial breadth necessary for global relevance. Without that pivot, the company would have remained a boutique footwear house: respected, but too narrow to survive. Wanda effectively acted as a second founder, anchoring the family’s identity in a shared mission rather than a single product.

2. Structural Defence

The combination of the family holding company (Ferragamo Finanziaria), locked-in G2 shares, loyalty voting rights, and a syndicated voting agreement with MHL forms one of the strongest defensive structures in European luxury. This architecture ensures the family can withstand takeover speculation, valuation pressure and short-term market sentiment.

3. Pre-Emptive Conflict Management

The decision to limit third-generation employment to a maximum of three roles ( paired with high entry thresholds) prevents role overcrowding, unearned influence,
and the diffusion of accountability that often arises when large families enter the third and fourth generations. This policy also signals to markets that meritocracy, not lineage, governs entry into the business.

  1. Resilience Requires Flexibility

While the governance structure protects independence, it also exposes the company to a different kind of risk: the difficulty of sustaining long-term, costly transformation in a family that holds ultimate veto power. This tension became visible in the cycle of CEO turnover.

The company has repeatedly hired respected outsiders to drive transformation. Yet when margins fall, losses rise, or store renovation cycles intensify, the family tends to pull decision-making back toward familiar hands.

This is not unusual in family enterprises, but in Ferragamo’s case, the combination of strong defensive control and financial discomfort creates a shortened runway for external leadership.

The family’s decisive intervention in 2025 — returning executive power to Leonardo, reinstating Norsa, and elevating James Ferragamo — stabilised governance. But it also signalled a retreat from the boldness of the Gobbetti–Davis reset. The family, committed to independence but sensitive to losses, developed a competitive disadvantage compared to conglomerate-backed brands, which can absorb years of losses without structural anxiety.

Ferragamo’s independence gives the brand a distinctive narrative in a homogenised luxury landscape: Italian, family-controlled, craft-driven, and individualistic.

Yet independence requires a financial and emotional tolerance that must be fully aligned across generations. When external market conditions are volatile — or when creative reinvention incurs heavy upfront costs — that tolerance is tested.

The third and fourth generations will face a defining question: Is independence a boundary or a strategy?

If it is a strategy, it must be funded, communicated, and lived consistently, even when the numbers turn red. If it is a boundary, the brand must find alternative ways to accelerate reinvention without external capital or conglomerate integration.

If the family wishes to benefit from professional CEO expertise, it must articulate — and commit to — a longer investment horizon. Luxury turnarounds typically require seven to ten years, not three. A premature governance recall sends conflicting signals to both markets and talent.

Ferragamo illustrates a delicate truth: a family can build impeccable governance, yet still struggle if its risk tolerance is not aligned with modern market realities. If G3 can hold the line between discipline and adaptability, Ferragamo can remain one of the world’s last great independent luxury dynasties through renewal, not resistance.

Disclaimer: This article is a case study based on publicly available information and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. The analysis and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not constitute factual claims about the private lives or intentions of the individuals discussed. The use of any copyrighted material is done for the purposes of commentary and criticism and is believed to fall under the principles of fair use. All images are used with attribution to their known sources.

Sources

Ferragamo Foundation (2025), ‘Wanda Miletti Ferragamo’s Story’ (Details on her 1960 takeover, the six children, and the shift to the ‘Total Look’), Available at: https://fondazione.ferragamo.com/en/wanda-miletti-ferragamo.

Ferragamo Foundation (2025), ‘Salvatore Ferragamo’ (Founder history and patents), Available at: https://fondazione.ferragamo.com/en/salvatore-ferragamo.  

Family Business Magazine (2014), ‘Ferragamo Family Adheres to Policies’ (Details on the “Max Three” employment rule, Wanda’s egalitarian pay/share policy, and James Ferragamo’s role), 28 July, Available at: https://familybusinessmagazine.com/uncategorized/ferragamo-family-adheres-to-policies/.  

Tatler Asia (2021), ‘Inside the Charming Village of the Ferragamos Family’ (Mention of the family expanding to over 70 descendants), Available at: https://www.tatlerasia.com/lifestyle/entertainment/inside-the-charming-village-of-the-ferragamos-family.  

NYU Stern School of Business (2006), Family Affair (Academic commentary on the Max Three rule and external CEO hiring in 2006), Available at: https://w4.stern.nyu.edu/sternbusiness/fall_2006/familyAffair.html.  

Alain Elkann Interviews (2015), ‘Massimo Ferragamo’ (Discussing Leonardo’s role in the Lungarno Alberghi hospitality division), Available at: https://www.alainelkanninterviews.com/massimo-ferragamo/.  

CampdenFB (2011), ‘Family-controlled Ferragamo contemplates listing shares’ (Initial reporting on the IPO, the 8% sale to the Woo family, and Norsa’s role), Available at: https://www.campdenfb.com/article/family-controlled-ferragamo-contemplates-listing-shares.  

Fibre2Fashion (2025), ‘Italian luxury house Salvatore Ferragamo to see CEO exit in March 2025’ (Details on Marco Gobbetti’s early departure, Leonardo Ferragamo assuming executive power, and Michele Norsa returning as Special Advisor), 4 February, Available at: https://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/fashion-news/italian-luxury-house-salvatore-ferragamo-to-see-ceo-exit-in-march-2025-300581-newsdetails.htm.

World Footwear (2025), ‘Ferragamo launches action plan amid worsening performance’ (H1 2025 financial results: €474 million revenue, 9.4% drop, €73 million EBITDA, and a shift to a €58 million net loss), 18 August, Available at: https://www.worldfootwear.com/news/ferragamo-launches-action-plan-amid-worsening-performance/10845.html.

Retail TouchPoints (2023), ‘Ferragamo Partners with Farfetch as part of Millennial, Gen Z Strategy’ (Marco Gobbetti’s digital strategy and the appointment of Maximilian Davis), 25 May, Available at: https://www.retailtouchpoints.com/features/news-briefs/ferragamo-partners-with-farfetch-as-part-of-millennial-gen-z-strategy.  

Luxury Tribune (2023), ‘Ferragamo Facing Economic Challenges’ (Q3 2023 decline, vulnerability of independent luxury brands, and Gobbetti’s focus on young consumers), 27 October, Available at: https://www.luxurytribune.com/en/ferragamo-facing-economic-challenges.  

Luxury Tribune (2022), ‘The Ferragamo Brand Undergoes a Transformation’ (Renaming to FERRAGAMO and the logo restyling), 22 September, Available at: https://www.luxurytribune.com/en/the-ferragamo-brand-undergoes-a-transformation.  

MarTech Depot (2025), ‘Ferragamo’s Digital-First Pivot’ (Strategic focus on footwear and leather goods to simplify the value proposition), 24 October, Available at: https://www.martechdepot.com/2025/10/24/ferragamos-digital-first-pivot-direct-to-consumer-growth-lift-q3-amid-global-headwinds/.

CPP-Luxury (2025), ‘Ferragamo restructures board but denies any intention to sell’ (Family denial of takeover/sale speculation), 21 March, Available at: https://cpp-luxury.com/ferragamo-restructures-board-but-denies-any-intention-to-sell/.  

Header image: Phillip Pessar – Salvatore Ferragamo Miami Design District