A flurry of news articles (and shout-outs on my personal bible, Cathy Horyn’s NYTimes blog) have got me thinking about the current trend of reviving dead couture houses: Harvey Weinstein recently bought Halston for a reported 22 million (the début re-launch collection will be featured during NY Fashion Week in February), Mark Worth (half of the team that founded WGSN) is out to revive Ossie Clark, and Diego Della Valle (CEO of Tod’s) has been talking about reviving Schiaparelli.

What does it mean to revive a dead couture house? Do we really need a revived Schiaparelli? From a marketing standpoint, what do these names mean to potential customers? What are you actually reviving—a marketable name or a sartorial legacy? Is this all just a big PR/marketing ploy to make money?

On top of the myriad questions couture revival raises, the debate is muddled by the fact that the results of couture-revival are across the board: for every Chanel, Balenciaga, and Lanvin there’s been a Vionnet, Grès, Biba, or Ossie Clark. Explanation: Chanel, Balenciaga and Lanvin are all successfully revived couture houses. A “revived couture house” is a house that ceased making garments with the death of the eponymous designer, only to be revived again years later by a younger generation. Chanel, Balenciaga, and Lanvin are the ideal-type of what couture revival should be: big-name houses that showcase big talent. Lagerfeld, Ghesquière, and Elbaz are the master couturiers of our generation who benefit from the marketable heritage of the houses they design for.

But if couture revival only works when talented designers are at the helm, then why didn’t Olivier Theysken for Rochas work out? Theysken’s work was universally acclaimed; he dressed Nini Ricci for the red-carpet and was the darling of Carine Roitfeld of French Vogue. Yet the house closed, WWD explains, because Theyskens “focused his business on a handful of exclusive retains partners” instead of spending his time designing hand-bags, shoes, and perfume.

Which brings us to a key point: reviving couture houses is good for business. Why does Harvey Weinstein, CEO of Miramax, want to revive Halston? Weinstein’s explains his reasons using the euphemistic expression “synergy between fashion and films”, which is just a way of saying, “Halston product placements in future movies, and a future documentary in the works about the life of the designer.” Not to mention Halston product placement on the red carpet, thanks to the inclusion of Rachel Zoe—self-proclaimed “Anna Wintour” of Hollywood—on the Halston design team. I predict that Weinstein’s “synergy” product-placement formula will make Halston a financial success—the average public may not know who Halston is today, but after a dozen of movies with Halston references as well as a splattering of stars on the cover of US weekly wearing Halston, Halston may well become a house-hold name.

Did other revival houses die almost stillborn because their product-placement was off? For instance, Sophia Kokosalaki, a talented young designer, was tapped to relaunch Vionnet but was fired within two seasons only to be replaced by Marc Audibet who will concentrate on “developing a full-blown accessories line and expanding Vionnet’s ready-to-wear”—in sum, a direct turn away from couture and into the lucrative accessories market. Is it really necessary to revive a couture house with a beautifully rich heritage only to turn it into the next Pierre Cardin (that is, an accessories franchise). Personally, the idea breaks my heart. I dread the thought of waking up tomorrow and finding Schiaparelli lip-stick imprimés on Chinese-made leather wallets.

Weinstein revealed that he outbid Kohl’s Department store for the right to the Halston legacy. Sure, Weinstein will revive Halston in a way Kohl’s couldn’t have, but in the end the results remain the same: diluted. Unless couture houses are used to showcase talented designers—and more importantly—are given the time to grow into the legacy of the house without pushing accessories and product placement over design sensitivity in the model of Balenciaga and Lanvin, then reviving the dead should be left to the cinematic screen only and not to business moguls.