Interview with Stephen Jones

Stephen Jones is undoubtedly one of the most prolific milliners today. He has collaborated with some of the biggest names in fashion including Dior, Vivienne Westwood, L'Wren Scott and Louis Vuitton. His work has been featured in an exhibition by the V & A - Hats: an Anthology by Stephen Jones - that has recently completed a 'world tour'.

Stephen talks to me about luxury:

No Entry

Stephen (SJ): For me, luxury can appear in many ways. It’s only sometimes that it’s an object. You could have a luxurious experience, like a luxurious meal. But, as people say, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, so is luxury in the eye of the beholder. In the early 21^st century people tend to think that it’s a crocodile handbag and it can be that, but normally it’s everything else. Luxury is a very convenient thing to hang something on. I think it sort of the level of affluence and sophistication in society. If you think in terms of post-war, for example, if you had a vacuum cleaner, that was a modern home improvement and that was considered the great luxury of the day, as part of for example a space-age kitchen. And that was sort of the whole idea of an American convenience. Whether it was a convenient fridge or a washing machine, the woman was normally there in front of her Kelvinator washing machine with a ball gown, long gloves and a tiara. So that was absolute luxury. That was convenience. And then came fashion, and suddenly, the new added value word was ‘fashionable’. And along with that was the idea of a fashionable food or a fashionable description. So for example at Marks and Spencer’s you would never have six cakes, you would have a medley of cakes or that kind of thing. 

Luxury nowadays is maybe more true luxury than it was, but it’s still just really a marketing tool. I think that people’s appreciation of luxury is so personal. For one person, luxury may be getting half an hour off work earlier. Within all the luxury brands, really the only one that comes from fashion is Dior. All the others came from saddlery, or leather goods, or whatever. That in fact is slightly a problem for Dior but also its saving, because they haven’t got a thousand different handbags to fall back on. The thing about Dior was novelty. The fact that you had it was just extraordinary luxury and a fantastic, wonderful thing, but you had to have a new one every season. Dior also invented that. But that’s not enough in today’s market. 

SB: How would you define luxury?

SJ: I think something which has had time. If we are talking about an object then time, design, and whatever has been spent on it to make it an evocation of the human condition. Probably aspiring to be making something beautiful and qualitative. Luxury is in the idea contained within the object. I think it is completely about the experience. For example Dior haute couture, the fitters will go and see the client at home; even if it's only on the other side of the road. There will be the directrice of haute couture; the fitter, there may be a sowing lady as well. So it's completely about the experience for the client. The whole thing is about how you want to look, what flatters you, the message you want to send. Couture is just the same experience as they have within Savile Row, of having a bespoke suit made.

SB: Does the experience differ from that of Bond Street for example?

SJ: Well, the experience in Bond Street can be absolutely fantastic as well, like going to a jeweller, or going to a designer boutique; you will really be looked after. However, that product will not be changed for you, whereas luxury is having the thing adapted to your needs really, or to your wishes, to your taste.

SB: If you are buying haute couture, do you meet the designer, for example, and is that important?

SJ: If you are buying Dior haute couture, it depends who you are. You might meet the designer, absolutely, and certainly the designer will be doing the sketches and supervising it, but whether he can actually be there and be particularly hands on is another question... most designers don’t see the clients, and never have done, because actually within the couture houses, the vendeuse, the sales lady, is the one who really rules in that situation and they will have their own clients, and they will have commission from sales from their clients as well.

SB: Do you think it's important to have contact with the maker if you are buying into this idea of luxury rather than a luxury brand?

Vapour Trails

SJ: Oh yes, absolutely. Whether it's having a Porsche done for you in the colour that you want. Normally when we buy a product, the product exists and if we like it we buy it, and if we don’t like it, we don’t buy it. Actually, often even if we don’t like it we still do buy it because it's convenient. But the thing about true luxury therefore, and slightly in conclusion, is that it's halfway your thing and its halfway the person making it for you. And the interesting point is how far you go and how far they go. So it is a creative process, but with somebody in mind. And that exists in all levels. For example if a woman goes to a hairdresser she has got something that is done specifically for her. That’s why people will spend a fortune going to a hairdresser and give a giant tip, because it is that personal service.

SB: Is luxury about re-invention?

SJ: It can be. If you look at a lot of those luxury brands, what they do is they use their heritage. All of them, in particular people like Gucci. They will use their archives. I think every designer does. It's so funny, because you think that during the early sixties every designer or whatever was trying to do something space-age. Now they are desperately trying to look into their archives. They are incredibly proud of that. Burberry has existed since 1856; Dior has existed since 1947. The history of the company is more important than the newness of the object.

SB: What about the celebrity and luxury?

SJ: Interestingly here, for those people who are buying real luxury objects, if a celebrity is wearing it, they don’t want to have it. Often what they are about is discretion not celebrity. It's a private luxury, something to enjoy at home with your family or with your friends. I know some very wealthy people and they go out of their way to make sure that they are not photographed.

SB: What role has history played in that luxury is understood today?

SJ: Well, the ingredients in luxury; there’s craftsmanship, and there is authenticity, and so this whole idea that this thing has been passed down from father to son, and because of that it's a good thing. It's a connection to a time which was maybe slower or more time was spent in the creation of a beautiful object. If you look at companies like Burberry or Brioni, particularly menswear of course, and the Savile Row book, The Perfect Gentleman: The Pursuit of Timeless Elegance & Style in London, by James Sherwood, it is about their history. Today luxury is not about the fact that they are going to make an outfit for the man on the moon, but it's all about ‘heritage brands’, which is a particularly British thing and of course related to history.

SB: What does authenticity mean then, within the context of luxury?

SJ: It means that, within a luxury product, authenticity means that it's made using a traditional technique, which is perceived as being high class, and having soul within it.

SB: Do you think celebrity has a role to play in defining luxury?

SJ: : Yes because if Daphne Guinness is walking around with her new Dior handbag there are a whole lot of people out there who will go and buy it because they think she is a tastemaker. They will go and buy what she has. It is very similar now as it always has been. If you look at printed archives from the 1920s or the 1930s, it's always the Marchioness of Cholmondeley wearing a Vionnet ball gown, or it will say something like ‘She will always go to the White House in Piccadilly to buy her fine bed linens.’

SB: What about celebrity endorsement?

SJ: Celebrities are paid for celebrity endorsement; they have been here for a very long time. I think, what happened is that in the last century there was this sense of decorum about it, which happened probably in the fifties, sixties and seventies, but that all got blown away by the revolution in media in the eighties really, when suddenly you knew that Raquel Welch advertised Timotei Shampoo. She was getting paid for it, whereas before when the Marchioness of Cholmondeley was saying how divine Simpson’s was, it wasn't a hard sell. And then suddenly, of course now we know that everything is paid for.

SB:  Any funny stories you may wish to share?

SJ: There was a wonderful story about Mr. John who was a famous milliner in New York in the early sixties. He draped a turban on a famous client. It was like a scarf and he draped it all up and he fastened it with a big pin; a big brooch on the front. He handed the client a bill, and it was $100, and this was in 1963 or something; $100 was a fortune at that time. And the client said ‘ I am not paying that,’ and made a real stink, and there were other clients there, and they were all listening. He was really embarrassed, and he just undid and he said ‘Madam, the fabric is for free, You make it!’

I Was A Rich Mans Plaything

Conglomerates Kill Luxury

News that PPR are looking to buy Brioni strikes a sour note. What were once considered world class purveyors of luxury goods have mostly become consumed by the luxury brand conglomerates in France. LVMH, Richemont, PPR etc dominate retail with the intention of global domination.

Before LVMH, Richemont and PPR came along Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Cartier and even Hermes were in essence makers of the finest goods money could buy. Hermes is, much to their understandable annoyance, sadly, slowly being absorbed by LVMH. What we are left with is more product, less real expertise and a myriad of stuff that are fashion led seasonal offerings with a splash of tat. Hermes sell playing cards, Louis Vuitton selling city guides and a Dior (not Christian Dior anymore) website dedicated to make-up.

I do feel that the continued expansion of luxury brands does nothing other than diminish the integrity of the product in order to satisfy the shareholders demand for increased dividends and ultimately, probably, bigger yachts and more plastic surgery.

Product diversification diminishes the inherent value of producing luxury products. As I have said before luxury is not something that can be mass produced or consumed. It feels a bit like a comic book film where world domination is the aim - hopefully in this case the villains won't succeed - although I must admit that it is unlikely unless more heroes join the battle for real luxury .

Where to with Luxury

The Millward Brown brand report has an interesting section on Luxury – well it’s not luxury at all rather an interesting section on luxury brands.

According to the report the current market of the top 10 luxury brands have a combined brand value of nearly 65.5 billion Dollars - I wonder does this really imply that they are manufacturing luxury goods or simply, as I have said before, mass producing tat to be consumed by the masses.

Millward Brown suggest that 'in general, Moët & Chandon, Louis Vuitton, Hermès, and the other luxury brands ranked high in brand contribution emphasized heritage and craftsmanship and limited distribution in the “mass luxury” market'. I do understand how a luxury brand can emphasize heritage because heritage adds value but how they can emphasize craftsmanship and limited distribution when their products are mass produced is confusing. But how can a brand limit distribution when their combined brand value exceeds 65.5 billion Dollars and they retail their goods around the world? Surely this is a contradiction in terms. They also go on about ethics and how consumers are no longer consuming conspicuously but are concerned with the origins of the product and how craftsmanship is once again becoming important. Are luxury brands really concerned with ethics, sustainability and the origins of their materials? I may not be looking hard enough but I have yet to find a luxury brand that has a Walmart type sustainability index. If Walmart can do it...

The report also says that ‘in a world of mass-produced consumer goods, bespoke attention to individuality became the ultimate luxury’ – HELLO – why else would consumers start to move away from luxury brands? They are starting to realise that the goods are not luxury at all. The marketers are now starting to realise that they cannot dupe all of the people all of the time and it is now time to change their tactics. So the answer to them is to try to recreate the ‘salon’ or ‘workshop’ atmosphere through advertising and in store – enhance the shopping experience through a false sense of security – pretend that they are addressing the needs, wants and desires of the shopper. Millward Brown discuss the Gucci model where ‘areas of some of its stores are turned into small workshops...’ Is this really luxury?

Millward Brown also note that luxury brand value is down 13% overall, they say that 'while the brand value of the luxury sector still lagged its pre-recession level, customers came back as evidenced by Burberry’s 86 percent leap and the brand appreciation of Cartier, Estée Lauder and Hermès.' Since when was Estée Lauder a luxury brand? This further emphasizes the confusion in the market. How are brands defined as luxury? And who decides?

The glory days of Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Chanel, Dior (not Christian Dior – that says it all) and even Hermes producing true luxury products are gone. That is not to say that don’t produce nicely made stuff – it’s just not luxury stuff. In my mind, cynical as I am, luxury brands are about money, making it for themselves and their shareholders.

Luxury, I am sure, will be re-claimed by the gifted craftsmen who embrace innovation, know how to ‘make’ and have an incessant desire to learn, teach and produce the most wonderful things.

Customizing Luxury?

Increasingly technology is being used to encourage the consumption of goods. Over the past couple of years quite a few companies are selling what they define as customisable products. And yes, one might say that in the scheme of things they are. Nike and Levis have been doing it for many years, and more recently luxury brands such as Prada and Louis Vuitton are also cashing in. In an article titled Finding the Luxury in Mass Customisation on http://www.businessoffashion.com (BOF) the author who is not named suggests that 'the rise of a new mode of production called “mass customisation” promises to restore individuality to the product design process'. The author does go on to say that 'these brands offer only light aesthetic customisation'. I am still however not convinced. Although there may be an element of restoring individuality, the companies that currently offer the service still simply provide a product with variations on a theme. At Prada for example you can choose the SS 11 Lace-Up where colour variations are offered - i.e. a different coloured sole of a shoe or different coloured wing tip toe detail. Louis Vuitton do something similar but take it a step further; the customer can select from the product range and choose to have their luggage monogrammed (the monogram is hand painted, so an element of skill is involved) or made up in different materials and colour ways. What is still unclear, to me at least, is how this offers to restore individuality. There may be many options to choose from but they are still the same branded product. Loosing the companies aesthetic would dilute the brand which I am sure is not the intention. The consumer is still left with a very distinct branded product.

BOF do acknowledge the role of the craftsman and their relationship with their client. There is the suggestion that 'an ongoing connection that becomes smarter as the two interact with each other, collaborating to meet the consumer’s needs over time.' However they go on to say that 'luxury is not just about perfectly serving the needs of the client'. If it is not then what is it? Surely the customers needs must be at the forefront of the mind of the craftsman. How else do you build a relationship, a lasting one at that?

I believe that the importance of the role of the maker is not really considered or exploited in today's luxury brand market. It would be impossible for the producers of luxury branded product to meet their clients. Firstly because the consumers are not based in the same place that the product is made and secondly because the maker works on a production line. It would be interesting to have to client going from table to table to meet the person cutting the material, putting in the zip or doing the sewing. Although I am not sure that that would be a luxurious experience.

The customisation tools that exist at the moment are simple and straight forward and maintain the brand position but also reflect the customers own inability to decide when confronted with multiple customisation options. Simple is best as this avoids confusion. Crucial to the notion of mass customisation is that the customer still wants their product to be recognised as belonging to a specific brand.

I am not sure I agree with BOF when they suggest that ' it’s customisation platforms that have the ability to anticipate, and not just cater to, personal tastes in order to surprise consumers, as well as carry out their will, that may present the most potential for luxury fashion brands.' After all real luxury is concerned with satisfying the consumer in a very specific way and it could be argued that contact with the maker is crucial to maintaining the luxury ethos, something that a luxury brand is not really able to do.

What will be interesting is when craftsmen fully adopt technologies to enhance their product offer. The internet will act as a portal not simply to make colour or material changes to existing product but allow the customer to communicate with the maker through social media and even face to face with telephonic services such as SKYPE. The skills of the craftsmen will be continually tested as new technologies and technologically driven materials emerge giving them more freedom to explore, explain and satisfy an increasingly demanding and changing luxury market. The ultimate luxury!

Luxury goods- how can 'luxury' be defined?

I have been following and commenting on a discussion started by Suzannah Cranwell on Luxury & Lifestyle Professionals on linkedin. Loads of people have commented. What has emerged is, I believe, a distinct lack of understanding of what luxury really is in a contemporary global consumer market. A common thread that I do agree with is that the commentators agree that luxury is about rarity, materials, quality, craftsmanship and

connoisseurship. But within some of the comments there seems to be a link to luxury brands. In my view luxury brands do not manufacture luxury goods. Hermes, Chanel, Vuitton and the like manufacture mass produced product that is targeted to a global consumer market. That, in my opinion, is not luxury . There is no denying that luxury brands produce, in the main, better quality products but they are luxury brands and definitely not luxury goods. Luxury brands are about economics and keeping the shareholders happy. Perhaps that is how luxury is defined today. Comments welcome:)

‘Sale’ into a luxury brand

And so the luxury story continues. Come to think of it, it is not really a luxury story at all rather a luxury brand fairytale. The whole fashion cycle is becoming so boring. The stuff is more expensive than ever. I can’t believe anyone would pay full price for any of it and as the sales start earlier and earlier there is no real need. And so the sales begin.

Not content with selling their wares in airport shopping malls or discount outlets you can buy discounted luxury brands online. Forget paying full price at Net A Porter or the brands own websites. Don’t even bother going to the stores. Try all year round discounted goods at brandalley, cocosa or secretstyle. If you fancy a pair of Gucci or Dior shoes, a Fendy bag or Stephen Webster jewellery, they have it all. Despite Gucci telling us through their advertising that all the goods are beautifully made by men in white coats in a hazy workshop, the reality is that the goods are still mass produced, probably somewhere other than in Italy, and are not luxury at all. The days of the consumer respecting the artisan are long gone. Talented designers, makers and innovators are replaced by formulas that guarantee sales.

What is frustrating is that the consumer is none the wiser. What do they care if their jacket, jumper, skirt or bag is one of thousands. What they do care about is that it has a logo. To them the logo says luxury. And in reality that is all that matters, to the consumer and the retailer.

What strikes me as odd is that the luxury brand retailers spend millions of Dollars trying to protect the brand image but care little for where the product is actually sold. Why sell a £1000.00 handbag on a website that also sells Calvin Klein swimming trunks for a fiver? Even worse why sell a £1000.00 bag on a website that sells a Woodland Leather (who are they?) jacket for £150.00? What about protecting a brand when it needs it most? Shifting product is the aim of the game. To be honest a sale is a sale no matter where it happens so long as the product sells.