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:)

Where does everything go?

It struck me walking through Harrods, Selfridges, Liberty, Browns, Matches etc. how much stuff they still have on sale. Tonnes of it and all reduced. The savvy shopper doesn’t buy full price anymore when most of the stuff on sale is reduced at some point during the year. All the schmutter money can buy, all reduced and most still unsold is on sale should you want it. But what do the stores do with the stuff once the sales are over? There is talk that some of it is burnt in order to protect the brand. Odd when you think about it because in my mind brand protection is not about pilling high and selling low. It is completely the opposite. There must be mountains, or indeed landfill sites of luxury brand goods somewhere in the world- and I don’t mean at the discount villages on the outskirts of the major cities. And as China now becomes the focus of luxury brand retailers with an estimated growth in profits to something like $14.6 billion by 2015 more stuff will be produced. In reality it does not matter where the stuff goes all that really matters is that we begin to understand that the more that is produced the less of a luxury it really is.

‘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.

Murano Glass - Carlo Moretti

Another piece from my glass collection

Finally Selfridges have come to their senses and started selling some decent Murano glass having removed it from the shelves a couple of years ago. Now, once again, you can buy Carlo Moretti and Cenedese in the glass department. Stupidly Harrods has redesigned their glass hall and now focus on the most garish pieces money can buy. They no longer sell Carlo Moretti or Cenedese. All a bit odd how the Buyers decide what to buy or not to buy in this case. One year they all sell it, the next no one sells it, then one sells it again when the other doesn’t. The only decent stuff Harrods now have is by the Czech glass maker Moser. And Moser is amazing, beautifully crafted, superb polishing all in amazing colours with the most fantastic engraving money can buy, should that be your thing. I have pieces by all of the above but thought I would share the Troncono ‘Conical Trunk’ which I bought at Harrods (before they stopped selling Moretti obviously).

On the Carlo Moretti website it says that it is a limited edition of 300. Weird, because I have number 82 / 333.

The vase is described as being ‘clear crystal with vertical stripes in turquoise and lapis lazuli with two horizontal bands in red’. Although I have just noticed, my vase has three stripes! perhaps it is a different edition. In any event, what I really like about this vase is that it feels kind of rustic and looks great with a cheap bunch of flowers. Who says luxury is all about money?

http://www.moser-glass.com

http://www.carlomoretti.com/

http://www.cenedesegino.it