I read Deluxe when it came out because I was very interested in fashion, but I feel like what it taught me the most about was capitalism, and the dynamic range of wealth inequality. The example that prior to Prada becoming a corporation, the Prada family had two houses – – a home in Milan, and a summer home -- has really stuck with me. They were undeniably wealthy, they made a good product, their employees were paid well; and that wasn’t enough for capitalism.
That's a really good point. The mantra in business now is "grow or die." It's like, you can't just exist as a small operation that sustains itself on a human scale and be happy with a simple, comfortable life. It's tragic.
Very true, I wish "grow or die" wasn't the only mentality all companies had, where they see continuous sustained profits as a failure (instead aiming for ever-increasing profits) so are always looking to scale up - what's wrong with a similar amount of profitability each year? How much money does one family need? "Enough" really sums up the feeling.
And doesn't that guarantee a company -- indeed, society -- will, in fact, eventually die? Endless growth simply isn't possible (although I guess companies like Apple and LVMH are going to test those limits). The perfect example for me is Netflix: there are only so many people in the world who can subscribe to their service. What happens when they run out of people (i.e. the population of the world?)
The luxury space is truly a whole different world from any other kind of retail. It makes me sad that brands have moved away from aspirational customers in favour of the uber-wealthy who hardly need another bauble for the collection. I'm also extremely sad that LVMH has taken over the world. In particular, the classic charm that Tiffany held for so long is just gone into the marketing void that is LVMH. It's all part of the same machine, which is the antithesis of what luxury brands used to be: unique, highly crafted, special pieces that became heirloom treasures. Tis to weep.
The "Amazon of luxury" is a great analogy. The only way it could be "stopped" is perhaps through strict competition laws, where any future merger/acquisition would impact fair competition in the fashion world and so prevent any deal.
LVMH is ruining Tiffany. They pushed out all of the people who were with the company before the buyout (both in corporate and even client advisors). Now no one knows what they’re doing, and Arnault’s son thinks the best way to get attention is to have ridiculous collaborations every two weeks.
I was an assistant manager at Juicy Couture Boston when Deluxe was first published. At the time, the JC demographic was the definition of the aspirational luxury customer; our shop was across from Donna Karan and Armani on Newbury St (Boston's version of Rodeo Drive or Fifth Ave). We did extremely well from our opening in the fall of '06 to the financial collapse in 2008, when our business disappeared and never came back. There were a few high-end mall locations that still did well, but as a street store we depended on foot traffic and our customer simply stopped shopping.
The last answer really sums it all. France is a very specific place in fashion with LVMH and Kering. Milan, NYC and London don't have such big conglomerates that dictate the fashion industry and really all the luxury industry. I am wondering what will happen if ever one day such empires explode. What would it mean for many French industries. The fact many sectors that make the reputation of France are being taking over by LVMH is dangerous, in my humble opinion. When all is good, it is good (for the richest), but when it is all bad, it really is bad for the workers in these industries. Whereas when such industries are independent or owned by smaller companies, I believe it creates more ecosystems that benefit the country. But I might be wrong too to think that way.
Loved this article. The Prada statement really resonates with me. THAT version of Prada epitomises luxury. Nothing grotesque and simply 'quiet luxury'. I still think we have brands which embody this 'family feel' / exclusivity such as Goyard, where you have to physically attend the Goyard boutique in person to purchase. It would be a sad day if/when Goyard ever shifts to the LVMH version of capitalism. I wish there was something done to preserve brand image even post-acquisition.
It’s interesting how when she wrote Deluxe, Prada was all about stealth luxury, and now everything Prada does has the logo slapped on it. But going back to the conversation about high jewelry, a LOT of brands are moving into the fine and high jewelry market because the markup on fine jewelry ranges anywhere from 300-800%. Brands don’t care about the aspirational client anymore because they’re not trying to cater to the few thousand people paying $400 for a pair of rubber slides, they’re trying to cater to the few hundred customers worldwide who are spending upwards of a million dollars a year and these brands. High jewelry is the best way to get VVVICs to spend their money because even the most expensive Haute Couture garments are only (lol) a couple hundred thousand dollars, but a high jewelry necklace can cost upwards of $5 million. This is why so many brands are focusing on events centered around high jewelry collections. When I worked at Tiffany on 5th (🤮) their big KPI was driving the development of “10k Clients”. 10k clients are not clients that only spend $10k with Tiffany a year, they’re clients who spend $10k at several luxury brands (anywhere from $50k+ total annually). The goal isn’t to get the client to spend $10k, it’s to get them to spend more of their disposable income at Tiffany and less at competitors. This is the exact reason why brands are pushing into fine jewelry now.
I read Deluxe when it came out because I was very interested in fashion, but I feel like what it taught me the most about was capitalism, and the dynamic range of wealth inequality. The example that prior to Prada becoming a corporation, the Prada family had two houses – – a home in Milan, and a summer home -- has really stuck with me. They were undeniably wealthy, they made a good product, their employees were paid well; and that wasn’t enough for capitalism.
Such a good point. I think that's why it also feels so resonant today.
That's a really good point. The mantra in business now is "grow or die." It's like, you can't just exist as a small operation that sustains itself on a human scale and be happy with a simple, comfortable life. It's tragic.
Very true, I wish "grow or die" wasn't the only mentality all companies had, where they see continuous sustained profits as a failure (instead aiming for ever-increasing profits) so are always looking to scale up - what's wrong with a similar amount of profitability each year? How much money does one family need? "Enough" really sums up the feeling.
And doesn't that guarantee a company -- indeed, society -- will, in fact, eventually die? Endless growth simply isn't possible (although I guess companies like Apple and LVMH are going to test those limits). The perfect example for me is Netflix: there are only so many people in the world who can subscribe to their service. What happens when they run out of people (i.e. the population of the world?)
The luxury space is truly a whole different world from any other kind of retail. It makes me sad that brands have moved away from aspirational customers in favour of the uber-wealthy who hardly need another bauble for the collection. I'm also extremely sad that LVMH has taken over the world. In particular, the classic charm that Tiffany held for so long is just gone into the marketing void that is LVMH. It's all part of the same machine, which is the antithesis of what luxury brands used to be: unique, highly crafted, special pieces that became heirloom treasures. Tis to weep.
It's quite fascinating -- whenever I read any sort of book that touches on fashion history, it's wild how much the industry has changed.
It will be interesting to see if LVMH is reined in -- if they can even be reined in.
Agreed on the need to do it, but how? LVMH seems unstoppable - the Amazon of luxury - in its depth and breadth.
The "Amazon of luxury" is a great analogy. The only way it could be "stopped" is perhaps through strict competition laws, where any future merger/acquisition would impact fair competition in the fashion world and so prevent any deal.
LVMH is ruining Tiffany. They pushed out all of the people who were with the company before the buyout (both in corporate and even client advisors). Now no one knows what they’re doing, and Arnault’s son thinks the best way to get attention is to have ridiculous collaborations every two weeks.
I was an assistant manager at Juicy Couture Boston when Deluxe was first published. At the time, the JC demographic was the definition of the aspirational luxury customer; our shop was across from Donna Karan and Armani on Newbury St (Boston's version of Rodeo Drive or Fifth Ave). We did extremely well from our opening in the fall of '06 to the financial collapse in 2008, when our business disappeared and never came back. There were a few high-end mall locations that still did well, but as a street store we depended on foot traffic and our customer simply stopped shopping.
The last answer really sums it all. France is a very specific place in fashion with LVMH and Kering. Milan, NYC and London don't have such big conglomerates that dictate the fashion industry and really all the luxury industry. I am wondering what will happen if ever one day such empires explode. What would it mean for many French industries. The fact many sectors that make the reputation of France are being taking over by LVMH is dangerous, in my humble opinion. When all is good, it is good (for the richest), but when it is all bad, it really is bad for the workers in these industries. Whereas when such industries are independent or owned by smaller companies, I believe it creates more ecosystems that benefit the country. But I might be wrong too to think that way.
Loved this article. The Prada statement really resonates with me. THAT version of Prada epitomises luxury. Nothing grotesque and simply 'quiet luxury'. I still think we have brands which embody this 'family feel' / exclusivity such as Goyard, where you have to physically attend the Goyard boutique in person to purchase. It would be a sad day if/when Goyard ever shifts to the LVMH version of capitalism. I wish there was something done to preserve brand image even post-acquisition.
It’s interesting how when she wrote Deluxe, Prada was all about stealth luxury, and now everything Prada does has the logo slapped on it. But going back to the conversation about high jewelry, a LOT of brands are moving into the fine and high jewelry market because the markup on fine jewelry ranges anywhere from 300-800%. Brands don’t care about the aspirational client anymore because they’re not trying to cater to the few thousand people paying $400 for a pair of rubber slides, they’re trying to cater to the few hundred customers worldwide who are spending upwards of a million dollars a year and these brands. High jewelry is the best way to get VVVICs to spend their money because even the most expensive Haute Couture garments are only (lol) a couple hundred thousand dollars, but a high jewelry necklace can cost upwards of $5 million. This is why so many brands are focusing on events centered around high jewelry collections. When I worked at Tiffany on 5th (🤮) their big KPI was driving the development of “10k Clients”. 10k clients are not clients that only spend $10k with Tiffany a year, they’re clients who spend $10k at several luxury brands (anywhere from $50k+ total annually). The goal isn’t to get the client to spend $10k, it’s to get them to spend more of their disposable income at Tiffany and less at competitors. This is the exact reason why brands are pushing into fine jewelry now.
Side note that I was flying last night JFK to LAX & brought my mail to read/sort.
Opened what I thought was a magazine & a big branch of WHeAT /chaff??? fell out of a Verdura catalog..
“Off season” was the theme .. like beachy dunes & $325k baubles .. and Dried dunegrassssss???
I’m not a High Jewelry shopper.
My seat mate definitely did a double take
Fascinating!