ojwk.com

Despite the global recession the luxury goods market is growing at an incredible rate. Over the last ten years the emerging markets have given birth to a nouveau riche with a penchant for Western life and an exaggerated form of its consumerism. The growth of the luxury goods market in the face of the recession demonstrates the unique power of the brand and the aspirational appeal it commands.

Have Gucci and Louis Vuitton kept hold of their premium image over the last ten years despite this growth? Conventional wisdom dictates that the consumption portion of a brand’s exposure audience should not exceed 30% of the aspirational audience. It remains to be seen whether the two luxury giants will encounter the same ‘prole shift’ Burberry did in the ‘90s where the company effectively abandoned its trademark check pattern in response to the damage its popularity entailed. The sheer ubiquity of the Gucci double-G pattern and Louis Vuitton monogram leads me to believe that this 30% threshold was passed long ago.

From a business perspective what does it matter if the brand is hollow, vacuous and empty of any content that is otherwise ascribed to it by association? Gucci and Louis Vuitton leather goods may just be memorabilia or branded merchandised sold under the pretence of high-fashion, but what does it matter? The mass-marketisation of luxury goods has been a successful business model and served LVMH and PPR well. Perhaps the companies have been able to avoid the pitfalls of ‘prole shift’ by effectively demarcating between branded, commercialised goods and prêt-à-porter/haute couture. Gucci has kept hold of its core clientele through its position as a bona fide fashion house under the direction of Frida Giannini and previously, Tom Ford. With creative authenticity the brand integrity is never in jeopardy and can safely trade on its name as a bastion of fashion to sell its aspirational goods. Gucci will continue to patronise style icons through its creative merit (courtesy of Giannini and Ford) and this retention of a respectable celebrity clientele imbues the brand with merit, authenticity and desirability.

Of course this strategy does seem to be problematic however. The obvious being that it effectively precludes any overt display of the Gucci wordmark, double-G pattern or stripe on any product outside of the commercialised outfit. The brand then finds itself in the interesting position of being unable to be self-referential in its marketing of its substantial or intrinsically ‘worthy’ goods. While it seems permissible that the commercialised, branded outfit can coexist with the authentic, bona fide fashion house ironically the brand integrity may be damaged if the commercialised products are overtly consumed by those recognisable personalities who are considered incompatible with the brand. For example, while the prevalence of Louis Vuitton luggage may not be damaging, if an undesirable celebrity is seen in a magazine with Louis Vuitton monogramed purse – that will have an effect on the brand image and its desirability. This very idea precipitated a race-row when in 2006 Louis Roederer managing director Frederic Rouzaud intimated in an interview with the Economist that the brand’s association with the excesses of hip-hop’s bling lifestyle could be detrimental to its image (quite ridiculous given that Cristal was expressly created for Alexander II to be more ostentatious, flashy, excessive and bling than the champagne his courtiers were drinking).

In contrast to Gucci, all of Louis Vuitton’s products are inescapably similar and instantly identifiable. For Louis Vuitton, it is not possible to differentiate between the runway/haute couture/prêt-à-porter and commercial lines as all products come similarly draped in the monogrammed pattern. They may well have a problem on their hands. Purveyors of understated leather goods such as Mulberry and Smythson have enjoyed incredible success in recent years and this is probably due, in part, to an exodus of a certain stratum of customers from the bling and ostentation of the Louis Vuitton ilk. How long will it take for the mass-market to follow suit is anyone’s guess but you can be sure that it is an inevitability. When the exclusivity and desirability of the aspirational brand wanes, the charade comes crashing down.