Does Chanel and Hermès cater to a different clientele than all other luxury brands ?

[Sa26]

I’d definitely say yes.
gucci and all others accept More clients who are saving like a year or months for a luxury bag but it seems like Chanel with their price increase and Hermès offering their most coveted bags to very few clients.

it’s like saying we only want clients who can affo our stuff without trouble but let’s say Gucci or YSL a little more affordable stuff so middle class clients save their money for a certain bag.

 

[Swanky]

I think it's hard to say, their products are pretty different imo. Chanel and Hermes aren't mainly canvas pieces or as easily available as the brands you mentioned.
So I guess you could say they cater to clients that desire quality leather pieces that aren't on most store racks/cabinets.
Money spends the same, I don't necessarily believe they don't want customers who have to save up longer.

 

[880]

Yes, if you include other luxury brands as simply the big names, with big advertising budgets, like Dior, LV, YSL etc. etc. (those owned by Kering Group, Richmont, or LVMH. So yes, boutique chanel RTW and Hermes hand stitched leather (core strengths) as well as some less popular top tier RTW like Brunello Cuchinelli Cater to the same 1 %.

But, not all catergories within those brands are as high toned as some comparable speciality boutiques. For example, IMO only, my Hermes dishware seem far more mass produced than Hering Berlin. It’s silverware (I think it’s Pluiforcat) does not seem as nice as Georg Jensen. It’s furniture, formerly produced by Paltrona Frau, is not as nice as actually going to Paltrona Frau, and the furniture pales in comparison to, say, shopping for furniture at Galerie Philia etc etc. chanel bags, as their prices spiral higher, seem to aspire to cut out those who dont have large shopping budgets, but the bags aren’t hand stitched or of luxury exotic material. Hermes RTW is generally priced lower than Chanel, signaling, at least to me, that Hnis trying to attract a broader clientele.

There are arguably smaller more exclusive brands that also cater to the 1% segment. From my own shopping roster (along with my DH, who loves clothing) : bespoke tailoring, the most mainstream of which is bespoke haberdashery, such as turnbull and Asser and charvet. also, leffot, Duret, and the smaller trunk shows, for custom lasts for shoes etc. (Brunello also offers a trunk show experience to top customers where you can order items not available in boutiques and request custon bespoke.

The most boutique experience in watches and fine jewelry that I’ve come across is not Hermes (DH does have an Hermes H08) or Chanel, but Alange & Sohne (they do not advertise; they do not have mass produced women’s watches (like PP) or many diamond bezelled or jewlery options (like AP or breguet). Verdura belperron and Briony Raymond, perhaps for the charm of their ateliers, are the most 1% jewelry boutique experiences I’ve encountered.

The big name brands that are more mainstream, include Dior RTW; it’s a third to half the price of chanel. and is in the process of broadening its customer base with leather goods and youth oriented men’s collaborations. It’s menswear is relatively well priced so, it’s a bit more accessible. VCA, Bulgari, and Cartier, while extremely costly in the bigger one of pieces, do have popular more mainstream , well priced items.

if a luxury brand moves into cosmetics, sunglasses, IMO only, it signals to me, that they are trying to broaden their appeal.

Fragrance is a niche item that commands a lot of profit as well.

 

[jellyv]

Yes, I do think so. They want and attract people whose discretionary purchasing is high end. They have a surfeit of buyers, no worries for them.
There are quieter brands with similar price tags, but largely missing aspirational middle-class shoppers chasing those goods. That can change--and would, if they get folded into Kering or LVMH.

 

[Sa26]

Yes, I do think so. They want and attract people whose discretionary purchasing is high end. They have a surfeit of buyers, no worries for them.
There are quieter brands with similar price tags, but largely missing aspirational middle-class shoppers chasing those goods. That can change--and would, if they get folded into Kering or LVMH.

i don’t think they ever will be folded into a luxury group. I think both brands want to stay independent from big groups and thats exactly because they want that exclusive feel.

I don’t own anything from either Chanel or Hermès but it’s interesting their demographic clientele It’s so different from its peers.
anyway I find It cool that within the luxury world there is a division. Brands more aspirational who want middle class people to spend their saved money with them and the more exclusive range for truly only rich people.

 

[jellyv]

i don’t think they ever will be folded into a luxury group. I think both brands want to stay independent from big groups and thats exactly because they want that exclusive feel.

I was talking about other smaller but high-quality brands, not Chanel and Hermes, in the comment about them "largely missing aspirational middle-class shoppers chasing those goods. That can change--and would, if they get folded into Kering or LVMH."

 

[Sa26]

I was talking about other smaller but high-quality brands, not Chanel and Hermes, in the comment about them "largely missing aspirational middle-class shoppers chasing those goods. That can change--and would, if they get folded into Kering or LVMH."

ohh ok, sorry I misunderstood your post,and you are right those smallper would become bigger joining either Keering or LVMH.

 

[jiljenner]

At this point in the consumerism cycle? No, they do not.

Customers that would otherwise patronize other, less expensive, luxury brands are now flush with cash, and using their newfound wealth to "start their collections" and/or "score their holy grail(s)." As it stands, both brands are taking polite steps to try to disincentivize the hoard of new customers, to varying degrees of success.