Does the consolidation of high fashion brands into a few multinational fashion houses (LVMH, Kering, Richemont) erode the sense of luxury for you?

[papertiger]

What you say is very true. And LVMH also owns Moynat, Tiffany, Fenty Cosmetics, Guerlain and even newer ventures like La Bouche Rouge too. Kering also owns Brioni, Boucheron, Pomellato, Dodo, Qeelin, Ulysse Nardin, Girard-Perregaux and linked to Christies auction house too and set pre-loved prices via estimates. The expansion isn't over yet either, I'm sure they are looking for replacements for Stella McCartney and Sergio Rossi too because they see LVMH as the competition and LVMH has expanded hugely recently, 'betting' on jewellery and cosmetics (top and tali of the luxury chain).

Great to see a new member ask such an interesting question.

I'm not 100% sure what is meant by cheapening, but I think I know what you mean. Prices certainly seem to rise with increasing frequency and in unison, I doubt very much whether the increases are going towards labour or materials, just expansion plans and more and more company acquisitions.

However, I don't see a homogenised design aesthetic over all LVMH businesses or Kering, although I notice that I choose jewellery from other companies besides Richemont owned which tend to be smaller (apart from Hermes). I need to think about it more.

There are some benefits of being in a group. It can increase accountability of supply chains and manufacturing standards which can benefit those companies and their customers in terms of sustainability and consistency. These parent companies have so much power in the industry it would sheer folly to risk their reputations. Also it can help start ups and new businesses. Fenty was able to grow huge very fast because of LVMH money and muscle, and La Bouche Rouge has very few of the start-up problems that most niche companies experience. The wave of publicity that accompany acquisitions can also boost those companies, Pomellato seems so much better known under Kering even though their aesthetic hadn't really changed (fans please correct me if I'm wrong) and I doubt Alexander McQueen would have become the global brand (from 2002) and weathered the storm of the designer's sad death in 2010 without the clout of Kering (Gucci Group as it was) behind them.

Most of these brands are like department stores in themselves. A McQ, YSL and Bal are primarily fashion houses, so of course it's handy to have factories that can tan leather and make bags and accessories (Gucci owned) and have Kering eyewear across all brands. This always happened in smaller ways (Gucci always outsourced material bags and worked with other specialists) but the vertical and horizontal integration is much closer within many of the brands of the same parent company.

There are plenty of other amazing luxury houses for bags, jewellery etc that are not owned by the big 3 (and are not H). Def some you should check out, which one(s) obviously depends on your own aesthetic sensibility and where you live. I think it's great to support independent businesses.

Since I wrote this LVMH pulled out of buying Tiffany

 

[papertiger]

I was rereading this thread and wondering what brands @papertiger had in mind too. I think she mentioned that she buys jewelry from smaller houses. . . (Not richmont owned).

@Vintage Leather, on another thread, @cowgirlsboots recommended the book Gods and Kings (Galliano and McQueen). Also agree with you that these big money backers don’t want risk. When DH was starting companies, the VCs and Private Equity didn’t want risk either, even if it meant higher reward. Not many designers can afford the full Alaia. Off to google Plato’s Atlantis and Highland Rape, thank you! Ireally materials, craftsmanship, design are all so important to luxury and they should stem from a genuine story.

@the_black_tie_diyer, agree that some of these brands would not have made it financially without consolidation. Though I liked Hermes enamels before they bought Wilkes Frey and feel that CSGMs were thicker and better made years ago. . .

@A bottle of Red, arguably @JenJBS and @the_black_tie_diyer have the right idea: just buy what you love. . . All of us with this first world problem tend to overthink it

possibly true luxury could be found in custom (assuming you have superb taste — not sure the layman does— and click with a fantastic craftsman). I’m currently obsessed with Duret.com for custom belts and bags (DH has ordered belts and I’m contemplating a bag) , and @Vintage Leather recommended Peter Nitz (formerly of Luxury Zurich) on the thread Unknown higher end brands.

@papertiger what brands did you have in mind that are not owned by these conglomerates?
Idk why it bothers me & feels a bit cheaper. Maybe because the brands try to sell exclusivity & how hand crafted their bags are, on such a limited level (only a few of each bag is handcrafted blah blah) but theyre really owned by large corporations. (Side eyeing you Blvgari).

Smaller or independent are relative terms, e.g. Chanel is an independent, family owned business but it's certainly not small, Asprey (quintessentially British heritage jewellers, but also sell impeccable bags and accessories) is owned by US Sciens Capital Management ('asset stripping' within 3 years) but still has very few stores worldwide (9) and only in UK, Switzerland, US and Japan. I rate both companies very highly, but it doesn't make me blind to some of their curious respective choices of management and brand strategy.

In the UK, Italy, France, Spain, Japan, US, and other places too there are a myriad of independent and specialist tailors, bottegas, dress-makers, shirt makers, brush makers, jewellers etc. Some of them are utilised by larger companies, or were started by craftspeople or designers who were partially trained within large companies. Gucci now fund Dapper Dan in Harlem NY, Hermes own John Lobb, London UK. If we don't support these businesses, we will be the poorer IMO. I am commissioning a jacket by a very talented women's tailor 2021, every bit as amazing as any Alexander Mcqueen (another favourite) - but bespoke.

 

[leechiyong]

I love supporting small business, but I also recognize that large corporations have their place and can do a lot of good as well. I think it depends on the organization and the approach. Being part of a conglomerate may have very little to do with the physical item I purchase. They may do something like being able to negotiate lower credit card fees with their payment processor to enable them implement a new forecasting software where they get a better idea on how much to manufacture without having items go to waste. It may also have everything to do with the physical item I purchase and get materials from the lowest bidder. It varies and it's probably somewhere in between. I take it on a case by case basis.

 

[millivanilli]

I voted "yes, but it won't impact what I buy" yet I would have preferred " yes, it will make me spend more".

Let me explain, why.

I am seeing this from an investors point of view. The more brands will be united under a big brand like LVMH and (! that is important) let alone, the higher the chances, that this particular subbrand will survive even the worst crisis (like COVID actually).


BTW the tiffany deal will be closed early 2021, see news from 10/29

Tiffany and LVMH Modify Merger Price - LVMH

www.lvmh.com

.

 

[papertiger]

I voted "yes, but it won't impact what I buy" yet I would have preferred " yes, it will make me spend more".

Let me explain, why.

I am seeing this from an investors point of view. The more brands will be united under a big brand like LVMH and (! that is important) let alone, the higher the chances, that this particular subbrand will survive even the worst crisis (like COVID actually).


BTW the tiffany deal will be closed early 2021, see news from 10/29

Tiffany and LVMH Modify Merger Price - LVMH

www.lvmh.com

.

Thank you for the update

 

[millivanilli]

you are welcome dear Papertiger . I missed that oppurtiniy twice in a row, although twice (!) my investor friend who runs his own investment company told me to buy Tiffany shares. Twice I was stupid enough not listening to him, so I learned my lesson

This is why I knew it, didn't want to be a knowitall.

 

[depdepdep11]

Yes, because it turns into an assembly line and quality tends to go down. Then items also tend to be made in countries with cheaper labor. I've heard a lot about LV quality lately.

 

[CoolCustomer]

I loved Tiffany and Co because it was American Heritage Luxury and I admired the simple aesthetics such as the silver and blue which were iconic. But now that LVMH owns them they are no longer American and I have not purchased anything from them because it is upsetting. I don’t want my money going to them. It is not genuine anymore. Now they started adding “flare” like yellow, orange and graffiti… and edgy campaign using rappers that are ugly. That is not timeless classic aesthetics, it is the opposite and it doesn’t make you feel good. It is LVMH now I might as well buy LV with all those monograms bags in orange leather.

 

[poleneinblack]

Bernard Arnault Expands His Luxury Empire with Investment in French Leather Goods Brand Polène

Bernard Arnault strengthens his luxury dominance with a minority stake in Polène, the French leather goods brand. Known for chic designs and the 'Netflix effect,' Polène has seen explosive growth, doubling its sales in 2023 and winning over celebrities like Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle.

www.nssmag.com

Not sure how I feel about this myself.

 

[A bottle of Red]

According to a video posted by hello catwalk city, Chanel now has a small stake in the row? Wonder if that's true and how it might affect the brand

 

[Nibb]

According to a video posted by hello catwalk city, Chanel now has a small stake in the row? Wonder if that's true and how it might affect the brand

I think they just got private funding from a few sources to grow the business. It may help to have Chanel onboard I don’t think the Row manufactures their bags or shoes.

 

[allanrvj]

I just saw this thread. And even if it seems the OP abandoned the entire forum after replying once, I'd still offer some thoughts. lol

We wouldn't be enjoying Van Cleef and Arpels today had Richemont not acquire it. Sure, it has iconic and beautiful designs but it was losing money during the 80's and 90's. When Richemont bought VCA in 1999, it took a decade for the brand to be profitable, thanks to the efforts of Nicholas Bos who was their creative director from 2000 and CEO since 2013 (he just got promoted to being CEO of the Richemont Group this year). Now it's one of the biggest earners of all the jewelry companies Richemont owns, only second to Cartier.

So no, it doesn't bother me at all that luxury conglomerates buy up brands. In some cases, it's the only way the brand can continue to be in business.

 

[bagnut1]

I loved Tiffany and Co because it was American Heritage Luxury and I admired the simple aesthetics such as the silver and blue which were iconic. But now that LVMH owns them they are no longer American and I have not purchased anything from them because it is upsetting. I don’t want my money going to them. It is not genuine anymore. Now they started adding “flare” like yellow, orange and graffiti… and edgy campaign using rappers that are ugly. That is not timeless classic aesthetics, it is the opposite and it doesn’t make you feel good. It is LVMH now I might as well buy LV with all those monograms bags in orange leather.

Tiffany is a marketing-driven luxury company. Even pre-LVMH acquisition, they outsourced manufacturing of much of their silver jewelry to speciality workshops. That doesn't necessarily mean that the quality was in question, but would you have paid 3x or 4x for a silver bracelet just because it said "Tiffany & Co." had you known that it was made in a 3rd party workshop in Brooklyn?

Personally I think that under LVMH it will be no less "authentic," and evolve into more fashion-driven.