Hi!
I will try to lay down my view on this.
Pandemic aside, no one saw that one coming, except for very few people who had a premonition that something like it was within the possibilities, because of a worldwide lack of preparation, cutting back on research in this field/ on this type of diseases ...
But let's put that aside - it didn't necessarily needed to happen 2020, the "outbreak" could have been '21, '22, '23 ...
What I see for the future is conglomerates and incredible large, powerful single businesses offering a multitude of products and services. It's the only way to survive as there won't be any survivors among small scale businesses/ mom & pop type stores. No matter if it's currently fashionable or considered "woke" to support these type of businesses - its probably going to ebb down rather sooner than later - they just can't compete.
Tiffany & Co, and in the end ALL of the luxury brands will, has a real problem: a shrinking/decreasing market. This is going to be a real crisis for them, if they can't go to their wealthy parents to tap a pool of money that is fed by diversified sources/fields of profit.
Right now, pretty much all of them mask this by lowering costs and increasing prices. It looks like they are growing, but they are not. There are, no doubts, still opportunities in emerging markets to be found that will help to drag the inevitable farther out, but if you ask me, their ultimate fate is sealed.
So for Tiffany it makes sense to tap LVMH for everything they got, right down to the rightfully and understandably, from a T&Co purists view, dreaded "LVMH-brandXTiffany&Co" type products. But for now, they will sell. And they will sell fantastic. If you have to go down, go down with a loud bang & continue to ride this train for as long as you can.
I've said this before, but there really is a generation coming that won't give *anything* about a "blue box", a "red box", a "green box" or any of this stuff. Engagement ring? Talk about a totally carbon-neutral engagement trip or experience/adventure. And, sticking to stereotypes, if the guy really "get's it", he will still source a ring, but from a brand that creates *their stuff* carbon-neutral, the diamond will be lab-grown, other materials will be entirely "conflict free" as well and the complete look book is gender neutral/ entirely LGBTQ friendly. - And if the company has a board, it will be as diverse as possible. (And it will probably belong to some parent, either industry related or
Amazon ...)
There is no major place for the Tiffany & Co's left in the (not so) distant future. That model hast outlived. And all you can do as a company, is to try and drag that ending point as far out as you can. They are well over the point of no return.
From a survival standpoint they should have reacted when the first analysts told them, watch out - there is a generation coming that values a personal & educating, broadening one's horizon experiences over "bling". Not to mention so many other issues on which all of these big companies should have taken a clear stance on - but they didn't. This is coming to haunt them.
Who can blame them for wanting to ride this out, more or less comfortably, in a "golden cage", rather than out in the cold?
And there will be Tiffany & Co all throughout this, I'm sure. But probably not over 5 to 6 stories in a single building, and not with XX boutiques all over a single country in XX(X) countries.
How long can T&Co still ride the "Breakfast at Tiffany's" train?
How long before the association between a young Sean Connery or Steve McQueen with Rolex has completely faded? Look at the current Rolex Submariner release, change proportions, change color of dial/bezel = "best Rolex submariner to date"? They lost me at yet another Submariner ... Hans Wilsdorf (Founder of Rolex) was not only an exceptional entrepreneur but also a "craftsman", "engineer", "inventor" striving to overcome inconveniences of competitors products of his time. What I expect from a brand like Rolex during these times and to stay relevant in general, although I would never consider buying it, is a cross over watch between a mechanical movement and "smart features", with a "feel-able" (for the purchaser) or at least purchase dominating kickback to the works of the Rolex Foundation - so people not only buy a luxury item for luxuries sake, but by doing so, made a meaningful contribution they are actually aware of - to a cause they can identify with.
I'm pretty sure everyone here knows the Patek Philippe advertisements that all go the same: "You never really own a Patek, you're merely looking after it for the next generation." And then a picture of either a girl "looking up" to her mom, or a boy "looking up" to his dad. Charming!
I'm stuck in a basement remodel, and finished a built-in cabinet a few days ago. My birth father is said to be a carpenter, so let's say/assume some of this "is in my genes". But the truth is, my real dad, who adopted me, taught me everything I know about tools and how to work with them. He let me drill my first hole into concrete with his percussion drill, he helped me create pot saucers as Christmas gifts as a young'in from left over tiles, some wood scraps and cork for the family. I had to think about this while I was working away in our basement, and I was lucky he came around to share some time on this project. And a few days later, I stumbled over this Patek ad again in my newspaper. Do "you" think I remember what watch my Dad was wearing when he taught me about tools or let me "help" with some DIY type stuff? Honestly, I couldn't tell - and it doesn't matter. Actually, neither his, nor my watch build that built-in or the pot saucers.
I'm all in for making meaningful gifts, and I love the looks on the faces of loving couples shopping at all those big brand stores, especially around the ever upcoming Christmas time, but while brands come and go, true love and experiencing it together stay.
Getting back to Tiffany & Co. They need a diversified parent to be able to stay relevant, as much as most of the other brands will at some point, and how they sell their product, to whom and via which channels will change dramatically.
I could go on about how boring even luxury shopping has become, it doesn't matter where you are, they all look the same. It's what sealed the fate of the malls. Know one mall, know them all.
Yes, you can have that special "relationship" to an SA, which only works/ makes sense if you want something you can't simply buy over the counter - but you have to have this "relationship" for. And then you find out that that "relationship" isn't so special after all, because it's not about love/passion for a brand/brand's heritage/brand's excellent product, but it's about draining your wallet as much as possible, leaving barely enough in it to make that "special purchase" - and to ensure you feel gratified all along that way.
But besides that, how inspiring or special is entering any of the "premier designer" boutiques? If we had teleporting, you could enter any Tiffany & Co, be teleported to another, to make a purchase, and not even notice you where just on the other side of the world. That's how "exciting" I think it is to enter any of the boutiques anywhere in the world these days. And the products? All the same. So I might as well have them delivered to my door, not stand in a line, not given the "oh, you are so important to us" treatment and mostly, have a great day at home.
Yes, that experience is entirely different when in the "bespoke" price range (6 to 7 figures starting point) but how many people shop for that stuff in those lush and "bourgeoisie"-esque private salons. And can they keep such a brand - solely - alive?
No, Tiffany & Co. needs the bread & butter, mass produced, sterling silver sales as much as any other brand need the sales of their entry level items "to the masses" - also a big driving factor for staying relevant. If it's completely out of reach, demand decreases as well. But it's those sales that will break away first.
LVMH will still be there, just like
Amazon. Maybe it's a little mean, but I consider LVMH "the Amazon of luxury" these days. Maybe there will be a competitor, but the number of independent "houses" will inevitably decrease.
As usual, just my insignificant "lamentations"/ drivel ...
Not directed at anyone in particular, just on the topic.
Kind regards,
Oliver
I really wish they could remain independent! They've been my favorite jeweler for over 25 years. keodi, I've had the same impulse, to buy pieces now that I really want, and I also worry that quality and customer service will suffer if the deal goes through. I haven't loved some of their design decisions in recent years (like plastering Tiffany blue all over more and more products, and getting into the logo game) and worry that will just accelerate. To me, Tiffany always seemed to be (other than the really high end pieces) about quiet, discrete elegance.
Since the 2008 downturn, so many brands I love just seem to have lost their way. This LVMH - Tiffany situation just seems so strange. LVMH clearly wants out now, but regardless, Tiffany is perhaps obligated to push it forward for their shareholders? (Tiffany, I'm a shareholder, please don't go forward. 
Hermes worked so hard to keep LVMH from becoming a majority shareholder.
, we just want the brand we love to succeed! Yeah, kind of worrying, isn't it, LVMH must feel like their only option? Hard to believe!
Probably, LVMH wouldn't have received such a letter if it wasn't for who they are, namely Arnault. I completely agree.