I think Hermes is concerned with making money, I just don't think they've been as good at it as some other luxury retailers for reasons that don't (at least to me) seem to have much to do with product quality controls. The WSJ article today was interesting because it really pointed out some production issues (with Gaultier's cloths) and questionable business decisions - like dropping their best selling line of bags. I get the feeling the family has so much control that not the best business decisions are really being made.
I don't know if I did see alot of Hermes bags or scarves or bracelets around I would be less interested in them because I prefer to stand out - not necessarily a question of the price of the item - but I just can't wear something I'm going to see 20x in a day for the most part.
I disagree. I think dropping that line of bags was a good decision, in the same line as Tiffany dropping their silver jewellery. Maybe for the immediate turnover and growth it's not a good decision, however for the *brand* it is a good decision which in the long term will pay out.
On the other hand they would be daft not to cash in on the Chinese and Indian markets.
Let's face it: Hermes bags ARE available to everybody. Everybody who is willing to drop a load of cash. If you can't get it from the store and don't mind paying a premium, you can get it from a reseller. If you want that Birkin, you can always get it. The only question is the price you are willing to pay.
I still don't think that you're likely to see a dramatic increase of Hermes bags, at least not in Europe. The percentage of women willing to flop their credit card on the counter at Hermes for a Birkin is not *that* big.
If Hermes manage to walk the tightrope between expansion and maintaining quality, there's no reason why they shouldn't expand. They're still a breed apart from the Guccis and LVs of this world.