Hermes Advanced Think Tank (HATT)

[textilegirl]

The other thing is I feel like resources - be it the bags themselves or something more abstract like the number of hours in an SA’s day - are limited (whether deliberately by manufacturing or universally inevitable). It’s not like I ever believe more general tier clients aren’t important; it’s that the top tier is very, and seems (backed by data) increasingly disproportionately so, more important. Hence the term VIP I guess? So it is perhaps not that an SA is thinking “these people at the door aren’t important” more that “I’d love to help even more people if I can, but my time and efforts are going to be rewarded much more efficiently and effectively if I instead take care of Mr A who just sent me a text”. These preferences don’t need to be actually defined, they sort of fall into place as a result of the way the world spins.

Covid reminds me of another point that I forgot about earlier! Since it, we have seen explosive growth, at certain brands like Hermes, whereas some lower tier luxury brands struggled a bit more. When discussed, there seems to be a sentiment amongst those who can afford luxury but perhaps not that freely, that if they were to spend their budget on luxury, they prefer to do it at Hermes or other luxury brands (watches, jewelry) that “hold more value” than some others. I do think the recent years’ climbing “prespend” is also partially coming from this.

Another hypothetical I like to sometimes think about: let’s say the exact same quality of a bag as a B/K, hand made (let’s say someone with the skills of an Hermes artisan), sourced with the same quality of leather Hermes uses, satisfies the same functional needs of the B/K, perhaps too impossible to say that they have as much after sales service like Hermes does but there are plenty good 3rd party leather cleaner/repairers out there, and let’s say no intellectual properties are fringed on the design (or just imagine the design is also aesthetically pleasing to you).

How much would this bag be worth? How many people would be happy to pay the same amount for it as they are willing for one that has Hermes stamped on it?

As to Hermes purchases, I also think there are many people who are less persuaded by the new (and to my mind foolish) notion that there’s a true financial benefit to going long in Birkins, and who are rather more interested in quality products that can be used, repaired when necessary, and passed along when appropriate. The fact that others have latched onto the current fad of H doesn’t make those goals less true. And it’s an aesthetic and approach that’s still not that widely available beyond Hermes. I’m loathe to call out some other houses, but I’ve seen bags considered luxury and priced accordingly, that look as if the stitching would unravel before my eyes, some leathers I’m afraid to touch, and some designs that are to my mind gimmicky. The rise in interest in Peter Nitz, Ramesh Nair’s revival of Duclos, Duret, and others would suggest that there is a willingness to support ateliers other than Hermes, especially if Hermes’ offerings don’t quite fit the bill.

 

[allanrvj]

Are there any franchised stores left?

That is definitely one part of the H business model that is being phased out

The one I know is Stockholm, because when Copenhagen became corporate they were still a franchise. I just googled and they might have transitioned from being a franchise to a corporate branch back in 2020, because they had a reopening that year.

 

[valance]

Are there any franchised stores left?

That is definitely one part of the H business model that is being phased out

I was wondering about this too. In the US, it's just the Hamptons location, no?

 

[jellyv]

I was wondering about this too. In the US, it's just the Hamptons location, no?

Cuffs in Chagrin Falls, OH. Still there.

 

[880]

let’s say the exact same quality of a bag as a B/K, hand made (let’s say someone with the skills of an Hermes artisan), sourced with the same quality of leather Hermes uses, satisfies the same functional needs of the B/K, perhaps too impossible to say that they have as much after sales service like Hermes does but there are plenty good 3rd party leather cleaner/repairers out there, and let’s say no intellectual properties are fringed on the design (or just imagine the design is also aesthetically pleasing to you).

Peter Nitz and Mila Jito (Lili Storella) came to mind. Lili is particularly great as her bag in 'Barenia' (she uses the same supplier as Hermes) reminds me of an improved version of shadow birkin AND she solves the harness problem with birkins. Her bag is not as expensive as a Birkin and I am sure will not command the same second-hand price.

Let’s be honest. Birkin will not be priced that much without the Hermes stamp. People are willing to pay the premium coz of the brand and that’s the reality of all branded goods. IMO.

The rise in interest in Peter Nitz, Ramesh Nair’s revival of Duclos, Duret, and others would suggest that there is a willingness to support ateliers other than Hermes, especially if Hermes’ offerings don’t quite fit the bill.

Some Hermes clients are already branching out. Many of the leather crafters are H trained. In the case of Duret, he is H trained, and his chief craftsperson herself trained H craftspeople for decades. I have many H bags and only one Duret. And, my Duret bag is by far the most perfectly hand stitched, perfectly crafted bag I will ever own. I would also point out that my vintage Birkins and Kelly bags are in general, better made than my more recent ones purchased in the boutique, but they still pale in comparison in terms of exquisite craft.

It’s a bespoke sensibility rather than a premier big brand sensibility. There is certainly room for both.

ETA: I love my H bags and my Duret. They are different beasts

 

[valance]

Cuffs in Chagrin Falls, OH. Still there.

Oh wow, I just looked it up on Google maps. Definitely adding that to my travel list. I love places like that with charm and character.

 

[momoc]

Oh that bespoke note - has anyone else gotten the feeling that H is advertising / publicizing / reaching out more for their Horizon department recently? It was true in my personal experience.

 

[papertiger]

On top spenders, I’d say it’s more like the top spenders can get whatever bags they want (and however many they want). The rest can of course still have some - it’s just that if there is ever a question over who to prioritize there is going to be a clear winner.

It is my understanding that the “2 per year” quota is “very much more flexible here in Asia, if you know what I mean” (direct quote from someone who shops there that I would call a VIP client). On top of that, these clients are often courted with a lot extra exclusive experiences.

On moving into a new age: I do think luxury buyers who are younger may have different values and consequently spending habits. The advent of the digital age and social media etc has made a difference in how and why people shop. Definitely many articles floating around if you search luxury clients with some other words for specific areas you are curious to read about - BoF, Forbes etc. all have some and I’m sure many more publications too. They do tend to be about all luxury brands in general. How different is Hermes perhaps compared to the general industry?

Finally, to play devil’s advocate (I do not know the answers to any of these questions myself, just some I ponder about)

- if profit is ultimately the goal (as
they are a business), how do markets that use the wishlist model (which we’ve also seen reports of people going in, prespend then quickly gets the bag, jumping the wishlist line so to speak) perform in comparison to a more lucrative prespend model, in a world where people (and information) travel around increasingly faster and more easily than prior generations, if there comes pressure to increase total revenue and profit?

- Hermes has sort of established itself as the “next level higher” brand in luxury handbags; the Birkins and the Kelly are supposed to be the “ultimate” tier. (Let’s not get into how a lot of H clients look down on those of other houses…) What happens as other brands raise prices so they are now positioned closer? How to distinguish the perceived value to make your stuff seem like the “more special” one (note: very different from the actual intrinsic value of the goods, which we all know is way, way lower than the price tags)?

- This maybe also ties back a bit to the changing luxury clientele stuff; again this is about luxury in general but I remember reading some data where they surveyed why people buy luxury; some do it because they see it as a symbol of success, a way to set themselves apart, some do it for aesthetic, for comfort, some who truly see it as a way of life. The earlier groups tend to be younger. So assuming we think about the future, how does a brand cater to those younger audiences and nurture / shift them into latter categories as they age? (ETA: there is also a racial component but I don’t know if I really want to go deep into discussions on the prevalence of systematic racism in societies on a purse forum )

- Semi related to the previous: I often wonder just what percentage out of everyone who want these bags want them partially because they are hard to get, not in spite of? I know it’s non zero as we have members saying that in some other threads. Let’s say magic happens and now the bags are all immediately available for purchase when one walks into any store, how much less sought after would they be? (And of course, the reseller prices would immediately crash.) There is something to be said about being difficult becoming part of the allure. I would think that they are beautiful bags and will be valued regardless by many - the question is, is that as many as now? I personally think the answer is no and it’s more of a question of how much less. How much is the component of the desirability driven by the “game” itself?

It is my understanding that the “2 per year” quota is “very much more flexible here in Asia, if you know what I mean” (direct quote from someone who shops there that I would call a VIP client). On top of that, these clients are often courted with a lot extra exclusive experiences.

There are many H VIPs. H has more than its fair share. It's the VVIP that are the 2%, they don't 'just' get asked to exclusive events, but get flown-in if need be or merch gets flown 'wherever' for choices to be made. Rules only apply to whoever they need them to apply to for convenience. All Houses do this.

On moving into a new age: I do think luxury buyers who are younger may have different values and consequently spending habits. The advent of the digital age and social media etc has made a difference in how and why people shop. Definitely many articles floating around if you search luxury clients with some other words for specific areas you are curious to read about - BoF, Forbes etc. all have some and I’m sure many more publications too. They do tend to be about all luxury brands in general. How different is Hermes perhaps compared to the general industry?

IMO, there's no telling because the young have never been the desired target market for high-end and core products of luxury houses until relatively recently.

18-30s (or 16-34 at a stretch) will always go where high-fashion is, look like what high-fashion looks like, give meaning what high fashion means - all depending on whichever cultural trends are strongest during that period. Sometimes it's the similar as their parents (like now) sometimes it will totally different (like in the 1960s/'70s/'80s/'90s/00s).

I, and my friends, would have rather died than wear what my mother wore in the 90s, I wanted to look like a model from Nylon (magazine) and wanted to shop in vintage/antique markets. I went to H under duress and a promise we could hit Carnaby Street and the rest of Soho later. I literally remember thinking whilst in Hermes - there is nothing to buy here (I thought that about health-food shops too).

I also think older clients have not grown-up too. With people in their 50s and 60s wearing sports shoes for business meetings and skating/scooting to work with a (H) back-pack - nothing is 'age appropriate' anymore (which I approve of) but I also love formal wear (i.e. proper shoes with leather soles) fully tailored suits (men/women) and refined details. I am so sick of sandals and rubber soles (although I do wear them). The prices are reflective of H, but not the products - the mark-up is so much higher on stretchy sportswear and plastic mouldings, we are playing into their hands.

When the 'cool' wears-off the H, Hermes will either go 'with the kids' and try to win them back (impossible IMO) or realise every fashion has its heyday.

Finally, to play devil’s advocate (I do not know the answers to any of these questions myself, just some I ponder about)

- if profit is ultimately the goal (as
they are a business), how do markets that use the wishlist model (which we’ve also seen reports of people going in, prespend then quickly gets the bag, jumping the wishlist line so to speak) perform in comparison to a more lucrative prespend model, in a world where people (and information) travel around increasingly faster and more easily than prior generations, if there comes pressure to increase total revenue and profit?

Reverse-engineering the cultural differences in consumer behaviour, I would hazard a guess, there is far more 'bags-only' consumerism in Asia. I don't think it's a case of only mark-ups, I think it's a case of - "We (will) not only sell bags". In Europe there are enough clients that often buy throughout depts. Using myself as an example: Due to limited leathers (sometimes sizes and styles) of bags available, I've been happy to buy almost everything but bags recently. I don't ever want to be shown anything in Epsom or togo again, I am so sick of those leathers (sorry Epsom and togo lovers) but give me a tie that catches my eye, a cool pair of modernist earrings or an elegant/funky scarf design and - whoosh, I'm back. I think many of my H-loving friends feel the same.

- Hermes has sort of established itself as the “next level higher” brand in luxury handbags; the Birkins and the Kelly are supposed to be the “ultimate” tier. (Let’s not get into how a lot of H clients look down on those of other houses…) What happens as other brands raise prices so they are now positioned closer? How to distinguish the perceived value to make your stuff seem like the “more special” one (note: very different from the actual intrinsic value of the goods, which we all know is way, way lower than the price tags)?

They'll always have to be the most expensive. The minute I saw the Dior silks went higher than H's, I thought "drat, we're in for a price rise!" Basically, H prides itself on being the most expensive (of the mainstream) lux brands.

- This maybe also ties back a bit to the changing luxury clientele stuff; again this is about luxury in general but I remember reading some data where they surveyed why people buy luxury; some do it because they see it as a symbol of success, a way to set themselves apart, some do it for aesthetic, for comfort, some who truly see it as a way of life. The earlier groups tend to be younger. So assuming we think about the future, how does a brand cater to those younger audiences and nurture / shift them into latter categories as they age? (ETA: there is also a racial component but I don’t know if I really want to go deep into discussions on the prevalence of systematic racism in societies on a purse forum )

I don't know what you mean, "younger" is not about race, so we don't need to get into race. I tried to answer about young fashion above. IMO, there is too much marketing (pressure) on young people. It is not unusual for young people to take out loans in some countries to try and 'keep up'. We have also seen the use of payment plans through third party like Klarna (although not yet at H) on some lux sites. It's irresponsible IMO.

Market segmentation covers all spectrums, as does Hermes (like most luxury emporiums). They never want to put all their eggs in one basket.

- Semi related to the previous: I often wonder just what percentage out of everyone who want these bags want them partially because they are hard to get, not in spite of? I know it’s non zero as we have members saying that in some other threads. Let’s say magic happens and now the bags are all immediately available for purchase when one walks into any store, how much less sought after would they be? (And of course, the reseller prices would immediately crash.) There is something to be said about being difficult becoming part of the allure. I would think that they are beautiful bags and will be valued regardless by many - the question is, is that as many as now? I personally think the answer is no and it’s more of a question of how much less. How much is the component of the desirability driven by the “game” itself?

As Graucho Marx said “I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”

 

[papertiger]

The one I know is Stockholm, because when Copenhagen became corporate they were still a franchise. I just googled and they might have transitioned from being a franchise to a corporate branch back in 2020, because they had a reopening that year.

I think it's no longer a franchise

 

[momoc]

It is my understanding that the “2 per year” quota is “very much more flexible here in Asia, if you know what I mean” (direct quote from someone who shops there that I would call a VIP client). On top of that, these clients are often courted with a lot extra exclusive experiences.

There are many H VIPs. It's the VVIP that are the 2%, they don't 'just' get asked to exclusive events, but get flown-in if need be or merch gets flown 'wherever' for choices to be made. Rules only apply to whoever they need them to apply to for convenience. All Houses do this.

On moving into a new age: I do think luxury buyers who are younger may have different values and consequently spending habits. The advent of the digital age and social media etc has made a difference in how and why people shop. Definitely many articles floating around if you search luxury clients with some other words for specific areas you are curious to read about - BoF, Forbes etc. all have some and I’m sure many more publications too. They do tend to be about all luxury brands in general. How different is Hermes perhaps compared to the general industry?

IMO, there's no telling because the young have never been the desired target market for high-end and core products of luxury houses until relatively recently.

18-30s (or 16-34 at a stretch) will always go where high-fashion is, look like what high-fashion looks like, give meaning what high fashion means - all depending on whichever cultural trends are strongest during that period. Sometimes it's the similar as their parents (like now) sometimes it will totally different (like in the 1960s/'70s/'80s/'90s/00s).

I and my friends would have rather died than wear what my mother wore in the 90s, I wanted to look like a model from Nylon (magazine) and wanted to shop in vintage/antique markets. I went to H under duress and a promise we could hit Carnaby Street and the rest of Soho later. I literally remember thinking whilst in Hermes - there is nothing to buy here (I thought that about health-food shops too).

I also think older clients have not grown-up too. With people in their 50s and 60s wearing sports shoes for business meetings and skating/scooting to work with a (H) back-pack - nothing is 'age appropriate' anymore (which I approve of) but I also love formal wear (i.e. proper shoes with leather soles, fully tailored suits (men and women) and refined details. I am so sick of sandals and rubber soles (although I do wear them). The prices are reflective of H, but not the products - the mark-up is so much higher, on stretchy sportswear and plastic mouldings, we are playing into their hands.

When the 'cool' wears-off the H, Hermes will either go 'with the kids' and try to win them back (impossible IMO) or realise every fashion has its heyday.

Finally, to play devil’s advocate (I do not know the answers to any of these questions myself, just some I ponder about)

- if profit is ultimately the goal (as
they are a business), how do markets that use the wishlist model (which we’ve also seen reports of people going in, prespend then quickly gets the bag, jumping the wishlist line so to speak) perform in comparison to a more lucrative prespend model, in a world where people (and information) travel around increasingly faster and more easily than prior generations, if there comes pressure to increase total revenue and profit?

Reverse-engineering the cultural differences in consumer behaviour, I would hazard a guess, there is far more 'bags-only' consumerism in Asia. I don't think it's a case of only mark-ups, I think it's a case of - "We (will) not only sell bags". In Europe there are enough clients that often buy throughout depts. Using myself as an example: Due to limited leathers (sometimes sizes and styles) of bags available, I've been happy to buy almost everything but bags recently. I don't ever want to be shown anything in Epsom or togo again, I am so sick of those leathers (sorry Epsom and togo lovers) but give me a tie that catches my eye, a cool pair of modernist earrings or an elegant/funky scarf design and - whoosh, I'm back. I think many of my H-loving friends feel the same.

- Hermes has sort of established itself as the “next level higher” brand in luxury handbags; the Birkins and the Kelly are supposed to be the “ultimate” tier. (Let’s not get into how a lot of H clients look down on those of other houses…) What happens as other brands raise prices so they are now positioned closer? How to distinguish the perceived value to make your stuff seem like the “more special” one (note: very different from the actual intrinsic value of the goods, which we all know is way, way lower than the price tags)?

They'll always have to be the most expensive. The minute I saw the Dior silks went higher than H's, I thought "drat, we're in for a price rise!" Basically, H prides itself on being the most expensive (of the mainstream) lux brands.

- This maybe also ties back a bit to the changing luxury clientele stuff; again this is about luxury in general but I remember reading some data where they surveyed why people buy luxury; some do it because they see it as a symbol of success, a way to set themselves apart, some do it for aesthetic, for comfort, some who truly see it as a way of life. The earlier groups tend to be younger. So assuming we think about the future, how does a brand cater to those younger audiences and nurture / shift them into latter categories as they age? (ETA: there is also a racial component but I don’t know if I really want to go deep into discussions on the prevalence of systematic racism in societies on a purse forum )

I don't know what you mean, "younger" i not about race, so we don't need to get into race. I tried to answer about young fashion above. IMO, there is too much marketing (pressure) on young people. It is not unusual for young people to take out loans in some countries to try and 'keep up'. We have also seen the use of payment plans through third party like Klarna (although not yet at H) on some lux sites. It's irresponsible IMO.

Market segmentation covers all spectrums, as does Hermes (like most luxury emporiums). They never want to put all their eggs in one basket.

- Semi related to the previous: I often wonder just what percentage out of everyone who want these bags want them partially because they are hard to get, not in spite of? I know it’s non zero as we have members saying that in some other threads. Let’s say magic happens and now the bags are all immediately available for purchase when one walks into any store, how much less sought after would they be? (And of course, the reseller prices would immediately crash.) There is something to be said about being difficult becoming part of the allure. I would think that they are beautiful bags and will be valued regardless by many - the question is, is that as many as now? I personally think the answer is no and it’s more of a question of how much less. How much is the component of the desirability driven by the “game” itself?

As Graucho Marx said “I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”

Good points! Sorry I didn’t make this actually in the original reply but - the aside about racial differences is that it turns out in those survey findings, the groups that buy luxury as a way of life ended up being the oldest and whitest group. I believe this was a survey done in the US. It probably reflects how historically different groups had different access to wealth (at least that’s how I interpreted it).

I totally see the newer generation / different type of consumers who may be spending out of their means; I was reminded of this article where I first learned the term “HENRY”:

Who Are The Non-HNWI Luxury Consumers?

The High Net Worth Individual, commonly referred to as HNWI, has long been a focus for many companies, whether private banking firms or luxury brands. Now, a new consumer group has come into focus.

www.forbes.com

 

[papertiger]

Good points! Sorry I didn’t make this actually in the original reply but - the aside about racial differences is that it turns out in those survey findings, the groups that buy luxury as a way of life ended up being the oldest and whitest group. I believe this was a survey done in the US. It probably reflects how historically different groups had different access to wealth (at least that’s how I interpreted it).

Makes sense. If the survey was done in China, India or Nigeria there may be a different demographic.

Just looking at luxury with demarcations through demographics of race or colour makes me assume the purpose of the survey was sociological rather than financial. The only colour Hermes or any luxury brand cares about is the colour of money.

 

[Veritybelle]

Wow, this thread really took off while I was away! Such an interesting discussion.

I thought I’d offer some Australian perspectives (just my experience). I feel like the wishlist system here is similar in some ways to the old waitlist system of 20 years ago, except that 20 years ago ordering a bag was completely à la carte (with the whole leather book available) and if the order was accepted you knew it would come eventually (you might have had to wait for the SM to get the order into the quota for the next podium but once it was in it was in). My first two H bags were ordered under that old system.

Now it seems like pretty much anyone who has an account and knows to ask for a wishlist can ask to start one, but your wishlist will probably only be noticed (resulting in you actually being offered the wishlist bag) if you are top of mind as a customer, which of course means your spending commitment to the brand.

It would be highly risky for H to attempt an explicit or implicit pre-spend requirement here because of our anti-trust laws that contain provisions prohibiting first line forcing (ie requiring a customer to buy item B as a condition of being able to buy item A). These provisions extend to contracts, arrangements or understandings - so they are broad (provided the anti-competitive conduct has the requisite negative effect on competition in a market). That said, everyone knows that offers of Kellys and Birkins will not be forthcoming here unless you have a healthy spend relationship with your store/SA/SM (and maybe stand out in other ways - eg my love of vintage has always helped me in-store). Even the junior project interior designer on my home renovation project believes he’d have to spend $20K to get a Kelly. So my guess is the wishlist system need not be less lucrative as a business model than a pre-spend system.

I find the model a bit confusing though. Obviously VIPs are getting something approximating a true luxury experience. I fall into the middle category - as a long standing client of the house - but not a VIP - I’m offered the opportunity to buy a bag every time I come into the store (but not typically B/K - it’s usually from a range of Evelyn, Halzan, Verrou, Herbag). So I do feel that I am taken care of to some extent even though I’ll never be a customer who drops six figures on every visit (or any visit!!). I see this as an attempt to keep me happy even though in fact H is not really able to offer me the sort of true luxury/bespoke experience I might expect elsewhere (ie giving me whatever I want when I want it).

It’s the entry level tier that confuses me. I guess it’s a bet-each-way approach (and gives H something shiny to advertise), but it’s not clear to me what the purpose of the entry level lines is, when, unlike at other places like LV, Gucci, Prada etc, there is basically nowhere for those entry level customers to go within the brand once they’ve bought the lipstick and maybe then upgraded to the bangle. Based on my observation, it’s Orans. But then what? I don’t know how stores’ budget allocations work, but it feels like the budgets on SLGs are holding the Australian stores back in their ability to develop the newer customers. The range of available SLGs seems much more limited than it used to be, which basically brings one’s interest in that department to a premature end (especially if you don’t like bag charms).

What is interesting to me about the Gen Z customer is that thanks to SM they are WAY more luxury-literate than we Gen Xers were at their age (BV Jodie was de rigeur in the teen set here two years ago, etc). I wonder how long they will maintain their interest in the house if they can’t immediately carry their desired bag because it’s just not going to be offered to them (no wonder superfakes are flourishing). Also, it seems so late-capitalist to be having a discussion about a 17 year old carrying a bag costing five figures. It makes me feel old! “In my day…” that would have been considered totally inappropriate.

 

[papertiger]

What is interesting to me about the Gen Z customer is that thanks to SM they are WAY more luxury-literate than we Gen Xers were at their age (BV Jodie was de rigeur in the teen set here two years ago, etc). I wonder how long they will maintain their interest in the house if they can’t immediately carry their desired bag because it’s just not going to be offered to them (no wonder superfakes are flourishing). Also, it seems so late-capitalist to be having a discussion about a 17 year old carrying a bag costing five figures. It makes me feel old! “In my day…” that would have been considered totally inappropriate.

Sorry, I don't want to chime-in too much on this thread but you raise an important point.

A 17 y o (Client Z) is very likely not going to have earned the money for a bag (nor been a loyal customer for long) so who is H thinking is the client here? The person wearing the bag, or the one buying the bag and long-term customer, many times (not all) it'll be a parent (Client X). The parent's name will be on the CC, it'll be under the CX's purchase history. The SA will know the 'real story' (and often noted as personal info) but the hard-info is - Client X is the client, and that's the info that goes back to Paris.

 

[Veritybelle]

Sorry, I don't want to chime-in too much on this thread but you raise an important point.

A 17 y o (Client Z) is very likely not going to have earned the money for a bag (nor been a loyal customer for long) so who is H thinking is the client here? The person wearing the bag, or the one buying the bag and long-term customer, many times (not all) it'll be a parent (Client X). The parent's name will be on the CC, it'll be under the CX's purchase history. The SA will know the 'real story' (and often noted as personal info) but the hard-info is - Client X is the client, and that's the info that goes back to Paris.

Yes; do you mean H is selling to Client Z in terms of marketing strategy when in fact it’s Client X they should be selling to? Or do you mean that it doesn’t make a difference if there is nothing much beyond entry level for Client Z because they are not the real purchaser (yet)? I suppose it makes me think that Client X is probably not reached by H marketing anyway. He/she already has the relationship and has reached a stage of life where he/she is not easily swayed by such things. My half-baked theory is that advertisers stop selling to older women not so much because of the invisibility factor but because they know the superficial “sell” doesn’t work on them any more.

 

[GabrielleS]

Sorry, I don't want to chime-in too much on this thread but you raise an important point.

A 17 y o (Client Z) is very likely not going to have earned the money for a bag (nor been a loyal customer for long) so who is H thinking is the client here? The person wearing the bag, or the one buying the bag and long-term customer, many times (not all) it'll be a parent (Client X). The parent's name will be on the CC, it'll be under the CX's purchase history. The SA will know the 'real story' (and often noted as personal info) but the hard-info is - Client X is the client, and that's the info that goes back to Paris.

So true. I have also heard many clients hang around for the first QB and then vanish. H has always been a classic but it’s also really trendy now and a “hot” brand. It will always be classic but it won’t always be the hot brand and if it will become too over exposed for some of the existing classic long term or long term potential customer remains to be seen. I attend a lot of events where H used to be the dominant brand and those same people are wearing more under the radar brands now or under the radar H bags. It’s really noticeable.