WSJ Article on Declining Luxury Handbag Sales in the US

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

misskris03

Member
Oct 17, 2013
1,332
20
The Wall Street Journal just published an article about declining luxury handbag sales. By TPF standards, Michael Kors, Kate Spade & Coach may not be "luxury" brands, but these mid-range bags are the ones described in the article.

The article describes 2 simultaneous trends that are hurting the big handbag companies: the saturation of the handbag market and the increased desire of consumers to own a bag that doesn't look exactly like everyone else's.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/luxury-handbags-lose-some-cachet-1446598954

It requires a login to see the whole article, so I have the full-text here:

What happens when the hot handbag trend is to not buy a new one?

Sales of premium handbags and accessories in North America are forecast to increase 3% to $11.7 billion this year, according to Barclays. That is down from 8% growth last year, 11% in 2013 and 16% in 2012.

Caroline Cooper, a 21-year-old sales associate from Rockland County, N.Y., said she would rather spend her money going to restaurants and Broadway plays.

“I don’t need another handbag,” she said.

The change in spending habits poses a challenge to Coach Inc., Michael Kors Holdings Ltd. and other handbag makers that are already feeling the effects.

When Michael Kors reports quarterly results on Wednesday, analysts are forecasting retail sales excluding newly opened or closed stores to decline more than 9%, according to Thomson Reuters. That would mark the third consecutive quarter in which same-store sales fell, and compares with the year ago-period when they rose 16.4%.

Last week, Coach said North American retail sales fell 11% in its most recent quarter, an improvement from the 20% decline in the previous period. Kors stock is down nearly 50% over the past 12 months, while Coach shares are off 25% from their high of $43.56 on March 2.

“We are seeing consumers a little bit on the sidelines,” said Coach Chief Executive Victor Luis on a conference call last week.

In an interview, Mr. Luis said shoppers are holding out for new styles before making a purchase. “They want to be inspired,” he said.

He also attributed the slowing sales across the industry to a shift by consumers away from larger bags to smaller ones, which carry lower prices. For instance, a Coach Crosby carryall costs $395, while a smaller Herald bag costs $140.

Mr. Luis added that U.S. handbag sales were also suffering from fewer tourists.

Lynn Alzin, a 31-year-old lawyer from Luxembourg, used to buy as many as 10 handbags a year. This year, she may add one or two to her collection. Instead she has been spending more dining out and traveling. She has visited New York, Colombia, London, Namibia and the South of France in recent months.

The sales shift comes after Coach helped change an ingrained mind-set that one handbag was enough. It began in the early 2000s when Coach added fashionable touches each season, such as new fabrics, colors and other embellishments, to entice shoppers to purchase multiple styles. Like Coach, Michael Kors and other players including Kate Spade & Co. peddled a luxurious image at more affordable prices with bags selling for around $300, far less than the thousands of dollars for a typical designer satchel.

By 2013, the average American woman age 18 and older owned 11 handbags and bought more than two new bags each year, according to market research firm NPD Group. Now, handbag fatigue appears to be setting in.

“The wardrobe building has started to peak out,” said Marshal Cohen, NPD’s chief industry analyst. “If you have 11 handbags, how many more do you need?”

Instead shoppers are spending the money they are saving from lower gas prices on entertainment rather than on goods like clothing and accessories.

Nearly 68% of personal consumption expenditures went toward services in September, up from 66.5% in June 2014, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Over the same period, the consumption of goods fell to 32.3% from 33.5%, though spending remains strong for electronic devices and items for the home.

The shift in spending coincided with the fall in gas prices, which peaked on June 20, 2014. “There is pent-up demand for services, and it’s become much more challenging for retailers,” said Jack Kleinhenz, the National Retail Federation’s chief economist. He added that consumers are once again willing to pay for little luxuries that they had done without during the recession, such as having their grass cut or going to expensive hair salons.

When shoppers decide to splurge on bags and accessories, they are shying away from big brands in favor of styles that give them more distinctive looks.

Spending by consumers at businesses with annual revenue of $50 million or less has grown faster than total retail sales for the past 20 months, according to Sarah Quinlan, the senior vice president of market insights for MasterCard Advisors. She said that is a sign consumers are trying to be more unique in their purchases by seeking out smaller stores.

“The notion of having big companies dictate what you wear is no longer cool,” said Simeon Siegel, an analyst with Nomura. “People don’t want to walk down the street and see everyone wearing the same thing.”

Those trends work against companies like Coach and Michael Kors, which made their brands accessible to the masses by expanding to thousands of department, retail and outlet stores.

Mr. Luis takes issue with the notion that Coach is ubiquitous, and said the company has been taking steps to differentiate itself. It has added new products, including a line called Coach 1941 that draws from its leather-house heritage. In addition, it is weaning itself off bags with a logo print because they have fallen out of favor. Such bags now account for about 5% of Coach’s overall handbag sales.

Kors wasn’t immediately available for comment. Mr. Siegel of Nomura said the company is likely suffering from a sharp decline in watch sales as shoppers purchase wearable devices. Still, Kors is heavily reliant on handbags and accessories, which account for 68% of its revenue, compared with about 8% for licensed products such as watches.

Melissa Schwartz, a 22-year-old data researcher from Syosset, N.Y., said she has no plans to add to the five bags—including a Michael Kors navy blue satchel—that she already owns. “I’d rather buy fewer bags, but have them be higher quality,” she said.
 
"By 2013, the average American woman age 18 and older owned 11 handbags and bought more than two new bags each year, according to market research firm NPD Group. Now, handbag fatigue appears to be setting in."
^ This was never really a sustainable market from the get-go. Not sure why you'd need to buy two new bags every year but I guess if you are constantly updating your collection by moving older pieces it might make sense.
 
There is a movement away from excess towards conscious consumption, minimalist living and decluttering as seen in the KonMarie craze. Even addicts like us try to impose rules like one-in-one-out on ourselves. Now we don't admire huge collections but the restrained, tightly curated ones... I think this has benefited the premier brands actually, not so much the contemporary ones.
 
Largest part of population has aged into less spending on luxuries, more retiring/focusing on essentials.
Makes sense overall handbag market would show decline in statistical review.
And why many new designs are being pressed towards younger age group.

Thanks for sharing article. :) Interesting.
 
It's been known for some time that the focus has been directed to growth in Asia.

I bump into MK bags everywhere I go in my state in Malaysia. There's some Coach too but then again, we only have Coach, MK, and now Kate Spade in our small city.
 
I think Coach in particular, but to some extent, Michael Kors too, have harmed their image and their brand with the MFF lines. Can't really speak for Kate Spade, but I can't imagine it hasn't affected her too. The Coach label and creed used to carry some degree of exclusivity with them because of the price point. They were slightly unattainable or a major purchase for most people. It was enviable to have one. But then MFF and the logo print came along and now everyone has a Coach bag they bought in TJ Maxx or Marshall's. The FP bags still have the same high price point, but the exclusivity is gone. The draw of the lifetime guarantee has also gone away.

There was a thread here once a while back that talked about something to the effect of luxury isn't luxury once you discount it. I think that's what happened to Coach.
 
I feel kind of bad for Kate Spade and Coach (MK not so much because it copies)...

Because making things more affordable seems like it's less valuable. I kind of like the idea of accessible luxury bags. It's probably the reason I will still buy coach and KS.

Probably in the minority... all the while Chanel's quality is south-bound and prices go north.
 
I agree with the idea of a 'saturation point' - whether your number is 5 or 11 or 100, at some point you have 'enough' for you. And the average age of buyers is increasing - people of an age who won't replace a good quality item just because it's 'last season's'.

At the moment I have four daytime bags and two small evening ones - one LV and the rest are MK, KS or LAMB. I simply don't need any more until one or more of these wears out.

These brands are more durable than the cheaper bags I used to buy - I often had to buy three or more in a year because my 'one at a time' bargain priced bag fell apart, but some of my current collection are five years old and still in great condition.
 
Interesting article. I think the "Pretty Good" problem also plays a role in the current bag buying malaise. Brands need to become much more creative in order to differentiate their offerings these days, because when it comes to quality, it can be had at all price ranges, with very little to distinguish between brands. So if all of these bags are at least "pretty good," how to choose?

The previously vaunted correlation between cost and quality now feels like out of touch marketing BS, thanks to greater awareness about manufacturing methods. We now know that many (which is not to say most) luxury brands manufacture their bags in exploitative, sweatshop like labor conditions, alongside bags that will end up at say, Target or Ross. So why pay hundreds/thousands more for a bag that was not made with greater care than a bag you could buy for less than a hundred dollars? I suppose "prestige" is one possible answer to that, but for more socially secure consumers? Not so much.

I also think it's interesting that the article points to a trend of people choosing to travel or dine out with their surplus money instead of buying handbags. So much of handbag marketing revolves around the idea of a bag being symbolic of living "the good life," but the irony is that for many, the costs of these bags can seriously cut into the budget for actually living that good life. I honestly think it's great that trends point to people prioritizing the acquisition of experiences over objects.
 
Last edited:
:goodpost:
Interesting article. I think the "Pretty Good" problem also plays a role in the current bag buying malaise. Brands need to become much more creative in order to differentiate their offerings these days, because when it comes to quality, it can be had at all price ranges, with very little to distinguish between brands. So if all of these bags are at least "pretty good," how to choose?

The previously vaunted correlation between cost and quality now feels like out of touch marketing BS, thanks to greater awareness about manufacturing methods. We now know that many (which is not to say most) luxury brands manufacture their bags in exploitative, sweatshop like labor conditions, alongside bags that will end up at say, Target or Ross. So why pay hundreds/thousands more for a bag that was not made with greater care than a bag you could buy for less than a hundred dollars? I suppose "prestige" is one possible answer to that, but for more socially secure consumers? Not so much.

I also think it's interesting that the article points to a trend of people choosing to travel or dine out with their surplus money instead of buying handbags. So much of handbag marketing revolves around the idea of a bag being symbolic of living "the good life," but the irony is that for many, the costs of these bags can seriously cut into the budget for actually living that good life. I honestly think it's great that trends point to people prioritizing the acquisition of experiences over objects.
 
Interesting article. I think the "Pretty Good" problem also plays a role in the current bag buying malaise. Brands need to become much more creative in order to differentiate their offerings these days, because when it comes to quality, it can be had at all price ranges, with very little to distinguish between brands. So if all of these bags are at least "pretty good," how to choose?

The previously vaunted correlation between cost and quality now feels like out of touch marketing BS, thanks to greater awareness about manufacturing methods. We now know that many (which is not to say most) luxury brands manufacture their bags in exploitative, sweatshop like labor conditions, alongside bags that will end up at say, Target or Ross. So why pay hundreds/thousands more for a bag that was not made with greater care than a bag you could buy for less than a hundred dollars? I suppose "prestige" is one possible answer to that, but for more socially secure consumers? Not so much.

I also think it's interesting that the article points to a trend of people choosing to travel or dine out with their surplus money instead of buying handbags. So much of handbag marketing revolves around the idea of a bag being symbolic of living "the good life," but the irony is that for many, the costs of these bags can seriously cut into the budget for actually living that good life. I honestly think it's great that trends point to people prioritizing the acquisition of experiences over objects.

Excellent points!
 
I think people are moving on from the more-is-better mentality that dominated the previous decade. People are looking to be more mobile, live debt free, and exist without clutter. The prices of the bags have gotten to the point where it's just easier to walk away and make do with what you have. I have 4 bags, and last year I had a wishlist a mile long, but I got busy with other things, and found the bags I have fit my needs pretty well. I still want to add to the ones I have, but I'm in no rush, and the idea of having a double digit collection seems absurd now where it used to seem like a bare minimum. I feel like I have shopping fatigue, especially luxury fatigue. I don't think I'm alone.
 
Interesting article. I think the "Pretty Good" problem also plays a role in the current bag buying malaise. Brands need to become much more creative in order to differentiate their offerings these days, because when it comes to quality, it can be had at all price ranges, with very little to distinguish between brands. So if all of these bags are at least "pretty good," how to choose?

The previously vaunted correlation between cost and quality now feels like out of touch marketing BS, thanks to greater awareness about manufacturing methods. We now know that many (which is not to say most) luxury brands manufacture their bags in exploitative, sweatshop like labor conditions, alongside bags that will end up at say, Target or Ross. So why pay hundreds/thousands more for a bag that was not made with greater care than a bag you could buy for less than a hundred dollars? I suppose "prestige" is one possible answer to that, but for more socially secure consumers? Not so much.

I also think it's interesting that the article points to a trend of people choosing to travel or dine out with their surplus money instead of buying handbags. So much of handbag marketing revolves around the idea of a bag being symbolic of living "the good life," but the irony is that for many, the costs of these bags can seriously cut into the budget for actually living that good life. I honestly think it's great that trends point to people prioritizing the acquisition of experiences over objects.


Very observant, very well put :tup:

The article only says growth is slowing. That doesn't mean sales are declining. That any market grows faster every year is unrealistic and unsustainable. It shows you that the business analysis only know about bottom-lines and nothing about the actual products/business in question.

What kept people buying was not always variety/fashion but trading up to better. .

I blame the recent price hikes/declining quality overall and across the board (not just Chanel). A 'pretty' campaign or paying celebs to carry bags are not going to sway me or any of the people I know. Young aspiring people have less and less money in my city with huge rent increases, student loans and low wages. The mega-rich only want to be seen in investing in things that appreciate in value, their brand loyalty stops there.

Anyone only has to glance through tPF and see that what people most care about is quality. When people are disappointed they go elsewhere or find another 'hobby'. It's about time these companies (and their analysts) woke up!
 
There're many good points in this thread. I agree that the trend of living minimalist and make your life full with experience is one of the major drive toward people buying less. After the era of obsessive over the object, the craze may die down. And since now that some has gone through the rough time of crash and burn in the financial area, all the materials aren't looking so shiny anymore. Consumers can become wiser over time and many can learn how to distinguish the quality item, too. So, the item that they're already own can last longer and they can live their life with less buy. Not to mention all the blogger and street style star that keeps saying about vintage is the best and most unique and now, I think the new generation is getting caught on that.
 
Top