4: Facets of Luxury Today
In the present day, Luxury has gone global, and attracts customers from all over the world. It has also attracted entrepreneurs from all over the world who are eager to profit from selling their wares at the highest possible price.
(EN: luxury went global long before any other industry. The trade caravans of the pre-industrial era were not loaded with staple goods for the commoners, but silk, spices, perfumes, and other items of luxury, whose value-to-weight ratio was very high.)
New luxury, catering to a younger clientele, is different to old luxury, and in its evolution some of the facets have changed but its core has not been entirely lost. The goal of this chapter is to consider which facets of luxury remain relevant, that those who pursue luxury do not lose sight of them.
On the importance of the 'label'
One striking, and perhaps garish, aspect of luxury is the visibility of logos and brands. The logo and name are large and obtrusive and meant to me noticed.
This is the effect of luxury-for-others, serving the motivation not to have an item of quality, but to show others that you have an item of quality. The authors connect this to the manner in which a conqueror made an ostentatious display of the spoils of war, his wealth providing evidence of his military superiority.
The noble classes of the ancient age were enriched by the exercise of military might. But as civilization became less warlike and wealth could be achieved by peaceful pursuits, wealth lost its value as a demonstrator of power, and the nonmilitary and non-noble classes gained in prosperity, to the point that laws such as the sumptuary laws of monarchial France, were necessary to forbid a person who was not noble from dressing in the same manner as the genuine nobility.
In the absence of such laws, finery became a manner of class competition, enabling the merchant and bourgeois classes to compete with the noble class for social prestige. And this is where the need for display of branding becomes important: it distinguishes the nobility from those who are merely wealthy, but also gives the latter the ability to imitate or counterfeit the signs of the former, erasing the distinction.
(EN: What is implied here, though not expressly stated, is that the visual representation of wealth has been difficult to maintain because the quality available to the mass market has been improved. Even into the nineteenth century, a casual observer could appreciate at a glance the difference between a nobleman and a peasant because the peasant was dressed in rags and the nobleman in well-made and well-maintained clothing. In the late twentieth century, the quality of common clothing has significantly improved, such that in many instances you must notice the brand or label to tell the difference between common and luxury, hence the brand must be more prominent if it is to serve as a distinguishing characteristic.)
An aside in a later section revisits the notion of brand: the Japanese mon (emblem) was a badge or embroidered emblem that was the crest of a great family. It was the European fascination with the East that brought this unobtrusive crest back to the west, where it became a brand, subtle at first, but over time more ostentatious and visible.
Being the object of desire
When we think of luxury, we focus on the brand and the manner in which a maker distinguishes his particular products from those of other makers. The most superficial differentiation is that a product that bears the seal (or logo) of a luxury brand must be a luxury product.
This is largely a figment of marketing and advertising, which seems to be focused almost exclusively on brand, and who seem to have very little interest in communicating about the product. This is because marketing the product results in sales of every brand, not just your own, and is therefore inefficient.
Returning to the earlier consideration of luxury: luxury-for-others derives from showing off the brand, but luxury-for-self is appreciating and savoring the object. The brand is entirely irrelevant, as it is the qualities of the product that deliver sensual pleasure.
Said another way, money can buy things, but it cannot buy taste. As such, a person who is merely wealthy can buy things they do not appreciate, and a person who is truly noble can appreciate things he cannot buy. Luxury exists in the overlap: it applies to things that few can appreciate and few can afford.
We can witness the instances in which a creator fails to achieve a position in the luxury space. They can easily make a product that is high quality and expensive, but they cannot make a product that the members of the luxury market appreciate, admire, and desire.
Quality of Work
Another perspective on luxury is that a good must have quality of workmanship in two regards: the object must be difficult to create, and the purchaser must appreciate and value the workmanship As suggested in regard to pleasure, luxury is not merely having money to spend, but in knowing what to acquire by spending it.
Beyond the symbolic value of luxury, which is social in nature and therefore falls into the questionable category of luxury-for-others, lie three kinds of value: the consumption value, exchange value, and work value.
Consumption value derives from the benefit that will be created by the use of an object. It can be functional value or sensual value. And while a luxury object may be serviceable and durable, neither of those qualities define it as luxury.
The exchange value reflects the price at which it is purchased and the price at which it could be resold. The author cites a few examples of things that are extremely expensive but not luxurious. For luxury items, their value derives primarily from workmanship: the same amount of gold may be used in a cheap or expensive piece of jewelry, but the amount of effort and level of expertise required to fashion an item make it more costly.
Mass-produced and machine made products are not valued in the same way as limited-production and hand-made ones. Given to items of identical quality, in terms that can be objectively measured (weight, thickness, alloy, etc.), the one that required greater human effort is considered the more precious.
Superlative, never comparative
Luxury never compares itself to others. It sets standards for itself, and devotion to the ideal is a qualification for achieving and appreciating luxury.
It is easy enough for an unsophisticated person to compare two things before him and suggest reasons one is better than another. To appreciate luxury, a person must instead consider what constitutes the ideal, and compare a single object to it. That is, his choice of a luxury item reflects his own knowledge, sophistication, and refinement.
In that sense, luxury brands do not compete with one another. A Porsche and a Ferrari are not perceived as being two types of performance vehicle, but each is a thing unto itself. To compare the two is likened to assessing two religions by how much time is devoted to daily prayer or how long the religious services last. Such matters are superficial, and what defines a religion is a core of ideas rather than the ritual practices that derive from them.
Luxury brands shun the notion that they are to compete or be compared with others. Consider the following:
- Luxury brands seek exclusive distribution in branded shops. They are not to be merchandised on a rack containing other brands
- In the same sense, the shops that sell luxury brands are themselves temples, with the brand being the object of worship
- Luxury brands emphasize their unique characteristics that differentiate them in fundamental ways from what might be considered similar offerings
- Consider that in advertising, luxury items enjoy a full page or a two-page spread, in which the brand stands alone in white space.
Luxury and cultural mediation
A strong brand resonates with its consumers, who are aficionados who have the sophistication and acculturation to appreciate its qualities. One such quality is the embodiment of vulture: the rituals, stories, and legends that the brand embodies.
As such, culture is perhaps the most significant explanatory facture in the differentiating luxury goods from expensive goods: their prestige is intrinsic.
In terms of social distance, culture is a more difficult signifier than wealth. It is difficult to purchase an expensive product because of its price. It is impossible to be willing to pay that price if one does not appreciate the item. In that sense, a common person who makes sacrifices to have the money to buy a luxury item derives more enjoyment of it that a wealthy person who can easily afford it, but does not appreciate it.
The notion of enjoyment, as opposed to mere consumption, is a distinguishing factor of luxury. To consume without pleasure is gluttony. Consider the present state of gastronomy, as the commoners seem to have acquired a desire for fine food - the chefs who are most admired are not seekers of wealth, but of pleasure; and the customers they most value are not those who pay the most, but those who most genuinely appreciate the product of their work.
Luxury and history
The authors ponder the lack of luxury brands from China, concluding that the cultural revolution and communism destroyed the nation's cultural heritage, and there has not been a counterrevolution to revive it. Moreover, the recovery in China has occurred in the modern age, and there is a great appetite for modern luxury brands without a sense of heritage. "the Chinese do not know Mozart or Beethoven, but they know Vuitton and Prada." (EN: The same has been said of Russia, whose culture was likewise crushed by the Soviet revolution, and whose recovery has been decidedly nouveau riche.)
The authors aver that "there can be no luxury brand without roots" to create the story and mythology that make the brand more than a mere object of consumption. The great European brands draw a great deal from the history and culture of their locations.
However, the history in itself is not important without a myth created around it. A brand that is over a century old is not automatically a luxury by virtue of its age. A young luxury brand can borrow on or invent a history. Consider that the US is a young nation, without much history to draw upon, in which most brands are less than a century old.
Luxury and time
Luxury is slow and leisurely, which is where it defies the tyranny of time in the mass-market, where speed is of the essence. Standard products must be designed, manufactured, and delivered to the waiting customer as quickly as possible - there is an urgency to satisfy a pressing need.
The luxury of time may be embodied in ingredients: wine and spirits must age for a long period of time to gain their character - to rush them to market too soon would spoil their character.
Time is taken in design, where meeting a production deadline is less important than getting the design right.
Time may be a factor in workmanship: a work that requires years of effort to produce is of greater quality than one that is knocked out in a slapdash manner.
Time is required to find a luxury. It does not come knocking at your door, begging to be let in, but you must seek it out and invest some effort in obtaining it.
Time is also part of the cost of obtaining luxury: to wait two years for a Ferrari is to demonstrate that it is not being purchased to satisfy an urgent need - the owner can afford the price, and he can afford to wait.
Time is invested even in the consumption of luxury. One does not wolf down food or guzzle fine drink but nibble and sip over an extended period of time to prolong the sensual enjoyment.
Time is also the measure of a luxury brand. They provider does not care about the amount he sells this quarter or this year, but about the persistence of his brand over decades.
Luxury is made by hand
The quality of a German or Japanese premium vehicle is in its sophisticated manufacture, whereas the quality of British vehicles derives from being "handmade in England." It is a sign of artisanship, and devotion to a process whose goal is quality rather than efficiency.
Artisanship alone is not luxury until it approaches the edge of artistry. India has some of the best luxury artisans who make objects of wondrous quality using primitive tools. And yet, India has not emerged in the global luxury market because its artisanship does not include artistry: its products are well-made, but unexceptional in their design.
Luxury should seek to have some part of its process performed by hand. Consider Patek Phillipe's claim that its watch consists of "individually hand-finished components" and Ricci's perfumes boast that the baudruchage of each bottle (using a silk thread to create an airtight seal) is done by hand.
Real or virtual rarity?
Rarity is central to the concept of luxury: if it is to signify a rare and exceptional person, it must be a rare and exceptional product, on par with their own distinction. All luxury speaks of rarity: rarity of ingredients, artisans, know-how, and the ultimate rarity, the brand and the values it respects.
Premium products are more democratic, and their allure is in making things accessible and affordable - which is in conflict with luxury's values of being inaccessible and unaffordable. This is the main reason that attempting to increase the sales of a luxury product immediately strips it of luxury status.
Consider that there is a trend in society in which more and more people have money. The demand for premium goods has never been higher. This is particularly true of emerging markets, where the liberation of entrepreneurs and newfound property rights has rapidly generated a legion of millionaires and a few scores of billionaires. The global nouveau riche, with their garish tastes, have an appetite for lavish and ostentatious possessions.
To the individual who has suddenly come into money, there is a desire to purchase "instant class" by means of their spoils. Most of the western premium brands have rushed to install themselves in Asian shopping malls and department stores, the temples where the masses come to worship wealth, and even to learn by the window displays what is to be worshipped.
In a sense, this destroys luxury: when all the Japanese "office ladies" are carrying the same Louis Vuitton handbag, it is no longer a rarity or a mark of distinction reserved for the elite, though it is a badge that indicates belonging to a group that is one or two rungs further down the social ladder.
Consider that these brands associate themselves to the west, which is mysterious and foreign to the east. Consider also that they associate themselves with celebrities. It becomes clear that the buyer of such products is attempting to associate themselves to a better class than they are. Luxury declares membership in a class, but premium is merely a desire to be like a class by adopting the external trappings.
Luxury must maintain rarity. A quote from the former CEO of Cartier indicated that "I have to manage the desirability of this house, it is necessary to maintain the ratio of availability to rarity."
But at the same time, premium brands also crave the appearance of rarity, as their distinctiveness also relies upon association to rare and exceptional qualities for rare and exceptional owners. This creates for them a paradox, of wanting to sell in large volumes yet still be perceived as exclusive, toward which end they must create "virtual rarity," or the sense that something is rare when in reality it is not.
The authors defer to a colleague who distinguishes five types of rarity, from the genuine to the virtual
- Rarity of ingredients. The materials to make the product are available in very short supply that cannot readily be remedied. One example is a suit made from fibers from an animal that lives only in a specific location and in limited numbers
- Technical rarity. The fabrication of the product requires skills or techniques that are in short supply. This may arise from artisanship (if it takes ten years to learn a craft, few practitioners are available) of patents on exclusive technology to prevent widespread adoption.
- Production restraint. Rarity is created, intentionally, by limited manufacturing that ensures the quantity available is significantly lower than quantity demanded. Consider Ferrari's limited production and the two-year waiting list as an example.
- Distribution control. Rarity can also be created by controlling distribution, limiting it to few outlets, to which the customer must travel to obtain the item. If a person can find an item in any local store, it's not a luxury; but if they must go to a nearby city to shop, or if they must travel internationally, then the item becomes rare.
- Consumer control. This rarity is created when a producer refuses to sell to the general public, and only does business with a certain class of customer. When membership in the club of owners is by invitation only, it creates a definite sense that the owner must qualify, and the fact that few do make the product rare.
Luxury brands manage their rarity, with a cautious eye whether too much of their product is in existence. Premium brands seek to simulate rarity, the coy practice of playing hard-to-get while being willing to be had by many.
The authors suggest that elasticity of demand may be an indicator of luxury. If a luxury brand raised its prices by 10% and noticed a significant decrease in sales volume, then it is not a luxury: its buyers are sensitive to price and will readily accept a substitute. It should be able to raise its prices and see no difference in demand.
Rarity and sustainability
Sustainability has only recently become a topic of concern for consumers, and as such must be a topic of concern for luxury brands to ensure that the means by which they achieve rarity is not repugnant to the market.
In previous eras, a luxury item made from the skin or bones or a rare animal achieved rarity. The animal was not only rare, but killing one to make a product made it even more rare. Elephant bones and tiger hides were harvested to make luxury products, without a thought to the sustainability of the species.
In the present era, the consumption of a rare or "endangered" species is no longer regarded as exceptional, but a sign of exceptional stupidity and egocentricity, which brings consternation upon the owner. To be held in contempt is the opposite of what was desired by the luxury-for-others customer, and the psychological displeasure of guilt, inherited from the values of a culture, is even dissuasive to the luxury-for-self customer.
Rarity is still a desirable quality - but rarity taken to extremes becomes undesirable.
Luxury and exclusivity
Exclusivity is an expression of uniqueness. An undistinguished person owns undistinguished things that many others can own. A distinguished person has distinguished possessions that few others can own. At the pinnacle of exclusivity is the unique individual whose possessions are uniquely their own - they are not and cannot be owned by others.
Consider the appetite for fine art: an original painting by a specific artist is exactly that kind of unique item that distinguishes the owner from everyone else: there can be only one owner of it.
Ironically, the owners of exclusive items do not generally admit being drawn to its exclusivity. They will speak to the quality and beauty of the item, but it is crass to suggest that they value it because others cannot have it - though this may indeed be their motive.
Its also noted that exclusivity does not create luxury so much as its absence destroys luxury. Any item can be one-of-a-kind, and it is arguable that every item is or becomes so, and being thus does not make it a luxury. But when an item already is exclusive, making another copy makes it less valued as a luxury.
The authors speak a bit more about exclusivity and its effect on luxury, and that mass produced luxury falls from grace, but this has been sufficiently explored under the topic of rarity, above.
Consider exclusivity of ownership as being akin to membership in a very selective private club of the social elite. The possession of luxury is a badge of rank.
It is thus on every level of society. It is well known that men seek to drive a brand of car that reflects their class, or the class they aspire to be accepted into, and women do the same with handbags. Moreover, the recognition that this behavior is petty and crass does not dissuade its perpetuation.
Credit card companies have also picked up on the need for distinction. When they were rare, merely having a credit card was a badge of the social elite. As they became more common, there arose the need to distinguish between standard and gold cards, gold and platinum cards, and the present struggle to find the next rank.
The authors mention the American Express Centurion card, which was offered only by invitation. To qualify, you must have at least $250K in purchases each year, pay an entrance fee of $5K to first year and $2.5K every year thereafter. Possession of the card is an indication of rank.
(EN: It's been suggested that the "black card" originated as an urban legend that the issuing companies responded to, which seems like an urban legend itself - except that I recall hearing rumors in the early 1990s, and the Centurion card was not introduced until 1999 and "Visa Black" came out in 2008.)
The sense of a private club is supported by exclusive places - the "first class lounge" of airlines is an example. It is even true of the shops and boutiques, where people who appear not to belong are politely but effectively run out by the clerks - indicating that if they cannot afford the merchandise, they have no right even to be inside the store.
Another example of exclusive locations would be the Lexus-only car parks at major events such as the US Open tennis tournament, as well as exclusive seating in the stadium itself.
Luxury and fashion
There is an essential difference between luxury and fashion, in that the fashion is temporary and fleeting whereas luxury has a sense of timelessness and permanence. A fashionable item bought five years ago is laughably outdated today, whereas a luxury item is still a luxury item, and all the more if it is no longer available in the same style.
It's also observed that fashion is a means of social rivalry: a person's manner of dress identifies them as being part of a culture or subculture, whereas a person's consumption of luxury identifies them as being a member of the highest class, above the petty rivalries of subcultures.
Finally, anyone can adopt a fashion, even the lowest classes have their fashions, but they do not have luxury.
Luxury and art
The authors suggest a "constant and intimate relationship" between luxury and art. Per the earlier discussion, luxury patronizes art, as artists are engaged to design the props and scenery of luxury brands.
While commercial products are becoming more readily available, art remains aloof, and leveraging art enables luxury to maintain its distance from the premium brands.
Not only does luxury feed off art, but art feeds off of luxury. Historically, nobility were the patrons of the arts, and luxury brands carry on in this tradition. Patronage, however, is not a gift granted for the asking, it is also the gatekeeper that decides what is considered to be art. The artists who ascend to the pinnacle, and whose work becomes ensconced in history, are the ones who are patronized by the highest social class.
Also in history, art was essentially religious. The great artists built and embellished sacred buildings and sacred objects - which is to say they were selected to perform these tasks. But more importantly, their creations were intended to be revered.
A few other random bits: the ability to afford art is evidence of wealth; the ability to appreciate art is evidence of a noble character; and luxury like art gains value over time. These points have been made previously.
Luxury and charity
In American culture, the wealthy earn social esteem by being charitable. Billionaires and Fortune 500 corporations seek to improve their public image by making magnanimous gifts to charity.
There are two interpretations of this behavior: the first is charity is their penance, to ease the guilt of having earned wealth from society. The second suggests that charity is a demonstration of their power to lavish gifts upon the public.
The author doesn't consider which motive is more accurate, but they both point to the same conclusion: the upper echelons of society have a tradition of charity, and the same ethics apply to luxury brands.