Much has been made of Deluxe, the new book by Dana Thomas that claims to explain “How Luxury Lost Its Luster.”
Thomas starts with the roots of luxury brands like Vuitton and Hermes, explaining their origins and early successes.
Then she rolls into the way the brands have been co-opted, maybe even hijacked, by a sect of middle class shoppers for whom they were not designed (including, we imagine, us).
So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the passage everyone seems to be highlighting has uneasy connotations:
“The luxury industry has changed the way people dress… it has realigned our economic class system. It has changed the way we interact with others. It has become part of our social fabric. To achieve this, it has sacrificed its integrity, undermined its products, tarnished its history and hoodwinked its consumers. In order to make luxury ‘accessible,’ tycoons have stripped away all that has made it special.”
Our first thought: Whoa. So luxury goods are defined more by their elite owners and than their own qualities?
Our second thought: We need a chocolate milk.
Our third thought: Wait a second. “Luxury” hasn’t faded – it’s simply changed.
Maybe a Vuitton purse isn’t the ultimate symbol anymore, but there are other more subtle signs:
Three James Perse t-shirts, layered and shredded on the same Pilates-perfect body. The way a real Balenciaga bag gets so old, the leather looks pulpy. Wearing Forever 21 with $500 jeans because you care so much, you don’t care at all.
Has Ms. Thomas simply neglected the next step in luxury – a new school vision (perhaps, in fact, a New School vision) that totals luxury as the summation of an entire look and attitude, not just a bag with logos?
Or can “luxury” only be defined by those very logos, and the small sect of people who were once their exclusive wearers? And what happens now that high and low mash together, and their mix defines what’s cool?
Phew. Your turn.
Tags: Balenciaga, Hermes
The 10 Best YouTube Hair Tutorials
The 10 Best YouTube Makeup Tutorials 
25 Women Designers Who Changed Fashion Forever
Anonymous Retail Rant: Don't Leave Your (Used) Feminine Items in the Dressing Rooms, and Other Rules to Shop By 
The Best Photobombs From the 2012 Met Gala
I hate to say it, but Ms. Thomas sounds out of touch. You are right that the new more subtle sense of luxury is almost more powerful than what came before, because you can’t fake it! It’s not like talented Mr Ripley where you can steal some guy’s clothes. I think luxury has actually been replaced by style.
I for one can’t wait to read the book, and I think she means that since “luxury” must be available to the masses, because of their immense spending power, it has tarnished the industry as a whole in order to reduce prices and increase profits. That may be good for the consumer, short term but the long term outlook may not look so sweet.
i think luxury is in the eye of the beholder.
i don’t really get her point in regards to vuitton–their cheapest bags are the classic monogram, made in the same way they always were. sure, their consumers may be different, but the product remains the same(and i’m pretty sure the speedy is their best, or one of their best, sellers and it’s been unchanged since the 60′s or earlier). hermes, the same–they’ve always sold scarves, and scarves make up most of their earnings, and they happen to be cheap. their bags are still astronomically expensive and relatively hard to come by, whether or not they are sold in las vegas.
i agree with her that prada’s the worst offender, though. they have a tenous brand history of luggage that they don’t really respect at all, they aren’t well-known for high quality or for any signature (other than the triangle and their crappy nylon bags), but the labels ‘intellectualism’ has wooed editors who think it’s deep. except, no one really wears prada clothes. there’s no real luxury, only fashion, there. i mean, crappy nylon ski jackets from a ‘sport’ line, a huge seller for them, are basically a minimum of 1k or more. it’s a north face, with a red stripe.
Actually, I thought the quote was talking about how luxury goods themselves have degraded in quality due to the mass market shift.
From the NYTimes review:
“In order to maximize profits, many corporations looked for ways to cut corners: they began to use cheaper materials, outsource production to developing nations (while falsely claiming that their goods were made in Western Europe) and replace hand craftsmanship with assembly-line production.”
So, actually, luxury goods are defined more by their own qualities than by their owners.
The other thing–if luxury is largely related to inherent technical quality, can there be new definitions of luxury? Or would the new school vision really be, as Keisha noted, about style, not luxury?
Luxury was always about restricted access as well as price point and now everyone has access because of internet shopping and easy travel (on the consumer side) and easy marketing and more corporate conglomerate ownership instead of family ownership (on the supply-side). This has made standard luxury aka the status bag even less interesting to people with real style. But, ironically, status items or “it” bags, however lame, must remain interesting to magazines as they have to sell ads and help an enormous industry move products.
I agree with Betty. In order to get the level of quality once implied by luxury brands, you now have to pay more, either for a higher-end version of that brand’s goods or else for a custom-made or artisan option.
I totally agree with the quote cited, but I’m not shocked by it at all. Luxury brands used to have to provide the absolute best because their elite customers demanded it. The middle class, which did not even exist in the same way it does today, simply wasn’t interested in many of these luxury items. But now they are, so the luxury brands don’t have to cater to the elite demands and can put their high price tag on anything with their name on it.
I think YOU’RE confused as to what luxury is, but I don’t think there’s a single definition for it. I think utmost, it doesn’t matter what it is, because even though it’s an economy, in the global scheme of things, it’s doesn’t matter.
I’m going to agree with Kiesha… The writer does sound out of touch. We’re a generation of people who believe in lifestyle. living the LIFE we have and doing so with STYLE. Luxury in my personal opinion should not be used to seperate the haves from the have nots… but rather to celebrate the things we fancy. i.e having a shoe fetish, working hard and rewarding yourself with the occasional designer touch.
ITS RUBBISH! OLD RUBBISH FROM A BITTER OLDER WOMAN FROM AN OLD DYING ERA…
I think true luxury might be intangible. Most people who spend a lot of money on something want evidence of their purchase. Ergo: the status bag. But those who spend money on things like incredible vacations or $300 omakase lunches have a kind of luxury in their lives that they can’t “prove” to anyone.
what about hermes? they define luxury (and status) for me, to the point of keeping those beautiful orange boxes for storage. the birkin and the kelly are gorgeous and covetable, of course, but what about something more subtle yet still luxurious–like the double tour watch or the leather agendas?
Luxury is independent of style, and it is very tangible. Luxury is, for lack of a better description, items we don’t need, but want either as a status symbol or because we want a piece of the luxury lifestyle that the real upper class (not the upper middle class) enjoys every day.
I agree with Anonymous for the most part. I think there are still brands that are of the same quality (LV, Hermes, Tiffany and Co.) and are still desirable. Like Bobby said, society has a new consumer market because of the economy: the middle class with expendable income. The companies still keep their normal luxury products that run more than $500 (a luxury for most, despite what BagSnob tells you), but introduce products less than that to accommodate that new class so they can gain more income and a wider customer base, which later evolves into brand loyalty. See Tiffany’s silver jewelry line – still high quality, but not a $1,000 1/4 carat diamond ring; or the $300 LV pouchette phenomenon vs. an $800 Speedy.
However, like Bobby stated, some companies are taking advantage of this new class. See Fendi’s unsightly assortment of logo and B bags, Gucci and Prada cheap-looking accessories, and the rise of copyright infringments. These are the things, in my opinion, driving down luxury.
I do not think Donna Thomas is out of touch with fashion. Seems to me she is chronicling how the Luxury “Maisons” evolved from small family-owned businesses to massive corporations now running these legendary brands. Dana Thomas along with Natasha Fraser-Cavassoni are great fashion and lifestyle writers. This book is a must for me after reading the little snipet on Muicca Prada.
“Prada entered the room as if it were her salon and she had been ushered in by her trusted butler rather than her communications director. This was a woman who had been raised in haute bourgeois society, with servants and grandeur and politesse. Unlike her competitor Donatella Versace, who so obviously came from nothing, Prada’s airs are not airs at all: her snobbery is in her bones”
Luxury isn’t really about a logo. Logos and status bags are fashion- which is often mixed with luxury. I don’t think the 2 are the same. However, if one is going to talk about luxury and fashion, luxury is wearing designer ready to wear on a regular, even daily, basis. RTW is waaay more expensive than the bags are, and much harder to come by.
Luxury is wearing an Hermes bathing suit and diamonds on a yacht in the mediterranean while sipping Dom.
That quote about Miuccia Prada really reveals the mega-sized chip on Dana Thomas’s shoulder. Like, it’s ok and kind of quaint or silly for Donatella to be successful or put on airs because, well, she came from nothing, but the way Miuccia enters a room means she has snobbery in her bones (!) UGH.
I think many people are misconstruing Dana Thomas’ points due to the fact that all these excerpts are taken out of context. I just finished reading Deluxe tonight and she in no way is intending on insulting the “middle market”, rather proving a point that luxury companies chose to chase the middle market, and in turn comprimised the quality of the products to fund multi million $ ad campaigns and raise profit margins to satisfy share holders.
If anything, us “middle market” consumers should be upset that the suits running these conglomerates think we could so easily be hoodwinked into buying their “luxury” products of inferior quality. It has become more about the name on the bag rather than the design or workmanship of the bag. Lack of design and quality partially explains most people’s acceptance of purchasing counterfeit.
I found the book fascinating.