John Galliano kicked off Couture week in Paris yesterday with a spectacular-as-always show for Dior, while the rest of the world mourned the crashing stock market and slowing economy.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Choo, the British luxury shoe brand, announced that while most retail outlets continue to suffer, their profits reached record highs last year. And last week, WWD reported that 2007 was Chanel's most profitable couture year ever.
We've noticed this trend over the last year, luxury sales growing, or at least not dropping, while the rest of the industry suffers. While analysts often attribute it to the rich getting richer, and being generally unaffected by minor economic trends, we wonder if it has something to do with the recent push to bring luxury to the masses.
We know, or at least hope, that the average fashion fan isn't saving for a couture gown, but we also know plenty of girls who skip meals for weeks to buy $600 Jimmy Choos, or pay rent late to afford $300 Tom Ford sunglasses, foregoing weeks of retail therapy at mid-range stores in lieu of one major luxury item.
If more people put their money toward a piece of the luxury market, do the levels of retail directly below suffer?
posted by guest
Jan 22, 2008 10:06AM
Umm no. Because for your set, obviously, Jimmy Choos are a "reach" purchase. For the set that makes slightly less, maybe a pair of Stuart Weitzmans or a dress from BCBGMax Azria is the reach, not the midrange. And so on and so on. Most of the time, most people purchase at the top end of what they can actually afford. And growth in couture requires women who can afford it, not women who save up for it. Besides, the few girls in NYC who save up for Jimmy Choos are nothing in terms of the market. Most people who wear expensive shoes are wealthy suburban women (seriously, check the red soles on the women in my mom's hair salon in Florida), or women with the kind of jobs in finance that allows you to purchase a bunch.