Opinion / Genevieve Bates
Lack of luxury
More than 51 per cent of sales by the top 100 luxury goods companies last year were made by just 10 firms. At the top of the league was LVMH, with sales that were more than double the value of the next in line, Kering. Of course, none of these firms are monoliths. LVMH encompasses 75 distinct brands from Christian Dior to Dom Pérignon. Deloitte’s annual Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2021 report also reveals that Gen Alpha consumers, meaning children born since 2010, are already being targeted by all the big luxury houses. Fond as I am of a glass of Dom Pérignon (particularly the 1990 vintage), in the face of such vast global expansion by the big luxury groups, it might feel like it’s time to retreat to quirky, local and less familiar brands.
I’m not quite ready to follow the example of novelist and bookshop co-owner Ann Patchett, whose essay “My Year of No Shopping” from her recently published book These Precious Days details how a hiatus from all except grocery and book purchases rewarded her with more free time, a greater appreciation of the things she owned and that others gave her. In a similar experiment, I recently went two years without buying anything new to wear – though my own arbitrary rules permitted secondhand buys, which meant that some luxury items that would be unaffordable if bought new were within reach.
For my next retail resolution, I’m wondering whether an elevated experience of the “buy less but better” ethos might be found by limiting oneself to smaller brands that aren’t found in every corner of the globe, such as Salon champagne, William Lockie cashmere or James Smith & Sons umbrellas. This approach won’t necessarily save money or the environment but it just might deliver a richer, more personalised experience – and that would indeed be a luxury.