Luxury Market Continues to Grow

4 08 2011

We see this uptick in our client mix.  Since we focus on luxury brands this is a good thing. The luxury market is growing nicely as the rest of the markets suffer.  In a classic “let them eat cake” scenario the question is…Will the rest of the markets follow the luxury products or is this a tease before a second recession.  If you look at the stock market today (down 275 as of this post) and down almost 10% for the week, you can understand confusion in the marketplace.  However, we will take the good news whenever we can.
BUY, BUY, BUY.  It’s good for your country!
Cheers,
Glenn Zagoren

New York Times

Even Marked Up, Luxury Goods Fly Off Shelves

By

Nordstrom has a waiting list for a Chanel sequined tweed coat with a $9,010 price. Neiman Marcus has sold out in almost every size of Christian Louboutin “Bianca” platform pumps, at $775 a pair. Mercedes-Benz said it sold more cars last month in the United States than it had in any July in five years.


Lissette Gutierrez chose a pair of $1,495 Christian Louboutin shoes at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan.

A Gucci coat for $11,950 at Bergdorf Goodman, where more customers have been willing to pay top dollar for luxury goods.

Even with the economy in a funk and many Americans pulling back on spending, the rich are again buying designer clothing, luxury cars and about anything that catches their fancy. Luxury goods stores, which fared much worse than other retailers in the recession, are more than recovering — they are zooming. Many high-end businesses are even able to mark up, rather than discount, items to attract customers who equate quality with price.

“If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at the consulting firm Kurt Salmon, and the former chairman and chief executive of Saks.

The rich do not spend quite as they did in the free-wheeling period before the recession, but they are closer to that level.

The luxury category has posted 10 consecutive months of sales increases compared with the year earlier, even as overall consumer spending on categories like furniture and electronics has been tepid, according to the research service MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse. In July, the luxury segment had an 11.6 percent increase, the biggest monthly gain in more than a year.

What changed? Mostly, the stock market, retailers and analysts said, as well as a good bit of shopping psychology. Even with the sharp drop in stocks over the last week, the Dow Jones is up about 80 percent from its low in March 2009. And with the overall economy nowhere near its recession lows, buying nice, expensive things is back in vogue for people who can afford it.

“Our business is fairly closely tied to how the market performs,” said Karen W. Katz, the president and chief executive of Neiman Marcus Group. “Though there are bumps based on different economic data, it’s generally been trending in a positive direction.”

Caroline Limpert, 31, an entrepreneur in New York, says she is happy to spend on classic pieces, like the Yves Saint Laurent tote she has in both chocolate and black, but since the recession, she avoids conspicuous items.

“Over all, you want to wear less branded items,” she said. “If you have the wherewithal to spend, you never want to be showy about it.” Still, she said, she is quick to buy at the beginning of each season. “I buy things that could sell out.”

The recent earnings reports of some luxury goods retailers and automobile companies show just how much the high-end shopper has been willing to spend again.

Tiffany’s first-quarter sales were up 20 percent to $761 million. Last week LVMH, which owns expensive brands like Louis Vuitton and Givenchy, reported sales growth in the first half of 2011 of 13 percent to 10.3 billion euros, or $14.9 billion. Also last week, PPR, home to Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and other brands, said its luxury segment’s sales gained 23 percent in the first half. Profits are also up by double digits for many of these companies.

BMW this week said it more than doubled its quarterly profit from a year ago as sales rose 16.5 percent; Porsche said its first-half profit rose 59 percent; and Mercedes-Benz said July sales of its high-end S-Class sedans — some of which cost more than $200,000 — jumped nearly 14 percent in the United States.

The success luxury retailers are having in selling $250 Ermenegildo Zegna ties and $2,800 David Yurman pavé rings — the kind encircled with small precious stones — stands in stark contrast to the retailers who cater to more average Americans.

Apparel stores are holding near fire sales to get people to spend. Wal-Mart is selling smaller packages because some shoppers do not have enough cash on hand to afford multipacks of toilet paper. Retailers from Victoria’s Secret to the Children’s Place are nudging prices up by just pennies, worried they will lose customers if they do anything more.

While the free spending of the affluent may not be of much comfort to people who are out of jobs or out of cash, the rich may contribute disproportionately to the overall economic recovery.

“This group is key because the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “That was key to why we suffered such a bad recession — their spending fell very sharply.”

Just a few years ago, luxury retailers were suffering. Too many items were chasing too few buyers, and high-end stores began cutting prices. As a result, consumers awaited 70 percent discounts rather than buying right away. Sales of luxury goods fell 17.9 percent in October 2008 from a year earlier, SpendingPulse said, and double-digit declines continued through May 2009.

Now, many stores are stocking up on luxury items, as shoppers flock to racks of expensive goods.

“They’re buying the special pieces, whether it’s the exotic leathers, the more fashion-forward pieces,” said Stephen I. Sadove, the chairman and chief executive of Saks Fifth Avenue. “There’s a dramatic decline in the amount of promotions in the luxury sector — we’re seeing higher levels of full-priced selling than we saw prerecession.”

In 2008, for example, the most expensive Louboutin item that Saks sold was a $1,575 pair of suede boots. Now, it is a $2,495 pair of suede boots that are thigh-high. Crème de la Mer, the facial cream, cost $1,350 for 16 ounces at Bergdorf Goodman in 2008; it now costs $1,650.

“I think that she’s willing to pay whatever price the manufacturer and the retailer deem appropriate, if she sees that there’s intrinsic value in it,” Ms. Katz said.

Part of the demand is also driven by the snob factor: at luxury stores, higher prices are often considered a mark of quality.

“You just can’t buy a pair of shoes for less than $1,000 in some of the luxury brands, and some of the price points have gone to $2,000,” said Jyothi Rao, general manager for the women’s business at Gilt Groupe, a Web site that sells designer brands at a discount. “There’s absolutely a customer for it.”

Jennifer Margolin, a personal shopper in San Francisco, said she had noticed changes in clients’ attitudes. They “pay full price if they absolutely love it,” she said. “Before it was almost completely shying away, where now it’s like, ‘O.K., I’m comfortable getting a Goyard bag,’ but they get it for the quality.”

Goyard bags, in addition to having a distinctive pattern, will usually run a few thousand dollars. And, yes, they are selling out quickly.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 4, 2011

An earlier version of this article erroneously referred to Karen Katz on second reference as Mr. Katz. Also, a caption misidentified the brand of shoes being purchased at Bergdorf Goodman. They were Christian Louboutin, not Louis Vuitton.

Photos: Deidre Schoo for The New York Times





Among Affluent Americans, Print Media Is Tops

2 08 2011

While “New Media” is a component of a campaign it is called “New” for a reason. You must balance your advertising program to generate maximum reach. -GZ

 

Death of Traditional Outlets Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

Mark Twain famously quipped that news of his death was exaggerated when the press mistook his cousin’s serious illness for his own. Today, much the same could be said about traditional media. It seems that its death is foretold by any number of pundits with every new release of data on social media and digital devices. (Facebook’s 500 million members would make it the third-largest country in the world! Ashton Kutcher has more than 7 million Twitter followers! IPad-mania sweeps through coffee shops around the world!)

 

Of course, there is no denying the rapidly growing and truly disruptive impact of new devices and social media. But at the same time, there is also no denying that traditional outlets are thriving in the lives of consumers today, and that they form the core of how most consumers interact with media. This is true for the general population, and it is even true among the affluent Americans that we study, even though they have the discretionary income to indulge in an array of devices, as well as the digital literacy to get the most out of them.

Throughout 2011, we have used our Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer to track new and traditional media use among American Affluents. This monthly survey consists of more than 1,000 online interviews with respondents making at least $100,000 in annual household income — in other words, the 20% of Americans who account for about 60% of U.S. income and approximately 70% of U.S. net worth. The survey was conducted between March and May 2011.

When asked how they read magazines, 93% said they read hard-copy print versions; in contrast, less than a third read them on computers, and no other format garnered more than 10%. The same pattern is evident for newspapers, which 86% read in print, compared to the 39% who read them on computers, and 14% who read them via smartphone. TV shows are watched on TVs by 94%, followed by 23% who watch them on computers. Websites are viewed on computers by 94%, followed by 32% viewing them on smartphones. The pattern is clear across all media. The vast majority consume content through its most traditional outlet: magazines and newspapers in print, websites on computers, video content through TVs and so on.

Trump hourly chart
 
Media usage among all Affluents. Source: Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer

Similarly, we explored data on the importance of traditional media in our Ad Age article last month, “Media Use in Extraordinary Times.” When asked how affluents followed Osama bin Laden’s death, network TV topped the list, cited by 70%, and an additional 40% cited printed newspapers. Similarly, when asked how the followed the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis in Japan, network TV again topped the list, cited by 76%, with an additional 49% citing printed newspapers.

It has been well-documented that younger consumers differ in their media-consumption patterns from their older counterparts, and certainly they have been earlier adopters and heavier users of some emerging and alternative platforms. But even today’s younger generation shows the characteristic pattern of tending to consume media through its most traditional outlet, even as they show more cross-platform “experimentation.” For example, among those aged 18-34:

  • 88% read magazines in print, followed by 35% who read them online
  • Newspapers show the greatest amount of experimentation — 70% read newspapers in print, followed relatively closely by 54% who read them online
  • 94% view video content on TV, followed by 35% who do so on computers
  • 93% read websites on computers, followed by 38% who do so on smarthphones

 

Trump hourly chart
 
Media usage among Affluents ages 18-34. Source: Mendelsohn Affluent Barometer

Of course, we’re not denying the widespread use and tremendous impact of “new” media. It is vitally important in the lives of consumers, particularly Affluents, and is becoming more so. Moreover, any business that suddenly finds 20-30% of its best customers “experimenting” with less profitable options (from “analog dollars to digital dimes”) will face serious challenges. Reports of Twain’s death were indeed exaggerated when he made his famous remark in 1897, but perhaps those reports are better characterized as premature; he had 13 more years left before an obituary became appropriate. Reports of the death of traditional media are equally premature.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.