Fashion powerhouse LVMH is on the prowl
The Short Version
As the fashion industry spends the next month looking at new styles, some of those people sitting on the front row are more interested in a brand’s bottom line more than what’s coming down the runway. Fashion mega holding group LVMH has changed its strategy from buying large, successful brands to smaller, up-and-coming designers that have yet to make it big. The result is making a lot of designers nervous.
A Little More Detail
Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy (LVMH) is one of fashion’s largest conglomerates. It owns brands you know such as Marc Jacobs, Christian Dior, Kenzo, Fendi, and Givenchy, among several others. They also own a number of high-end wine and spirit brands and a few other things in the luxury category. They’re big, they’re powerful, and they are extremely well financed. They have plenty of money to throw at most anything they want to purchase.
In the past, the LVMH strategy has been to purchase only known brands, fashion labels that were established, well recognized and profitable. The conglomerate would infuse their purchase with enough capital to fuel extensive growth in an effort to make them super brands. For the most part, that strategy has worked.
However, LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault says that the company is changing its purchase strategy. Instead of going for the big brands, they’re looking for smaller labels that address a niche spot in the market. An example would be their purchase of German baggage label Rimowa late last year. Chance are, unless one travels to Europe frequently, one has never heard of Rimowa. Expect that to soon change. That’s exactly the strategy the group is taking toward fashion as well.
If they’re looking at anyone specific, though, they’re keeping their mouths shut about it and that silence has everyone on edge. There are several smaller brands, from Jason Wu to Adam Semalt, showing in New York this week that could be a good fit for the conglomerate’s new strategy. There are plenty of others in London, Milan, and Paris as well. The question is whether the label’s growth pattern is sufficient to warrant their purchase.
Smaller luxury brands have had it tough given the downturn in luxury sales over the past three years. Smaller labels don’t have as many flagship stores, if any, and are more dependent on department stores to fuel sales. Department stores have been sucking air of late with major chains such as Macy’s having to close hundreds of units. As a result, the attraction of big company money is very attractive to those trying to stay afloat.
Already this year, New York-based designer Bibhu Mohapatra has had to file for bankruptcy protection. Several other small brands could be looking at making similar moves if not closing altogether.
As a result, all eyes are on the front rows looking for any LVMH executive who might be checking out potential purchases. Almost everyone would like to be on LVMH’s list, but they typically make only two or three purchases a year when they’re in a buying mood. Still, several designers have their hopes set high. They’re putting in a little more effort to this week’s presentations, a little more pomp, a little more glamour, hoping to prove they are worthy of a significant investment.
Only time will tell whether the effort will pay off.
Time To Eliminate The Hoarders
Dreams are odd and unusual things that sometimes have a meaningful message and other times are nothing more than a series of bizarre images that have no noticeable relationship to real life. Sometimes, dreams are replaying events of the past, especially those one wishes they could change. Other times, dreams indulge in fantasies, things we might like to do if we didn’t have to suffer the consequences of doing them. Dreams are not trustworthy. Dreams are not predictable. They are glimpses into a part of our mind that science has yet to understand. So, when I dreamed of a movement to eliminate billionaires the hard way, I woke up trying to tell myself that it absolutely does not mean that I’m bloodthirsty.
In my dream, we (those faceless individuals with me) commandeered a submarine and torpedoed Jeff Bezos’ yacht. We (presumably the same group) then used a surface-to-air missile to take Elon Musk’s plane out of the sky at 30,000 feet (Is that even possible?). Immediately, the world started being a better place as the billions of dollars they hoarded were distributed more equitably through charities named in their wills. While their deaths were news for a moment, people quickly forgot all about them and went on about their business.
Reality would be much different, however. For all the calls to “eat the rich,” killing rich people isn’t sufficient to redistribute billions of dollars of wealth equitably. Billionaires have wills, trusts, and succession plans already in place to make sure that whoever comes behind them continues to build on the wealth they already have. Like fighting the legendary Hydra, cutting off one head only causes two more to pop up in its place. If we’re really going to put an end to billionaires, all of them, then we are going to need a much better plan, one that ensures money is getting to where it’s most needed.
First, let’s take a look at who, exactly, we’re talking about when we use the term billionaire. Forbes just updated their list last week. Consider who’s hoarding the most wealth.
The number of billionaires has increased by 141 over last year, up to 2,781 with an aggregate value of $14.2 trillion. The US has the most, by far. China comes in second and India third (up significantly from last year). It is almost impossible to wrap one’s head around how much money these people have. Let’s examine the obligatory comparisons.
Excluding war, these are the four biggest problems addressing the world at the moment and they could all be completely eradicated by 2030 and our group of billionaires would still have more money than they can possibly spend. Think about that for a moment. All the world’s most critical needs can be met if the world’s billionaires would kindly get their heads out of their collective asses.
Apparently, all those billionaires need some incentive. The go-to response is that they need to be taxed. That sounds like it should be an easy solution. However, the US government wastes approximately .51 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy. Even at the most streamlined methods, it would still double the cost of any endeavor. Other countries are worse. Then, once the government has the money, there’s the fight over who gets how much. Inevitably, the military, which doesn’t need any more fucking money than it’s already getting, would be yelling and screaming for more and there are far too many politicians willing to give it them because of the pull the military-industrial complex has. Several billion would be lost to pork projects in individual states under the guise of “creating jobs.” The inefficiencies of government cause very little actual help to reach the people who need it.
A much more efficient way would be for the billionaires to get together and handle these matters themselves. They already have the people and the structure and, unlike governments, have reason to operate in the most efficient way possible. Think of all the good Chef Jose’ Andres is doing with World Central Kitchen and he isn’t a billionaire! These problems are fixable without involving governments and the solutions would almost certainly last longer and be more effective than any government-funded project would be.
The problem is, that billionaires don’t want to work together and don’t want to let go of the money they’ll never spend. The motivation has to come from people like us. We have a couple of choices: either we stop buying their products and dump their stocks (which puts more money in our own pockets), or… we start buying rocket launches and putting them to good use. How many billionaires do you think we’d have to blow out of the sky before they got the hint?
Before you get all self-righteous about murder being wrong, stop and think about the degree to which billionaires who could help world problems and don’t, are accessories in the deaths of millions of people who die because they didn’t have enough food, protection from the elements, enough education to survive, or sufficient access to healthcare. MILLIONS of people that they could and should be helping.
There is a moral responsibility we all have to help those in need. Hoarding wealth in extreme amounts does not excuse anyone from that responsibility. Knowing that you could completely eradicate an inhuman condition and doing nothing more than throwing pennies at it (donations less than $100,000,000) makes you just as inhumane. Billionaires are the real animals in our society, and yes, that includes the ones you like.
This all brings to mind the French Revolution and the solution they found for the inhumanity of the rich: cut off their heads. The advantage of using rocket launchers is that you don’t have to get as close to the filth.
Share this:
Like this: