one part truth, two parts mixer

More conversation

Will wrote a really good post last night about being anti-social (you can read it here). I've been thinking a lot about social media bandwagon recently, and whether sometimes we should be advising not to get on (despite shooting ourselves in the foot fees-wise). Anyway, back to Willsy (am I allowed to call you that?). It was a good post because it generated good comments, from which two points really struck me.

Firstly, Katy made a really good point about there being another way to be social, and something that is actually key for most to all companies/brands. That is listening, rather than talking. I quote: "A brand who listens to me is being a damn sight more social, because being social is about two-way exchange. Being social isn't about social media, it's about social behaviour".

You don't have to have a Twitter account (with 7 followers that all work in the marketing department), but you should be searching Twitter to see what people are saying about your brand.

Secondly, Michael Gross made the point that "I would be even more radical and say that a lot of the stuff that social media gurus suggest during those conferences can be actually dangerous for a lot of brands". This is particularly relevant in the luxury arena: "I don't want [luxury brands] to talk to me, they don't want to talk to me - that's part of the whole deal, that is what makes them extremely admirable, holy and unreachable".

The problem with choice

I came across Coca-Cola Freestyle today, a nifty machine that can make you about 100 different variants of drinks from the Coke stable. One of the reasons that I liked being vegetarian (I eat some seafood and white fish now!) was that the restrictions on what I could eat made it easier to choose what I wanted to eat in a restaurant. The Coca-Cola Freestyle scares me. It probably scares Scouse even more, because he'd have to wait 8 hours while I tried to make a decision on what to drink (actually this would take no time at all, because I don't drink fizzy drinks, but if it was a Dolly's Ice Tea Freestyle machine...).

I've been thinking for a long time that choice is a false benefit. Or I should specify, too much choice. Having a pillow menu that offers you soft and orthopaedic is different to a two-page beast, something which is probably essential for 7-star classification. I would rather trust the hotel to have the best pillow, and if I wasn't happy with it, that they would change it to whatever I want. At El Bulli, you don't get to choose what you eat and people pay hundreds of Euros for the privilege. I realise that is a very niche example, but maybe this is a proposition for the luxe wedge of the market. If you are buying expertise - can this be applied across the board? - then surely you are paying someone else to make the decision for you.

I'm not suggesting a world where we entrust everything over to brands - oh, hang on, we're already there ;) - but just that having choice is sometimes a deceptive benefit. It's already a given that people will prefer one thing served crackingly well than a host of poorly served things. Anyway, thoughts in progress.

UPDATE: Came across this vaguely related post on Noisy Decent Graphics

Luxury refugees

Finished reading Deluxe by Dana Thomas today. I really liked the idea of 'luxury refugees' which Thomas introduces in the final chapter. For Thomas luxury refugees are 'designers, perfumers and executives who grew so disillusioned with the compromises and greed of the luxury corporate world that they fled and started something small and independent that would allow them to do what drew them to the business in the first place: create the best that money could buy'. She puts Tom Ford in this bracket, so I'm not sure that I'm that enchanted with the concept, but I do think that the luxury market as we know it is in the process of eating itself, and that in the future what we consider luxurious will be more about quality and exclusivity and less about marketing.

The snobbery debate

If you didn't know already, Charles is very excited about the purchase of his first proper shoes - and beautiful shoes they are too. What interested me about Charles' purchase was the customer service he received. Despite being a little scruffy, at Crockett & Jones on Jermyn Street Charles wasn't given special (dis)treatment (read his review here). In fact he was welcomed to the 'Crockett & Jones club'.

In comparison the treatment you receive in 'luxury' fashion shops unless you're extremely well-heeled can often be outright rude (which is why I love Net-a-porter). True luxury companies seem to welcome you whatever your background, and probably are even more welcoming if you show genuine interest in the products, craftsmanship, etc. I was thinking about why this might be and came to these conclusions:

1) The people that work in the true luxury market have really amazing products that it's easy to get enthused about.

2) They've made careers out of their passion for a particular product - they are not working there for the discount.

3) That the true luxury market realises that a customer is pretty much a customer for life. Luxury is addictive. I expect once you go bespoke there's no going back. Plus, handmade in England vs. factory-made in Asia? No contest

That's as far as I got.

True luxury

While doing some research on mass affluents, I came across this good definition of luxury by MPS Puri, head of the Americas, General Hotel Management (GHM):

"A world where art and architecture are elevated to the level of religion.

A place where subtle complexity arises from an elemental simplicity. It is spiritual at the same time that it is physical.

It is balance attained. The self at peace, at one with its surroundings, both physical and metaphysical. The unity of place and space and time.

True luxury is about imperfections, bespoke, touch of hand, exclusivity. It is about an obsession and passion, without reference to cost."

Original article here.

Fashionably late?

Good article in the Observer today about the rise of luxury fashion shopping online (here). Not anything particularly new, e-commerce, but i guess its quite a big leap for the fashion brands - the most computerphobic global businesses in the world (Suzy Menkes writes about it here). Anyway, we've all been harping on for ages - online access doesn't cheapen your brand, your consumers are increasingly online and expect to see you there blah blah blah...

But really liked the point that Martha Lane-Fox, Lastminute.com founder made: 'It's also about not being seen to consume, Culturally now, people don't want to be seen spending money. You can buy understated, expensive fashion online.'

I'm formulating a secret society theory, which this fits quite nicely into.