1.) China Loves Western Brands
Wealthy Chinese Prefer to Gift Major Western Luxury Brands: “The top gifts favored by Chinese luxury consumers in 2012 according to a survey of 503 Chinese millionaires by the Hurun Report is not terribly surprising. They consist mostly of global name brands, particularly French brands . . . ‘What I want is a brand that is widely recognized. Domestic brands are still not well-known enough for my friends,’ said Guan Hongsheng, who owns a trading company in Wenzhou . . . (a well-known) luxury brand makes it easier for the recipient to understand a gift’s value.”
Out of the top ten brands that are most prized as gifts, five are French (Hermes, Chanel, Dior, Cartier and Louis Vuitton) and two are Italian (Armani and Prada), with Switzerland (Rolex), the United States (Apple) and China (Moutai) rounding out the list with one entry each.
Which appears to prove the value of a globally recognizable logo, no matter how gauche the concept seems now to fatigued Western luxury consumers.
Even Hermes, which has often been touted as “stealth luxury” for its seeming lack of reliance on the splashy logo, offers up plenty of visually branded merchandise that can then be publicly flaunted for all to see (and hopefully admire/covet, or so the story goes): H-printed scarves and ties, H-shaped belt buckles, H-emblazoned key fobs and watches, and H-buckled bracelets.
*NOTE 1: A family-run, high-reputation luxury company still has to pay the bills, and if that means slapping a logo on some of the products, so be it. Though they prefer not to talk about it in polite company.
But with China’s growing economic power, why is there only one Chinese brand in the top ten? And a liquor brand, at that. Is there a reason why China’s big spenders focus mostly on Western luxury brands instead of encouraging home-grown fashion and jewelry?
Forbes writer Blue Carreon explains: “For the Chinese consumer, especially those from the Mainland, it is still about the allure and the glamour of owning the latest Gucci or Rolex. It’s a way of showing the world that they are wealthy, that they have arrived and can spend lavishly. And buying a piece from label that is not instantly recognized by others is the opposite of that.”
Below is a video clip of the Fall 2011 Men’s collection for Shanghai Tang, a Chinese fashion brand that was acquired by Swiss luxury conglomerate Richemont in 1998:
The upside to Made in China
Though fourteen years later, even with the backing of Richemont, Shanghai Tang still has yet to crack the global mainstream markets.
*NOTE 2: When you’re offering a “lifestyle” that’s no different from already established brands like Ralph Lauren, Etro and Armani, there’s little incentive for consumers to migrate in your direction.
What could change this reliance on Western luxury brands when it comes time for wealthy Chinese consumers to purchase gift items? Perhaps a forced sharp turn from the top down, or what David Kotok describes as ‘An Alarming Development In China That Everyone Has Missed’:
“A January 3rd (2012) official news release from China by Xinhua News Service described changes that will take place in Chinese television programming . . . A recently implemented rule has effectively curbed the ‘excessive entertainment’ trend as two-thirds of the entertainment programs on China’s 34 satellite channels have been cut, according to the country’s top broadcasting watchdog … The restricted programs on the SARFT list include dating shows, talent contests and talk shows, as well as emotional stories that were deemed ‘excessive entertainment’ and of ‘low taste’ . . . (analysis suggests that) China is concerned with intrusions from Western culture and how the strength of those intrusions has reached a point where Chinese leaders must rein them back.”
For example, if a brand like Shanghai Tang is nearly indistinguishable from its Western counterparts, then what does that say about Chinese designers and the value they place on their own cultural heritage?
A brand like Etro succeeds for the way it borrows liberally from other cultures and eras and filters them through its own contemporary Italian prism. I’d rather see Shanghai Tang put Western wear influences through a Chinese sensibility wringer rather than watch yet another Armani-lite trip down the runway.
Etro — borrowing liberally for the prism
Vogue Italia published an article in March of 2011 noting the difference between the way Japanese designers broke onto the Western fashion scene in the 79′s, 80′s & 80′s and the comparative cultural reticence of Chinese designers today: “(Chinese designers) are all totally fascinated by the West and look to our designers, and not within themselves, for a new source of inspiration . . . it’s nice to see many young Chinese studying fashion around the world, attending top level specialized schools: they have the chance to explore and learn. They carry with them their history and traditions, so it would be a shame to mimic the West, already full of trends that look all the same everywhere.”
I say amen to that. It would be fascinating to see Chinese designers access their rich cultural heritage to rattle the global fashion world free from its stifling sameness in much the same way that Middle Eastern money and influence pushed the world of global perfumes and jewelry in much more interesting directions.
*NOTE 3: Because, really, who needs more designer copycats and creative ripoffs?
French street artist claims Lady Gaga stole her look, style and thunder
*From the “Say What?” department: It isn’t going to help Chinese designers if they continue to insist that obvious global archetypes are innately Chinese and so incomprehensible to Westerners — “”The Literary Girl (Wenyi Gingnian) is the Chinese ‘girl next door’ — quiet and obedient on the outside but dreamy and sensual inside. ‘It’s not a concept Westerners can understand,’ says Uma. ‘The Literary Girl only exists in Chinese culture.’”
Right. Because a girl next door figure who’s quiet, bookish and shy yet brimming with a passionate inner life is a wildly foreign concept and utterly incomprehensible to Westerners (*insert eye roll here*) — and this is from an article in Women’s Wear Daily (considered the News Bible of the fashion world), which hired the writer to report exclusively on Chinese fashion trends and developments.
Maybe WWD should consider hiring an analyst who leaves his/her house more than once every two thousand years?
*Moving along to the Indian subcontinent: Something that’s not incomprehensible to Indian consumers is the celebrity perfume trend, with Bollywood star Arjun Rampal launching (and hyping) his first signature fragrance, ‘Alive’ — “Alive will be unveiled next week and distributed by Baccarose that has earlier marketed the signature fragrances of Hollywood stars Antonio Banderas, Elizabeth Taylor and Britney Spears and also has top brands like Prada, D&G, Kenzo and Azzaro on its client list.”
A video clip below of Rampal modeling for a menswear brand in-between gigs on big budget Bollywood extravaganzas:
“More than just a model, he’s a celebrity!”
The fragrance is set to go worldwide a month after its initial launch, though NewKerala.com mentions a “poor success ratio of Bollywood’s denizens in the field of fragrance”.
Shahrukh Khan Tiger Eyes, anyone?
Rampal was signed in 2011 as a spokesmodel for Gillette India, which could potentially give him a needed frontrunner boost in the celebrity perfume market, at least in his own home country.
*Speaking of India: “According to a new study, the number of billionaires in India dropped by more than 30% in 2011. Press reports blamed the drop on the country’s stock market, which fell by 40% last year . . . Virtually all of the top 10 richest Indians saw their fortunes shrink last year. The combined wealth of the top 10 dropped by nearly half, to $19.15 billion from $34.8 billion.”
The question being, will this kind of wealth volatility spread to the other emerging economies, like China, Russia and Brazil, and if so, what kind of effect will that have on luxury brands hoping to expand their consumer base beyond the tapped-out Western markets?
2.) Retailers Embrace the Guy Aisle
Men’s grooming product sales have seen such a massive increase over the past several years that large chain stores like Wal-Mart, Target and Walgreens are now reorganizing their layouts to create “guy aisles” where male shoppers can comfortably and quickly find the products they’re looking for without rooting among shelves of female toiletries:
“The reason for all the new focus on male shoppers has been attributed to the rising number of men in the U.S. taking responsibility for the weekly grocery shop. A report commissioned by ESPN found that 31% of the primary household grocery shoppers were men in 2011, up from 14% in 1985.”
The article mentions that not only are stores experimenting with “guy aisles”, but that they’re also reorganizing product placement to cater to the more impulsive male shopper; for example, stationing a display of cream sauce next to the chicken, which resulted in an immediate 20% sales spike of the featured sauce.
Could this explain why online shopping continues to increase its share of retail sales in general? During the 2011 holiday season, overall retail sales for December increased only marginally from 2010, yet online and mobile purchases exploded, with department store online sales up 18% over December 2010 and the UK reporting a 186% increase in purchases from mobile devices.
So if men are the larger share of online shoppers, and are also now responsible for an increasing share of the in-store shopping duties, it probably wouldn’t hurt for some stores to organize their aisles to better reflect the “Man on a Mission” online shopping experience.
*Translated: Impulse friendly shopping, with items organized by grouping (ice cream and toppings in the same aisle) rather than by category (ice cream in dairy aisle, butterscotch sauce in condiments).
I don’t know about you, but I’d love a store layout that had all the hotdog and hamburger related products grouped in one shopper-friendly, grab and dash location: meat, buns, condiments, pickles, potato chips, cans of baked beans, paper napkins, bags of charcoal for the grill, matches.
Welcome to our new 21st century supermarket.
*Other retail shuffling: Target ditches its present designer-collaboration model and will start offering stand-alone shops within their stores. Stand-alone, but still temporary — kind of like full-on pop-up shops, but which will feature far more than simply clothing and accessories: “This new partnership model will allow Target to broaden their collaborations to new product categories beyond fashion (like food, cosmetics, pet products, and goodness knows what else). It’ll also allow them to offer more stuff, period . . . The stores will stay at Target for six weeks before they’re replaced by new ones.”
I think the surprising success of the Target+Missoni collaboration, complete with bicycles and household furnishings, made someone at the top do some serious rethinking.
Bloomberg Businessweek states that Target’s exec team saw that consumers were increasingly willing to go off the beaten path to find specialty and artisanal items, and they wanted in on that: “Target’s five new partners include Boston-based Polka Dog Bakery, which sells a five-pound can of treats made with peanut butter and Parmesan cheese for $66, Privet House, a Greenwich, Connecticut home goods store, and The Candy Store in San Francisco, which markets sweets like fine wine.”
Though they may be missing the point that most specialty and artisanal items are desirable to consumers precisely *because* they’re not available at chain stores like Target. But hey, I’m all for low-cost chains being willing to offer their customers a better class of merchandise. You can only shovel so much cheap-chic into the trash before you begin to question the viability of the model.
*Retail news to make any self-respecting adult weep: Paris Hilton Fragrances Have Made $1.3 Billion Since 2005
I just . . . I have no response for that.
UPDATE: Wait! I almost forgot the even more mind-boggling news!
Axe now makes perfume for women: “The new scent, Anarchy, is being marketed in different versions for men and women . . . said David Kolbusz, a creative director at Bartle Bogle Hegarty in London, ‘Before, an Axe commercial was always about a guy spraying himself and a girl being attracted, and Axe giving him an edge in the mating game, whereas now women also have something to spray on themselves, and consequently there’s more of an equilibrium between the sexes.’”
The Axe may be different, but the advertising is still the same
Be afraid.
Interesting analyst comment from the article, though, about how the Axe brand could be making a mistake by pitching a product for women: ““When you start talking to someone who’s not your core audience, you lose credibility with your core audience,” said David Vinjamuri, author of “Accidental Branding” and an adjunct professor of marketing at New York University. “The moment you start talking to girls, you lose credibility with teenage boys.”
But young women reliably purchase more fragrance products than young men do, so I can see how Unilever would be tempted to give it a shot anyway.
