Janus Thinking

A study to be published next month by scientists at the Netherlands’ Erasmus University will argue that being happy can help you live a longer life.  It concludes that, while being happy does not cure ills, it does correlate to people not getting sick in the first place.  It can also add years to your life because happy people are more likely to look after themselves, both physically and mentally.

So should happiness take its place as the consummate luxury pursuit?  And, if so, how can it be pursued?

Happiness as a concept is being studied from more and more perspectives.  Developments in neuroscience are allowing scientists to measure and map our behavioural reactions to an increasing number of stimuli.  Is the ultimate luxury product then the one that registers the best emotional response to you personally or perhaps the highest average positive emotional response amongst a given group?

Lord Richard Layard of the London School of Economics has also developed an economic model which is often referred to as “happiness economics”.  He argues that current tax regimes and public policy do not address (or attempt to disincentivise) the negative impacts of competiive consumption rom our lives (i.e. the consumption which does not make us any happier, or makes us even sadder).  Nor does it account for the fact that our tastes evolve over time so that we might need extra money to achieve the same level of happiness as someone with different tastes.

Various studies have also determined that our level of happiness does not substantially increase after an individual’s purchasing power reaches around US$10,000.  Instead, cultivating closer ties to one’s family, friends, or to common interest groups can help, or being able to freely express oneself (in speech and through voting, for example) and to enjoy a reliable and predictable system of justice can make one feel happier. (And even more interestingly, these might differ according to how one pursues his life purpose, as an earlier Theta vs. Lambda post suggests.)

The jury is still out on whether happiness itself will become the metric du jour for what constitutes a luxurious life.  For now, its material proxies still seem to be hotly pursued.

As stories continue about how much the wealthy are suffering in this economic downturn, it’s interesting to note what people are still spending on. This article from the Wall Street Journal reports that many luxury firms have so far been resilient in more difficult economic times, finding consumers at the high and low end of the luxury market who are still willing to spend. The article includes examples from three individuals:

Jordan Shapiro, a 25-year-old Wall Street recruiter, says he isn’t sure what his income will be this year, so he put his plans for an African-safari honeymoon on hold. But he splurged a few weeks ago on a $3,000 Omega watch, which he considers an investment. “I hope it’s going to retain or gain value,” he says.

Stephanie Wickouski, a 55-year-old New York attorney, walked out of an Hermès store this week with a “heart-stoppingly expensive” $950 cashmere shawl. Despite the price, she says the shawl is a good value for the money, because it has “range and permanence,” meaning it can be worn over a dress, paired with a skirt or even worn on an airplane when it gets cold.

Margaret Schwartz, a 24-year-old assistant ad-sales representative in New York, shops for clothes at cheap-chic chain H&M. Yet she recently bought a $300 pair of Bulgari sunglasses — one of the Italian jewelry label’s least-expensive items — because she figured she could afford an “investment piece.” “Aviators are always in style,” she said, strolling past Tiffany’s Wall Street store.

This small amount of information about each individual is enough to categorize them as Lambda or Theta. I would consider Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Schwartz to be Thetas. In their mid-twenties, they consider their luxury purchases as investments. I would guess that they are also using their purchases as a way to stand out among their peers (Mr. Shapiro can be seen in his watch on Wall Street, and Ms. Schwartz’s sunglasses are “always in style.”). This desire to fit in is a typical Theta characteristic.

Ms. Wickouski, on the other hand, seems to be more of a Lambda. She recognizes how expensive her new Hermès shawl is, but the pleasure and utility she derives from it makes it completely worth it to her. She interprets “range and permanence” as something highly desired; the shawl makes her unique.

An awareness of what Thetas and Lambdas are looking for, and of what products represent to them, can help marketers reach these individuals more directly.

Photo by Doozle

The way in which consumers interpret companies’ marketing efforts affects how successful their marketing has been.

This might seem like an obvious point to make, but it is a particularly useful point to remember in the marketing of luxury products.

To understand better these different pathways to interpretation, I have developed a simple characterisation consisting of two personality types.

I call them Theta and Lambda. These two personality types differ based on what individuals perceive to be
their life goals or purposes.  These differences are central to how they then interpret the products they buy.

The typical Theta (Θ) personality seeks affiliation and control as an ultimate life purpose.  Because of this, they loom to fit in or contextualise themselves within a desired group and use socially-derived understandings of product characteristics as a basis for their consumption.

Lambdas (Λ), on the other hand, seek achievement and uniqueness as an ultimate end goal.  As a result, they are more likely to interpret products based on their individual responses to the product, how it helps/prevents them to stand out, and how the product benchmarks against their regular consumptive patterns.

What this means is that marketing strategies – and particularly those of luxury brand owners – can apply different positioning to similar products in order to fulfill people¹s different expectations for how the product is meant to help them represent themselves and reflect their life goals.

Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace haven’t traditionally been associated with luxury brands–largely because they’re mainly used by young people who aren’t able to afford expensive luxury goods. However, two complementary factors–increasing numbers of users with discretionary income on the sites and an increasing desire to ‘hook’ young people early on a brand–are changing some luxury brands’ online strategies. Case in point: Cartier. The company recently created a page on MySpace for its new ‘Love by Cartier’ collection. The page, more tastefully done than most user MySpace pages, shows audio, video and photos related to ‘Love by Cartier.’ As of this posting, the campaign has 3929 friends, including celebrities like Lou Reed and Sting.

I wonder about the value of these sorts of pages to the brand. From the IHT:

Ben Hourahine, futures editor at the London branch of the ad agency Leo Burnett, said the use of social networks was appropriate at a time when consumer attitudes about luxury were changing. In a recent survey of U.S. consumers by the agency, only 7 percent said they thought “luxury” meant being part of an exclusive club.

“Luxury brands in the past had this unattainable aspect to them,” he said. “Now they realize they need to connect and communicate with people.”

I’m skeptical because I’m not so sure the MySpace audience matches up well with the Cartier’s target audience. Given the quality of some of the interactions on the page (THX 4 THE FRIENDSHIP!! ALL THE BEST! GREETZ FROM HAMBURG, RALF), I wonder if the positive association these users gain with the brand is worth the tarnishing they’re giving the brand by being so, well, MySpace.

John Donne once said that no man is an island, but newly released findings from U.S.-based Coldwell Banker suggest that man still wants to buy himself a piece of one as the ultimate luxury home site.

More than 300 rich households in the U.S. were interviewed for the poll.  To be classified as such, they must own a home worth in excess of $1 million dollars and have an equal amount of liquid assets to invest.

27% responded that their dream home would be located on an island while another 22% preferred a more rustic setting and only 18% selected a suburban or foreign location.

Interesting that many of these choices seem to reflect a desire to escape — or at least get away — rather than become more connected.