Earlier this week, Pierre Bergé, partner of the late Yves Saint Laurent, put the pair’s large collection of art up for auction at Christie’s. The results were stunning in today’s economic climate–the works took in $264 million. It’s a good reminder that despite the recession, there are still plenty of wealthy people willing to spend on rare things that they interpret as truly luxurious. The Matisse paintings fetched a great deal in particular, because, as the New York Times notes

Few Matisse paintings of quality come on the market, and each of the three Matisse paintings did better than its estimates.

A Picasso was pulled from the auction when bidding stopped at 21 million euros, less than the 25-30 million euro range expected. Said Isabelle de Wavrin, deputy editor of BeauxArts magazine:

Picassos are not rare. But everyone is looking for a good Matisse.

Those who can afford true luxury will continue to seek it in today’s economic climate–luxury is what makes us human. Those who sell luxury need to ensure that what they’re offering is truly unique.

The Wall Street Journal’s Wealth Blog recently posted about how true luxury — “goods that are rare, expertly made and sold to a select few” — is on the rise in spite of the recession. The wealthy seem to appreciate the exclusivity of luxury, and the economic climate has widened the gap between those who can afford to spend on true luxury and those who can’t. In a recent survey of private jet owners, 94% defined luxury as ‘for one’s self’ rather than for the masses. This is in line with my my thinking, that luxury depends on how the individual interprets it.

While I didn’t have the chance to research this for my PhD, my feeling is that Lambda personalities are the early birds and will be the early majority to start spending on luxury again. I hope to have the opportunity to research in the future whether the purchasing cycle from early birds to late comers follows from Lambda to Theta. My colleague Randy has observed that Lambdas tend to spend more than Thetas on similar offers. Theta buyers buy smaller diamonds, for example.

We are now seeing Lambda consumers interested in bespoke (and more expensive) purchases while Thetas will potentially follow later. This could be explained by the yearning of the Lambda for novelty while Theta look for social affiliation so the society has to be created first so they can join it.

It seems that the economic crisis has put many luxury shoppers into a state of shock. We can’t forget that luxury is what makes us human: it allows us to choose. People learned quickly how to overcome this shock.
Lambdas have already started but Theta will follow. Thus all the claims that the cheaper stuff is out is premature. People will go back to Burberry but it will take some time since the more expensive things will be sold first. However, if we talk about an economic recovery in 2010, luxury recovery will start earlier, maybe in 2009.

Interesting story in the New York Times this week about working at Christie’s in New York. While the auction house has reduced employee perks and will have to lay off some staff due to the downturn, many of the (mostly) women who work there have felt almost vindicated as they keep the jobs they love while their friends lose much higher paying (but less satisfying) finance jobs.

How much money does it take to be happy? It’s a question that has been on the minds of many in recent weeks and months. Those bankers and financiers who have lost their jobs will almost certainly need to curtail spending and may find that their standard of living has dropped. But people used to a ‘normal’ or even ‘poor’ standard of living, who are happy with what they have, might not see much of a difference in how they’re living.

As I’ve said before, luxury depends on how one interprets what luxury is, and knowing what makes one happy is a true luxury. The things or experiences that give a Theta or Lambda pleasure may still be expensive, but if you know what it takes to make you happy, less time and energy need to be focused on other, less important things.

Recently Martin Rappaport likened the diamond industry’s current trouble to flying a plane in freefall: a knee-jerk reaction to pull the nose up (fighting external forces) will inevitably fail, whereas pushing the nose down and eventually getting lift (going with the flow) will allow you to recover.

My problem with this analogy is that it’s already too late. What do you do when you are too close to the ground and there is no air left to lift you up? That is unfortunately the case with the diamond trade; there is no cash left and many companies are de-facto bankrupt.

Even for companies that can afford it, I don’t think slashing prices will help. It is a well known phenomenon in luxury that when prices go below a certain level, demand shrinks. Lower your prices and you will send away the few who are still willing to buy a diamond.

It seems that we are dealing with an autistic industry that is totally disconnected from the reality out there. The real market for diamonds, consumer and otherwise, is not running by the theories that many experts are putting out right now. If the industry really wants to start doing something that works, they’ll need to examine their consumer base and rethink their marketing.