Janus Thinking

Isaac’s Mostovicz’s philosopy of luxury challenges us to examine the ‘Why?’ of luxury…rather than just the ‘What’, or the ‘How’….

Don’t ask ‘What’s luxury?’.
Ask Why do we seek luxury?

Isaac is very clear that luxury is a good, not an evil thing. Thinking about his philosophy of luxury… it seems clear that taking a ‘What-based’ view of luxury is causing us to make expensive decisions which will be deeply unsatisying….

What we need is more ‘Why-based Luxury’, which understands users real luxury needs and creates individualised luxury experiences to address them…

Here’s one way to bring this luxury philosophy to life…

Try this little thought experiment, removing the scaffolding from a ‘What-based’ worldview…

1. Imagine yourself alone on a desert island…now ask yourself: what is luxury?

Here are some thoughts to get you started:

a) By removing the social dimension of luxury you’ve already moved towards a more personal definition…rather than a piece of social exhibitionism

b) By removing people, you’ve also removed any quality dimension. You’ve assumed that nothing has been crafted as there is no-one else to craft it. When there is no craftsmanship, All that remains is the beauty constructed by nature.

c) Finally, by removing people you’ve also removed the social conditioning/upbringing that creates an appreciation of such beauty – albeit you have to assume that you are born or at least placed on the island with no prior memory.

What is luxury now?

2. Now assume that the island contains an infinite self-replenishing supply of everything you’ll ever need.

Here’s some food for thought:

a) In doing this, you’ve now removed the scarcity dimension of luxury - so nothing can be luxurious by virtue of exclusivity or rarity or unusualness.

b) And you’ve also removed the waste/gratuity dimension of luxury – by assuming that all resources are self-replenishing.

What is left of luxury now?

3) Now, finally, imagine you will live forever on your abundant self-replenishing island.

a) Eeek! now we’ve removed the time-incorporation element of luxury that considers that things that have taken a long time to make are luxurious –

b) We have also removed the aspects of luxury which are a defence or a reaction against death - a vivid expression of our aliveness…

With all the ‘What’s’ eliminated, all we are left with is the desire - the ‘Why?’…

SO ASK YOURSELF - WHY DO YOU REALLY NEED LUXURY? AND WHEN YOU CURRENTLY USE LUXURY, ARE YOU USING IT WELL?

How much money, time and anxiety have you wasted on ‘What-based luxury’…

With regard to philosophy generally, we have a tendency to mix the “what” with the “why” and “how” questions. For example, a Rabbinical college that I chair is known to be unique in the way it forms its students. Nevertheless, no one has ever tried to identify where this uniqueness comes from. While we know that the students interact and learn at a very high intellectual level, not all of them are geniuses; overall they reflect a certain average intelligence of all Rabbinical colleges.

As it is clear that something is done differently at this Rabbinical college, I asked the dean to try to define what this uniqueness is. This is a clear “what” question but the answers I got had a “how” characteristic. The dean told me many stories and brought many examples of “how things are done over here” but all I wanted to know was what happens over there and eventually, why things happen the way they happen. I did not get the answer.

On the other hand, people will readily answer “what,” in their opinion, luxury is. However they have difficulty in expressing why some product or service or behaviour is a luxurious one or where this luxury is embedded. The recent insert in the blog shows that the six facets identified by Dubois and his colleagues are valid; hence, we know what constructs luxury. These are dimensions such as rarity, high quality and expensiveness. However, the question remains how we define these dimensions. We know that luxury is subjective as for different people different products or services are luxury, but is there one common denominator that is similar to all?

People also are quick to say that luxury is something that we don’t need. This is not a very good definition as it does not explain why we need what we do not need. The need for luxury goes into our deepest layers of personality and we do not wish to associate those important needs with our day-to-day needs. Thus, luxury is important for us. The question remains: why is it so?

Relying on luxury to satisfy our needs is shrouded with social pressure. However, let’s experiment. If we are to be put on an isolated island with no restaurants to indulge in and no shopping arcades for spending, how then is luxury going to be expressed? Is the need for luxury going to evaporate or is it going to take a different dimension?

Luxury serves a good purpose. It implies choice and free will, something that is unique to mankind. This freewill is what differs man from beast. Thus, using luxury properly and consciously would improve us as human beings. However, are we really consciously aware of the positive qualities that luxury has and do we use luxury for the right purpose?

I recently came across an article about marketing by Louis Cheskin and L. B. Ward, originally published in the Harvard Business Review in 1948. In discussing the difficulties of marketing nearly 60 years ago, it’s interesting to see how there’s still a lot to learn about customer preferences. Participants in their study made unexpected choices: when asked to pick “the best” or “most beautiful,” their answers were different from what they said they would choose for themselves. Could the same be said for diamonds?

I would ask the following questions:

1. When you are offered a selection of diamonds, which one is the best?
2. When you are offered to select a diamond for use, which diamond will you select?
3. Will you select the same diamond in each case?

I doubt it. Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder, with respect to different situations and different purposes.

Connoisseurship is not a closed product area. Increasingly, everyday items consumed by ordinary individuals are making their way into the realms of mass-market connoisseurship. Luxury has opened its gates, paving the way for items such as fine cheeses, chocolate and coffee to enter.

Taking the example of Starbucks, its stellar performance in the coffee industry is set to expand, and is based on the accessibility of the positive lifestyle that is associated with its brand. Content Research forecasts predict that Starbucks may overtake McDonalds as the world’s largest fast-food brand. The company has turned a staple beverage into an indulgence associated with connoisseurship. Or has it?

From the point of view of indie coffee houses, vast companies such as Starbucks have replaced skillful barristas with the cold rattle of the automatic machine, drenching its espressos in a milk and syrup mix, thereby driving smaller shops out of business.

But simultaneously and somewhat paradoxically, Starbucks is promoting cafe culture and generating a new generation of coffee drinkers. Tully’s, a small chain admits to locating new stores within the vicinity of existing Starbucks locations. People are given a taste of what they like, the gourmet coffee experience, after which they can venture beyond the land of the big green giant.

The former connection between connoisseurship and class distinction is to an extent, still existent. But the trend analyses indicate a sharp turn-around in the form of connoisseurship: the new symbol of high status in a market governed by luxury that is available to the masses is blatant non-consumption, by which the super-rich might be identified.

As David Brooks describes in his book Bobos in Paradise, the rich wear scruffy clothes and drive run-down cars. Celebrities sport clothing lines such as Von Dutch, the idea being that only the very rich or very pretty are able to pull-off trucker–style caps and tops, and still manage to look good.

So the new message seems to be that the rich have more money than they know how to spend: welcome to paradoxical luxury in the modern world.

The best book about the diamond industry can now be found online.

As it suggests, buying diamonds for oneself has always been seen as unusual, and for some time I have been playing with the following analogy:

People spend on luxury (and diamonds) in the same way they gamble or frequent a bar. I am not absolutely sure, I can bet that the major difference in behaviour between serial addictive gamblers and gamblers who gamble for fun is that addictive gambling is a solitary behaviour; the gambler does not interact with the social surrounding and he is even hostile to people around him.

On the other hand, mentally healthy gamblers need people around them as they want to share their success or presentation of power — the fact that they can burn excess money — with the people around them.

Spending on diamonds is very important and the one who spends wants to select the social environment carefully. That’s why people spend on their official wives or wives-to-be but not on women with whom they have a short term liaison.

Self purchase, therefore, presents a challenge for the buyer: how to define the social environment that will appreciate this spending. We might see women who buy for themselves, sometimes with their husbands’ money, but they can be appreciated for their spending by the right person. However, single women or women who feel that they are not appreciated fully might not spend on diamonds.

If we can persuade women that diamonds will always be appreciated, we might see an increase in self purchase.

A recent article on Diamond Vues points to the story of Louis Glick, which wanted to revitalise its range of yellow diamonds.

Acknowledging that customers have been “brainwashed” about the superiority of white diamonds, JFCD rejected the sentimental stereotypes of traditional jewelry marketing, instead identifying a new, fashion-oriented target market for the company’s stones, and naming them Blonde Diamonds®. The agency’s launch ad campaign featured glamorous dark-haired women and headlines such as “Meet a Natural Blonde” and “New Blonde in Town.”

The glamorous ad campaign certainly looks slick, and the tongue-in-cheek style complements the market to a certain extent — but isn’t there a danger that the negative connotations of the word ‘blonde’ might cause trouble?

‘Blonde’ has connotations of luxury, sophistication and passion that resonate with these women.

Is this really true? However:

The humor of the headlines caught their attention; the remarkable beauty of the jewelry brought them into the stores.

Getting the balance might have been hard, but it seems to have worked. Almost too well, it would seem:

We love the idea that our brand name is becoming the generic for yellow diamonds.

If the customer associates blonde diamonds with Blonde Diamonds®, then all is well; if, on the other hand, they merely assume that Blonde Diamonds® are just like any other blonde diamond, then Louis Glick’s efforts to promote coloured stones may have benefited its competitors as much as they had benefited themselves — the challenge for Louis Glick will be to make sure that their hard work pays off.

Martin Löb, master of philosophy and mathematics has died.

Löb is known for his famous ‘green cheese’ paradox.

In mathematical logic terms, the sentence “if this sentence is true then the moon is made of green cheese” is true, implying the moon is indeed made of green cheese…

So now you know.

As this Brand Channel white paper points out, celebrity endorsement of luxury products is nothing new. Nevertheless, it sets out succinctly 7 reasons why celebrity endorsement is important:

1. Celebrity endorsement is a great brand awareness creation tool for new luxury brands.
2. Endorsement by celebrities helps to position and re-position existing brands.
3. Celebrities contribute to sustaining a brand’s aura.
4. Celebrities are used to revive and revitalize staid brands.
5. Celebrities generate extensive PR leverage and opportunities for brands.
6. Celebrities are used to create global brand awareness.
7. Celebrities promote a brand’s products and appeal.

It also points out the dangers of relying on celebrity endorsement—the fallout from Tom Cruise’s dealings with scientology is a good example of the potential for damage which can occur when the media personality in question adopts unconventional behaviour.

However, when used wisely, and when affordable and achievable, paying for celebrity endorsement can bring credence and value to luxury brands. What happens, though, when it’s uninvited, and potentially damaging?

The adoption of upmarket champagne brands by well known rap artists has lead to a certain amount of mud-slinging. Jay-Z has led a boycott against Roederer’s Cristal in response to Frederic Rouzaud’s suggestion that the association between rap and his firm’s products might not be entirely welcome.

But, of course, the explosion of Burberry caps and scarves among the ‘chav’ population of the UK didn’t do their brand any good either. It’s clear that it doesn’t necessarily take an unwelcome celebrity endorsement to damage a brand, but the same fundamental principle applies - the brand had been ‘hijacked’ by a group who arguably weren’t the original target audience.

As a buyer of luxury goods, then, the behaviour and characteristics of other buyers is critical to my purchasing decisions - as a brand manager, though, keeping my products out of undesirable hands could be an insurmountable challenge.

From a BBC News article on the subject:

Graham Hales, of branding experts Interbrand, says the short answer is that brands can do nothing. “You can have an exclusivity around your brand but these are people who can afford it and are voting for it. You have to go try and find a way to make it a good thing.”

Laurie Taylor’s ‘Thinking Allowed’ is a constant source of stimulus.

Today Professor Taylor will be talking to three social scientists, each of whom in their different ways, want to argue that the emphasis on change—not just by politicians and management consultants but also by social scientists themselves—obscures the importance of continuity.

Simply delicious. Laurie’s point is that our commitment to the myth of change actually prevents change…wedded as we are to the an equal and opposite, but suppressed commitment to continuity.

Understanding the benefits of continuity, and the downsides of change is critical to moving change…

Change requires us to affect alterations in the underlying ways that we create and then re-assimilate meaning. In the language of Zen we must change deep structure, as well as surface form.

Tony Manning, former head of the Institute of Directors in South Africa, points out the benefits of identifying and undestanding paradoxes as a means of creating competitive advantage.

He advises “Begin by listing the paradoxes you face right now. Then rank them according to the impact they have on your business. Finally, involve your team in thinking about how to embrace them, to “do this and that” at the same time.

For example:

• Making profits … but doing many things that eat into your ability to do it
• Driving value up … and costs down
• Being tough … and compassionate
• Being bold … and being careful
• Taking risks … and managing risks
• Continuity … and change
• Preserving what worked yesterday … and inventing what you need to do tomorrow
• Controlling costs … and investing boldly
• Innovation … and improvement
• Keeping a firm grip on things … and letting go
• Centralization … and decentralization
• Having a strong point of view … and allowing others to express their views

This can have a profound impact on your performance. For if you manage to get your arms around tricky paradoxes while your competitors are befuddled by them, you obviously gain the edge.

We could easily debate how many of these are genuine paradoxes, and how many merely require some semantic shuffling, but Tony is right about the power of paradox…

Working them through demands an effective analytical and transformation process. No paradox can be resolved in isolation from personal change.

The critical element is not to create false dichotomies, but to surface the genuine paradoxes that are stultifying progress, and focus on the counter-productive ‘coping’ behaviours which result from them.

The question is not about what you can do differently, but about how you can BE different…a constant learning cycle…

As the Western World becomes ever more socially aware, if often inactive, the desire to ‘do good’ and help others is increasingly prominent in the minds of the middle and upper classes. But how do they square these social ideals with their thirst for personal differentiation and public display?

With media coverage of illness and deprivation forever shining into the living rooms of the moneyed classes, (from the flat, wide, HD screens that decorate their walls), a new class of consumption has emerged—and a new mindset: Boboism.

This combination of the Bourgeois and Bohemian ideologies is explored by David Brooks in his book, Bobos in Paradise; (Imagine the 60s meets the 80s, in search of a middle way). David claims that creativity and rebelliousness are as integral to economic success as natural resources and finance capital – you can be (or at least you can FEEL) both socially engaged and overtly successful.

The ‘New’ luxury that Bobos are seeking is increasing defined by the experience not the product, if the experience provokes guilt, it becomes negative. Embedded in the psychology of the consumer is a need to ‘do good’, which in turn makes them ‘feel good’. If the luxury market is about experience and feeling, then this becomes a key issue for its success.

An example from Danziger’s ‘Let Them Eat Cake’ - an American nonprofit organization ‘Ten Thousand Villages’ has marketed products collected from around the developing world, paying the artists or creators a fair wage, and selling back in America at a more elevated price than its competitors. It sells by advertising its fair trading practices – therefore setting them apart from cheaper, ‘immoral’ rivals.

The same principles can be seen in The Body Shop and Starbucks – humanitarian, environmental and fair-trade practices are fundamental standards; their success can be seen just by walking down any high street.

It is not only the price tag that makes these products worthy of the luxury market, it is the inescapable presence of a wonderful consumer experience – in the case of Ten Thousand Villages—you leave with a uniquely hand-crafted aboriginal mask (whether to your taste or not), and the knowledge that you, single-handedly, have just made a difference to the life of someone less fortunate – this makes you feel good, makes you look good, and ultimately provides you with a luxury consumer experience.

However, if these principles were entirely straight-forward, and the luxury consumer psychology that simplistic, Oxfam would be the first port of call for visiting celebrities, not Harrods!

Perhaps the occasional ‘do-good’ purchase offsets our indulgence elsewhere…
Not so much gesture politics, as gesture ethics

The growth of masstige products is a well attested phenomenon—bringing luxury goods within reach of the hoi poloi. Porsche boxter, mercedes c class, jaguar x-type… the list is endless.

Edwin Collyer makes a really good summary of the phenomenon, over at brandchannel quoting a variety of experts….

Robin Koval says:
bq. There always has to be some sense of scarcity and being out of reach. Yes, you can buy a Mercedes for $30,000 or so, but the really cool one that you dream about is there next to it on the floor for $100,000…. It depends how well you can tier your offerings and reserve a special place for the true luxury consumer.

This is a typical problem with all masstige conversations. They tend to focus obsessively on the price of an item at the lever of luxuriousness, when price is just one facet of their exclusivity (you can add scarcity, sparse distribution, sourcing difficulty to this list). Exclusivity itself is just a tiny facet of luxury, and is primarily appealing to challenge-seekers, who find self-esteem in achieving their goals.

This sort of price-centred analysis fails on two levels. At a basic level it fails to acknowledge the alternative unity-seeking motivation of luxury, but also, at a much deeper level, it fails to recognise that ALL luxury is personal and relative. The masstige conversation falls headlong into the trap of seller-centric thinking, believing that producers can be manufactured.

Koval does clarify his point later in the article, when he says:
“Luxury is now more about emotion than price points. I think it will be more about mindset than wallet size or class. There will always be people for whom certain indulgences provide great meaning—whether for their badge value or intrinsic reward. And there will always be the millionaire bargain hunter as well. It’s all a matter of where your own definition of pleasure comes from.”

As Collyer says, Luxury can be a cream cake instead of a sponge.

Luxury can be a single chocolate with your evening coffee…

But the same chocolate can be emergency rations in the jungle…

The critical point is the brand owner does not determine luxury, the luxury is determined through the personal moments of intention, choice and consumption and remembrance…

Luxury starts well before the purchase, and ends only when memory fails.

The paradox here is that luxury is both utterly universal and entirely individual.