Does the recession we’re entering (or have been in for a long time now, depending upon whom you ask) spell the end of luxury spending? Of course not, but it has forced both luxury good makers and retailers to change their strategies, often for the worse.

Some luxury retailers, like Bergdorf Goodman, are reaching out, cold calling potential customers to personally invite them to the store. And some luxury good makers are reducing the quality of their products rather than raising their prices. Bulgari has stopped polishing the underside of a $10,000 watch and is using less expensive packaging.

I don’t think this is a sensible course of action. In my opinion, it’s more harmful to a brand to lower its quality than to raise its prices. There will always be price insensitive customers, it just becomes a little more difficult to find them during a recession. The marketing has to be better. Tarnishing the brand will make it more difficult for the brand to recover when business returns to “normal.”

TIME Style & Design has just come out with an in-depth report on affluent consumer tastes from around the world. The print edition (unfortunately not available online) delves into the appetites of European shoppers—the Spaniards, Italians, French, British, and Germans—who now are considered some of the wealthiest consumers in the world thanks to a strong euro.

Did you know that Italians own more brands than any of their counterparts and outspend them on watches and jewellery? Or that Spain has the highest percentage of “uber lux” consumers, those with high incomes and luxury-market activity?

It is fascinating to juxtapose the tastes and psychologies of EU neighbours, but TIME adds some more food for thought in its online exploration of luxury in the top emerging economies of China, India, and Russia. What does luxury mean to these three countries who for the first time in decades are finding the economic freedom to afford such indulgences?

For China, who accounts for 12% of global luxury sales, luxury is in demand. Designer watches (66% of affluent consumers bought a watch of an average $2,253 in the last 6 months) are high status symbols, as well as skin-care products. The Chinese consumer will spend up to $280 on a skin-care product, which is almost 3 times as popular as make-up.

In India, the luxury market could grow as much as 25% in the next 3 years. Menswear brands top the most well-known luxury list, which is no surprise as many women still wear saris. Interestingly, local brands, such as Park Avenue, Allen Solly, and Reid & Taylor, also rank high, but considering previous high import taxes, it’s no surprise foreign brands aren’t more prominent yet.

And for Russians, with a heightened sense of brand awareness, flaunting one’s economic status is what luxury is all about. While Russians crave luxury fragrances, it’s jewellery that really whets the appetite: Bulgari, Cartier and Tiffany & Co. top the list of most widely owned brands.

It appears as if there are ripe markets to break into and hungry consumers to feed—something luxury retails are well-ready to capitalize on.

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

Today I came across an interesting commentary item from Unbound Edition, a publication by marketing consulting firm Patrick Davis Partners. Last month Bulgari announced that they are overhauling their business starting with their flagship New York boutique. The reason? They’re being left behind as Gucci, Louis Vuitton and other luxury companies actively court a broader (i.e. less wealthy) range of buyers. Bulgari’s plan is to focus less on the fine art gems they’re known for and more on relatively affordable accessories such as watches and handbags.

We’ve discussed the dilemma of keeping the brand exclusive while also bringing in new buyers on Janus Thinking before. Patrick Davis frames it in an interesting way in the article:

Once one can afford anything – a jet, a six-figure watch, the walled spread on Anguilla – luxury transforms into something shaped by knowledge and access, not acquisitive binge. … Buying luxury is no longer about money; the currency of knowledge is more powerful. In other words, the driver of luxury markets is not price, ubiquity, inventory availability or distribution, yet that all seems to be part of Bulgari’s move.

Knowledge worth paying for is certainly a phenomenon that’s picking up steam—greater interest in things from online review sites to concierge services reveals this to be the case. Would Bulgari be smarter to keep their exclusivity and do a better job of getting the knowledge out rather than going down-market with accessories? We’ll find out after their revamp.

In our semiotic society, luxury brands deliver the ultimate sense of individuality and personal identity as emulated in products and services we choose.

Historically the luxury category survived by providing products which could not be had by everyone. These were distinguished by their scarcity, rarity, design excellence, classicism and cost. Luxury was the province of the rich, or a unique occasion for those who normally could not afford it. For years luxury was also the territory of those who could distinguish it. In times of recession, luxury brands pursued textbook strategies to survive: narrowing licensing, consolidating retail and messaging, reissuing heritage designs, limiting production, brand extensions.

Mass communications, marketing, media and the internet transformed the category. The earliest phenomenon was the segmentation of luxury into distinct levels spanning high-end house brands to premium luxury, with multiple gradations in between. Hijacked brands such as Hummer also entered the luxury marketplace, adopted by constituencies never imagined or solicited by their creators. More recently the category realized that consumers wanted affordable luxury, opening the market to new products like premium chocolates and coffee, that is, commodities with luxury attributes, but at the accessible price point.

Internet-based supply chain solutions enabled mass customization later in the supply side process – apparel and footwear retailers like Lands End, Converse and Brooks Brothers now offer affordable product tailored to customers unique specifications of measure and material, formerly the exclusive domain of luxury. With luxury so widely available to the mass market, demand has increased for low-tier luxury, evidenced by the $500 billion of counterfeit luxury goods trafficked yearly. The high end now demands what IHT Style Editor Suzy Menkes recently characterized as ‘extreme luxury’, aspirational products at the tipping point of price, production and quality.

A good deal of inventiveness has been observed in the creation of brand extensions in the category, which currently is experiencing a thriving market. A fine example is Bulgari, who have applied their mark to fragrance and eyewear (the first classic brand extensions of couture), a resort, a car, and a commissioned romance novel featuring a string of Bulgari pearls as the main character.

The luxury category exhibits hybrid behavior, in that their innate constraints – the expression of heritage values- cannot be easily surrendered without devaluing or transforming brand perception. Witness Gucci and Saint Laurent, once languishing, now revived, but not at the expense of their heritage. Luxury is Darwinian. The original attributes must remain, but in peaceful coexistence with all-important brand innovation.

Stanley Moss is the founder of Diganzi, the international brand consultancy. You may also be interested in reading Jack Yan’s thoughts about luxury.