Toyota and ultra-luxury carmaker Aston Martin recently announced a somewhat surprising alliance, as they released plans to build the world’s first luxury city car, positioned as a “luxury commuter concept”. The car is likely to be the smallest four-seater in the world. It will be based on Toyota’s iQ model, while featuring traditional Aston styling cues. It is set to be built in Japan, but get its finishing touches at Aston Martin’s plant in Warwickshire, UK.

Dr. Ulrich Bez, chief executive at Aston Martin, was quoted in the Financial Times saying “This concept — akin to an exclusive tender to a luxury yacht — will allow us to apply Aston Martin design language, craftsmanship and brand values to a completely new segment of the market”.

In today’s environmental pressures and global economic downturn this car looks like a good option for affluent consumers living in CBD areas, who wants a dynamic car that fits into tiny parking spots and is suited for traffic jams.

The question is, however, if James Bond, who famously used to drive Aston Martin cars in his earlier films, would find this commuter car to have quite the same appeal as the sporty Aston Martin supercars he is used to.

Recently the Financial Times reported on Future Contemporaries, a new group founded by London’s Serpentine Gallery for the purpose of making younger people (under the age of 39) enthusiastic about art (and perhaps interested in becoming benefactors of the Serpentine). For £1000 annually, the Serpentine offers members a contemporary art education programme that it hopes will encourage a lifelong appreciation of art. The group has been to private showings in artists’ studios and has had personal tours by artists in private gallery settings. A membership cap of about 100 helps to keep to keep the group exclusive and also of a manageable size for intimate events.

It’s a great idea for a gallery with art worth appreciating to encourage connoisseurship. Oftentimes people need a little guidance as they begin down the road to connoisseurship–and the experts at a gallery are just the people to provide it.

What purpose do charms in jewelry serve? Should they be a staple of a woman’s daily living or are they chintzy, cheap, and better left for teenagers and the lower end of the luxury market?

The Financial Times’ most recent Watches and Jewellery section has a very interesting article about these trinkets, noting their recent rise in popularity (they’ve been Cartier’s best selling jewelry range for the past 12 months) and how charms can mean more to buyers (and those who receive them as gifts) than regular jewelry pieces. Designer Theo Fennell says:

I have always believed that working jewellery [that does something, such as a locket, opening ring, or scent bottle for the neck] holds a great fascination for people, a sense of mystery or private magic. … These pieces are charms in in the proper sense of the word–talismanic and magical.

They can also be ‘very practical,’ according to Victoire de Castellaine, creative director of Dior Fine Jewellery. He believes charms are good for ‘men who don’t want to find a new idea every Christmas.’

This statement sounds a bit disingenuous coming after Fennell’s quote; de Castellaine seems to imply that charms are perfect lazy men trying to find something suitable for their wives, rather than finding something truly meaningful. I believe that it doesn’t matter what the piece is, if it’s a gift it needs to be a pure and true representation of the love between the giver and recipient. Jewelry, especially diamonds, can be the perfect gift for loved ones, but the gift has to be carefully and lovingly considered.

What better than to combine two activities which people love: art and travel.  A recent article in the Financial Times highlights a growing trend for guided, short-stay holidays centred on visiting art fairs or workshops.

Sotheby’s and Christie’s both have established trips and representatives say that the level of interest has been high. The tours cover some of the most famous contemporary art events of the year, such as Art Basel, to more remote trips to visit the projects or studios of single artists.

As FT journalist Kathryn Tully puts it:

The tours aim to convey a better appreciation of both contemporary art and the broader art investment market. The art investment lectures include how to approach a dealer and get a good deal, and how to build a valuable collection.

These trips show how luxury providers are finding more creative ways to link wealthy people’s interests together to create bespoke offerings to them.  As the art market continues to see record prices, it will be interesting to see how demand for these trips keeps up.

The latest issue of the Financial Times’ How to Spend It supplement came out on Friday (October 12), and not unexpectedly it includes some great stories about luxury. My personal favorites:

• The Reign of Terroir by John Stimpfig (p8)–a profile of Bernard Magrez, wine magnate. Magrez owns 35 wine estates around the world and is rapidly buying up more. Output is about quality over quantity, thereby creating demand for a niche luxury product. He puts his umbrella brand name (Vignobles Bernard Magrez), picture and signature on every bottle he produces as a way to create competitive advantage, not for his own hubris or vanity. He says:

Compared to watches and fashion, wine is a much more complicated luxury good. So the message needs to be simpler and more recognizable. Moreover, the new affluent consumer wants to know the person behind the wine.

• No Flowers Please by Karen Wheeler (p15)–about how alpha women are wearing masculine scents in the workplace in order to project discrete power. Old favorites (Acqua di Parma, Terre d’Hermès) and new scents (Neroli Portofino by Tom Ford) are mentioned.
• Take My Breath Away by John Gibb (p19)–about the Javelin, a ‘Very Light Jet’ that looks like a fighter jet and has space for one executive who needs to get somewhere in a hurry.
• The Captain’s Table: Christophe Navarre as told to Max de Lotbinière (p70)–on the philosophy and typical day of the Moët Hennessy CEO.

Moët Hennessy is in the business of luxury wine and spirits so the moment of eating and drinking is very important to us. We are selling l’art de vivre à la française — even when we are selling a malt whisky, with all the DNA that its brand has, we are still selling that essential French identity.

This ‘How to Spend It’ is a bonus issue and doesn’t appear to be online (yet?)–so have a look if you missed it in Friday’s FT.

Two articles in the Financial Times today remind us about how the rich keep getting richer, financially anyway. From the first article:

• The buying power of the richest people in London, compared to the average citizen, is the greatest it’s been since the 1930s.
• In 1991, the top 1% of earners made 57,000 GBP or more. By 2004-5 the top 1% made 117,000 GBP or more.
• 30,000 people now make more than 500,000 GBP.

How are Londoners spending their “platinum pounds”? The second article offers up Harrods as an example.

Harrods, the fancy department store, has recently revamped its “By Appointment Only” personal shopper service. It now actively courts “cash-rich, time-poor” customers by offering free personal shoppers and a concierge service that will find not just the perfect apparel and gifts but will also find a driver, nanny or housekeeper. They will also call customers to remind them of anniversaries and the birthdays, and suggest gifts for the occasion.

This seems like an awful waste of luxury. Harrods is surely finding demand for such an involved service, but by suggesting which gifts to get and doing so much for these time-poor shoppers, they seem to be taking away any chance for the buyer to appreciate what is being purchased. They’re removing the emotional component, which in the long run hurts buyers and reduces luxury.

Earlier this week the Financial Times hosted its third annual ‘Business of Luxury’ conference in Venice. The event brought together some of the world’s most senior luxury executives, financiers and corporate decision-makers to discuss emerging trends and business models in the global luxury sector. Reuters was able to ask some of these executives what luxury meant to them and their answers were quite interesting, mostly relating to time, exclusivity and choice. A few of my favorites:

Federico Marchetti, chief executive and founder of online boutique YOOX: “Time. Time is luxury. In a fast-paced era, where technology is accelerating everything and everyone, that is true more and more. ‘Time is money’ is less important.”

Michele Norsa, chief executive of Salvatore Ferragamo: “Exclusivity. Being alone on a beach with a few close people. It’s more places than objects.”

Stanislas De Quercize, chief executive of jeweller Van Cleef & Arpels: “A piece of eternity on earth. We all would like to be eternal. We are not … we are all longing for something to stay for us. And for me, luxury is that. It’s a piece of eternity on earth because if you have beautiful jewellery or beautiful works it’s going to outlast you.”

Luc Vandevelde, founder and managing director of Change Capital Partners, previous chairman of Marks & Spencer: “There are two types of luxury to me. Having the freedom to do what you want to do in life is the ultimate luxury to me. Most of the time that would be measured by whatever financial needs you have but not always.”

“Luxury in terms of a material sense, it’s the kind of things you feel good with … it doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive …. Feeling good with a product or identifying yourself with a product, is what luxury is all about.”

We’ve talked about this idea of an emotional connection with luxury on Janus before. Check out all the respondents’ answers here.

scenarioDNA, a research and branding consultancy based in New York, published a very interesting trend report ‘Redefining Luxury’ earlier this month.

The basic premise: for Generation Y (the cohort born after Generation X, now in their mid-twenties or younger) to choose a given product, it really needs to captivate. Just being tied to a well-known brand won’t be enough, because with more information and the tools to hunt and find what they want, Gen Y are less likely to stick with a name.

The article discusses how young people long for rare moments and special, unique experiences. As Gen Y grew up in McMansions, luxury brands became increasingly ubiquitous at the expense of originality and exclusivity. Now young people have fractured expectations for luxury.

This theme resonates with an article in the FT from earlier this month by Michael Schrage, “Customers want loyalty not perfection.” Marketers and brand managers are upset that consumers today are “brand sluts” who seek immediate gratification without any loyalty. But really “established brands have cheated on and betrayed their most loyal customers” as they’ve charged more and more for less and less and added complexity rather than value to their products.

Once again we’re reminded that unique experiences and value worth the premium are what keep people coming back to the brands they trust.