» HADOUKEN « the evolving definition of "luxury" and paradigms, they be shiftin'
I'm often asked questions that relate to shifting notions of 21st century "luxury," particularly with respect to fashion. How are Millennials aging into the luxury landscape? Are Gen X'ers enraptured by the allure of luxury the same way their Boomer parents were (and still are)? In an age of democratized product and information flows, does luxury even still exist as a social construct?
Last week, I hosted a panel discussion on a more targeted yet clearly adjacent topic--that is, the current state of menswear, specifically, as it pertains to the luxury market--at the venture funded multi-channel consignment boutique The RealReal (yes, it's one word). The RealReal and other re-commerce sites like Vestiaire Collective and Grailed are part of the conversation around the reframing of our understanding of luxury. What was once "shit other people didn't want" (a.k.a. vintage or thrift) is now "archival" and "covetable." By shattering this reductive take on OPC (Other People's Clothes) and tying in a circular economy angle (that by consigning you are extending the lifecycle of a particular garment, thereby reducing waste and closing the vicious loop that has resulted in billions of dollars worth of unwanted stuff flooding the African peninsula), these businesses represent a jab in the multi-punch combination that has (and continues to) batter the luxury industry over the last five or so years. And with the resale industry slated to more than double within the next five years to $41 billion, we clearly have a very long way to go.
But that doesn't fully address the question(s). And while numerous white papers and keynotes have been written on the subject (hey, that's how I feed my cat and keep the lights on, you know?), there's still plenty about which to talk. Take, for instance, the democratization of fashion and the way younger generations prefer to receive communications--marketing or otherwise. Gone are the days of opaque, mysterious communications from brand to consumer. And with it, gone are the preconceived notions ascribed to particular brands and products based solely off the minds and words of shrewd marketers. A great little study is the plethora of contemporary labels started by (mostly) Italian designer houses which flooded the market in the late-90s and early aughts. While some of them still exist today, they are shells of their former selves (thankfully), mostly due to the fact that consumers are just too savvy to fall for their bullshit--I'd posit that a much greater percentage of Americans today are aware that Armani Exchange, for instance, is complete trash and has little to absolutely no connection to the designer house than even 5 years ago.
Beyond these bait-and-switch type scenarios, with respect to "real" traditional luxury, this increased transparency and demanded two-way conversation between brand and consumer has all but eradicated the notion that luxury be tethered to price and social status at all. In true post-modernist form, a product's exclusivity and covetability are more tied to meta-notions of being part and parcel with the international zeitgeist than anything else, really. I mean, how else do you make sense of run of the mill souvenir free shirts selling for over $1000 on sites like Grailed while one can regularly find 100% cashmere made in Italy designer cashmere for less than $200 if one searches hard enough? And while there will always be a subsect of consumers who are magnetically drawn to that classic bling and drip drip, it's undeniable that more reasonable talons have sunk into "the culture": a preference for experience over material things, transparency in design and marketing, modest fashion, elevated basics, the casualization of menswear and with it the rise of streetwear, drop culture, tribal behavior with respect to forming consensus around what exactly is covetable at any given moment--and the list goes on.
Without guardrails, I can ramble on this topic forever, so pardon the abrupt stop. To make up for such an unceremonious end, I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes from former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. In writing his opinion to Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), a watershed case whereby the court was tasked with determining what sort of facts and circumstances fit the term "pornogrpahy," Stewart punted, simply stating: "I know it when I see it."
Luxury in 2018: you know it when you see it.