LVMH - The Luxury Goods Conglomerate

BerlinRocks

Active Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,220
Reaction score
11
Since this subforum is about Business, I thought this would be the place to post things about LVMH (I might open other threads about PPR/Kering, Gucci Group etc. later ....).
LVMH news is pretty big this year, with the LV Foundation, Nicolas Ghesquiere coming back as the creative/artistic director of Louis Vuitton ....

Here is the latest news ...

LVMH Plans to Distribute Hermès Shares Next Month
Billionaire Bernard Arnault Set to End Up With a Direct 8.5% Stake in Hermès

By INTI LANDAURO
Nov. 3, 2014 4:05 a.m. ET

PARIS— LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton plans to distribute the shares it holds in Hermès International on Dec. 17 as part of the peace agreement the rival French luxury goods groups signed in September.

LVMH’s principal shareholders, the investment-holding companies Christian Dior and Financière Jean Goujon, will also distribute the shares to their own shareholders, LVMH said.

As a result, French billionaire Bernard Arnault , who controls LVMH, will end up with a direct stake of 8.5% in the family-controlled Hermès. Mr. Arnault as well as any companies he controls directly or indirectly have committed not to buy any more shares in Hermès over the next five years.

LVMH had agreed to relinquish its 23% stake in its rival, worth €6.4 billion ($8 billion) in September, in exchange for a Hermès commitment to drop legal complaints filed against its bigger rival.

The peace accord ended a corporate fight that pitted LVMH—a conglomerate that owns high-end fashion labels including Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Marc Jacobs , Donna Karan and others—against the Hermès family clan. It also removed speculation that Mr. Arnault—LVMH chairman and CEO and France’s richest man—will attempt to buy Hermès in the coming years.

The dispute between the two groups started in late 2010 when LVMH stunned Hermès by saying it had obtained a 17.1% stake in its smaller rival through the direct purchase of shares and complex derivatives known as equity swaps, which led to speculation Mr. Arnault was planning a takeover of its rival.

In 2013 French stock regulator fined LVMH €8 million for misleading markets by not disclosing information earlier about its stake in Hermès.
wsj
 
And here is an extract of a 2011 interview of Bernard Arnault, in HBR (Harvard Business Review)
(I don't have access to all interview, maybe some HBR readers can help) ....

The Perfect Paradox of Star Brands: An Interview with Bernard Arnault of LVMH

An Interview with Bernard Arnault by Suzy Wetlaufer

Who would want to run a company that makes and sells products no one needs? Only a fool, right? Unless, of course, the company is LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, the world’s largest and by far most successful purveyor of luxury goods. Each year, LVMH sells billions of dollars—$10 billion in 2000 to be exact—of items that serve little purpose in the lives of consumers except to fulfill dreams. And those dreams don’t come cheap—a magnum of 1985 Dom Pérignon Rosé champagne costs about $925; a Givenchy gown $15,000; and the finest TAG Heuer watch upwards of $58,000. No one needs these items, of course, yet millions desire them.

The executive driving that desire is Bernard Arnault. The 52-year-old chairman of LVMH, he is as shrewd a businessman as they come. Dubbed “the Pope of Fashion” by the global press, Arnault has spent the past 15 years building LVMH from a small, nearly defunct clothing manufacturer to a conglomerate comprising approximately 50 of the world’s most powerful brands. According to the French research group Jacques Chahine, LVMH’s combined revenues are expected to reach $11 billion this year, with a market capitalization of roughly $27 billion.

Without a doubt, Arnault has made missteps along the way—some of his own personal Internet investments have not exactly soared—but he can only be called masterful in his ability to manage creativity for the sake of profit and growth. Each year, new products account for approximately 15% of LVMH sales, and some of them enjoy operating margins of up to 47%. (For a list of the company’s brands, see the exhibit “The House of Arnault.”) What makes these statistics all the more remarkable is that many of these products at first appear utterly outlandish—a kidney-shaped handbag covered with safety pins, for instance, or a pot of green eye shadow named “gangrene.” But somehow, and quite quickly, the LVMH “process” makes these items indispensable to some of the world’s most selective consumers. How? The answers may surprise you.

It begins with radical innovation—an unpredictable, messy, highly emotional activity that the company wholly endorses. Indeed, unlike many executives who oversee the work of creative types—be they engineers, writers, or designers—Arnault does not believe in managerial limit setting. Artists must be completely unfettered by financial and commercial concerns, he insists, to do their best work. You don’t “manage” John Galliano, the wildly iconoclastic head of the House of Dior, just as no one could have “managed” Leonardo da Vinci or Frank Lloyd Wright. That is why, two years ago, Arnault did not flinch when Galliano sent models down the haute couture runways wearing dresses made of newspaper. To have blocked the plan—noting, perhaps, that paper dresses were dumb—would have crushed the designer’s spirit. Soon after, when Dior manufactured the dresses in news-type-printed fabric, they sold at a clip. “So you see, with certain techniques, everyone can win,” Arnault notes, “the company, the designer, and the customer.”

In a series of recent interviews with HBR, conducted in Paris and New York, Arnault spoke in depth about the other techniques he uses to bolster profitable creativity. The company listens to focus groups with “one ear,” for instance, and only hires managers so respectful of the creative process that they will endure its necessary chaos. Yet when it comes to getting its creativity onto shelves, chaos is banished. The company imposes strict discipline on its manufacturing processes, meticulously planning, for instance, all 1,000 tasks in the construction of one purse.

The LVMH process has one goal: star brands. According to Arnault, star brands are born only when a company manages to make products that “speak to the ages” but feel intensely modern. Such products sell fast and furiously, all while raking in profits. “Mastering the paradox of star brands is very difficult and rare,” Arnault notes dryly, “fortunately.”

What was your reaction when you first saw John Galliano’s newspaper dresses?

I was shocked, which is good, of course. A new product is not creative—it is not important—if it does not shock when you first see it.

And after the shock wore off, did your managerial alarm bells start ringing?

I don’t have alarm bells when it comes to creativity. If you think and act like a typical manager around creative people—with rules, policies, data on customer preferences, and so forth—you will quickly kill their talent. Our whole business is based on giving our artists and designers complete freedom to invent without limits.

Our philosophy is quite simple, really. If you look over a creative person’s shoulder, he will stop doing great work. Wouldn’t you, if some manager were watching your every move, clutching a calculator in his hand? So that is why LVMH is, as a company, so decentralized. Each brand very much runs itself, headed by its own artistic director. Central headquarters in Paris is very small, especially for a company with 54,000 employees and 1,300 stores around the world. There are only 250 of us, and I assure you, we do not lurk around every corner, questioning every creative decision.

So no one in the company asked Galliano, “Who in the world will actually wear a newspaper dress?”

Absolutely not, and we did not need to. The most successful creative people—and you would have to say that John Galliano is one of these—want to see their creations in the street. They don’t invent just to invent. Yes, they come up with many exciting ideas, and many of these ideas shock; they look crazy at first, completely crazy. But the true artists that make LVMH a success, they don’t want the process to end there. They want people to wear their dresses, or spray their perfume, or carry the luggage they have designed.

The responsibility of the manager in a company dependent on innovation, then, very much becomes picking the right creative people—the ones who want to see their designs on the street. And that desire inside them is something that you, as a leader of a company, can only sense. After all, most artists don’t go around proclaiming, “I want to be a commercial success.” They would actually hate to say that. And frankly, if you asked them, they would say they don’t actually care one way or another if people buy their products. But they do care. It’s just buried in their DNA, and as a manager, you have to be able to see it there. I know you are going to ask, “How can I see into a person’s DNA, to know if he is an artist with commercial instincts?” So I will answer, it just takes experience. Years of practice—trial and error—and you learn.

And just as important, to allow creativity to happen, a company has to be filled with managers who have a certain love of artists and designers—or whatever kind of creative person you have in your company. If you deeply appreciate and love what creative people do and how they think, which is usually in unpredictable and irrational ways, then you can start to understand them. And finally, you can see inside their minds and DNA.

Dior didn’t actually end up selling Galliano’s newspaper dresses, right?

No, there was never any intention to sell them. I am absolutely convinced it was excellent to send them down the runway, because it put the idea out there. It was a new concept—edgy, ahead of anyone’s thinking. It made everyone talk. When the dresses came out, you could hear the whole audience gasp. There was a buzz—an excitement. Galliano was thrilled, the audience was thrilled.

But once the idea was out there, we had no problem reproducing the dresses in fabric and selling them, and they did very well. The important point is, you cannot compromise creativity at its birth. The dresses had to start in newspaper. We did not begin the creative process by talking about the bottom line.

Now, that does not mean that you shouldn’t make suggestions during the creative process. Not long ago, I said to one of our designers, “Why don’t you take a trip to Japan and see what the teenage girls are wearing on the streets at night?” These girls are very leading edge in fashion; they create trends years before they hit the mainstream, like with those very high shoes, and it makes very good sense to watch them. I did not say to the designer, “Go and see what kinds of shoes they are wearing and copy them,” although I was hoping he would notice their shoes. I just suggested, “Go look.” And in fact, he came home very inspired. That’s all a manager can hope to do, or should do, in my opinion.

What if the marketplace is screaming for one kind of product or another—should that factor into the creative process?

That is one mind-set, but it is not consistent with true creativity. Some companies are very marketing driven; they follow the consumer. And they succeed with that strategy. They go out, they test what people want, and then they make it. But that approach has nothing to do with innovation, which is the ultimate driver, we believe, of growth and profitability. You can’t charge a premium price for giving people what they expect, and you won’t ever have break-out products that way—the kinds of products that people line up around the block for. We have those, but only because we give our artists freedom.

Are you saying you shouldn’t conduct market tests, such as focus groups, before you release a product?

You should, but you will never be able to predict the success of a product that way. What a test shows you is limited: whether the product has a potential problem, such as with its name. You may discover that the name of a product is good in English, say, but it means something else in Japanese. Or you can test a perfume and find out that in some part of the world, one part of its formula carries a bad connotation that you have not thought of. But these tests will never tell you if a product is going to be a worldwide success. Take J’adore, the fragrance we released in 1999. Nothing in the tests suggested what would happen; the people in the focus groups said it was fine, just that. But look what happened—according to our estimates, it was among the top three best selling perfumes in the world last year.

Obviously, we won’t launch a product if the tests clearly show it is going to be a failure, but we won’t use tests to modify products, either. I just heard that many movie studios now show the endings of films to audiences, and they change them according to the audiences’ reactions. So movies end up being a marketer’s dream, not an artist’s.

Our strategy is to trust the creators. You have to give them leeway. When a creative team believes in a product, you have to trust the team’s gut instinct. That is the case with a perfume we launched this year: Flower, by Kenzo. We put it forward not because of the tests but because the team believed in it. It’s a very special creation. In the tests, people did not know what to make of it—the shape of the bottle is different, and its signature flower is a poppy, which has no scent. It’s not like anything else. But it’s a fantastic product, and it’s been an unbelievable success for the company: The Kenzo Fragrance Group’s sales rose 75% in the first six months of 2001, based largely on the success of Flower. That’s why you should listen to focus groups with only one ear.

When you give creative people as much freedom and control as LVMH does, do you have to be prepared to accept some failures?

Well, we don’t like failures. We try to avoid them. That is why, with many of our new products, we make a limited number. We do not put the entire company at risk by introducing all new products all the time. In any given year, in fact, only 15% of our business comes from the new; the rest comes from traditional, proven products—the classics.

Vuitton is a perfect example. This year, Marc Jacobs came up with the graffiti design, and it was a big departure for the line. Did you see it? It is beautiful and crazy, right? It does not look like Vuitton at first glance; who would have thought of that on suitcases? But we only had that on several items—for which, by the way, there is now a waiting list worldwide. The rest of the products were Vuitton that you could have bought last year, or five years ago, or ten years from now. They are legacy pieces.

We will use the same approach with the new Dior handbag. It is very exciting, very expensive. You will see it in all the ads and want to buy it. I assure you we will be out of stock fast. But it is very expensive: $1,800. We will make only several thousand of them. The rest of the line will reflect some ideas of that new purse—the same shape—but will be less radical in terms of fabrics and design. We will make more of those and sell them for less. That way, we can have our creativity but also minimize risk.

Of course, with some businesses, you cannot avoid risk, and sometimes you do not succeed. And so you learn. (For Arnault’s thinking on his Internet ventures, see the side-bar “Stars on the Net? Be Patient.”) With still other businesses, you cannot say they are outright failures or learning experiences, just that their success is taking time. That is the case with Christian Lacroix.

Stars on the Net? Be Patient
LVMH launched that fashion house ten years ago, and while many consider it to be one of the most creative of your entire portfolio, it has yet to turn a profit. Why not close shop?

Because we have learned so much from Lacroix. It has been like a laboratory for us where we have learned how to start a brand from scratch. I mean, at the beginning, we thought, “Okay, we have a genius here with Christian Lacroix,” but we learned that genius is not enough to succeed. It was something of a shock, to be honest, to discover that even great talent could not launch a brand from zero. A brand must have a heritage; there are no shortcuts.

The fact is, star brands take time to grow. Take some of the small makeup companies we have acquired recently, like Bliss and Urban Decay. When we bought them, they were little start-ups run by their founders—very simple businesses, but with a lot of originality in the products. So now we know we must nurture them until they have some history. But even if it takes ten or 15 years for them to become stars, that has been an amazing investment, right?

(to be continued - if someone has access to it)

hbr.org
 

Attachments

  • R0109H_A.gif
    R0109H_A.gif
    30.1 KB · Views: 3
  • R0109H_B.gif
    R0109H_B.gif
    22.8 KB · Views: 1
The House of Arnault
- according to wikipedia

Subsidiaries
A partial list including some of LVMH's most well known brands and subsidiaries:

Wines and Spirits
10 Cane
Ardbeg
Belvedere
Château d'Yquem
Dom Pérignon
Domaine Chandon California
Hennessy
Glenmorangie
Krug
Mercier
Moët & Chandon
Ruinart
Veuve Clicquot
Wenjun

Fashion and Leather Goods
Berluti
Céline
Dior
Donna Karan
EDUN
Emilio Pucci
Fendi
Givenchy
Kenzo
Marc Jacobs
Moynat
Loewe
Loro Piana
Louis Vuitton
Nicholas Kirkwood
Thomas Pink
R. M. Williams

Perfumes and Cosmetics
Parfums Christian Dior
Guerlain
Parfums Givenchy
Kenzo Parfums
BeneFit Cosmetics LLC
Fresh Inc.
Make Up For Ever
Acqua di Parma
Perfumes Loewe S.A.
Fendi Perfumes
NUDE

Watches and Jewelry
Bulgari
Chaumet
De Beers Diamond Jewellers
FRED
Hublot
TAG Heuer
Zenith

Specialist retailing
DFS
Le Bon Marché
Sephora

And their "patronage"
LVMH is a major patron of art in France. The group supported about ten exhibitions as "Le grand monde d’Andy Warhol"[22] and "Picasso et les maîtres"[23] at le Grand Palais in Paris. LVMH also endorsed the patronage of "l’atelier d’Alberto Giacometti" and "Yves Klein" at Centre Georges Pompidou.

In addition, LVMH foundation created the "young creators LVMH award", an international competition opened to French and international beaux-arts students.[24] Each year, six grants are allocated to the winners.

In November 2013, LVMH created the LVMH Young Fashion Designer Prize, which comes with a € 300,000 grant with a year of mentoring and is the brainchild of Delphine Arnault.[25] The first winner will be chosen in 2014.[25] In February 2014, 20 finalist for the prize were shown in London, such as Simone Rocha, Thomas Tait, Meadham Kirchhoff, Marques’ Almeida, J JS Lee, and others.[26]

LVMH underwrites other fashion competitions, including the Andam prize in France, the International Festival of Fashion and Photography in Hyères,France, an investment fund for young designers created by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication, and a scholarship program and sponsored lecture theater at Central Saint Martins in London.[25]

The group also lends Stradivarius violins to young talented musicians. Maxim Vengerov and Laurent Korcia have used the instruments.

and let's not forget the LV Foundation

Gehry’s Paris Coup
Despite its echoes of Paris’s architectural past, Frank Gehry’s latest museum project—the Fondation Louis Vuitton, opening this fall in the Bois de Boulogne—is like nothing the city has seen before: muscular and delicate, utilitarian and fantastic, a marriage of cultural ambition and private enterprise. Paul Goldberger looks at the genesis of LVMH chairman Bernard Arnault’s partnership with Gehry, and the triumphant result.

Your first instinct, when you see an extraordinary new building that looks like nothing you have ever seen before, is to try to understand it by connecting it to what you know. And so Frank Gehry’s new Fondation Louis Vuitton, in Paris, looks like sails, and it looks like a boat, and it looks like a whale, and it looks like a crystal palace that is in the middle of an explosion. Some of the innards make you think of Piranesi, and as you look up the stair tower, monuments of Russian Constructivism, such as Vladimir Tatlin’s fantastic spiral tower, might flash through your mind, just as you could stand in front and from one angle the façade could make you think of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Beth Sholom Synagogue, his great “Mount Sinai in glass.”

But none of these comparisons matter in the slightest. They’re all correct as far as they go, but they are really only ways of postponing coming to terms with the fact that this building is a whole new thing, a new work of monumental public architecture that is not precisely like anything that anyone, including Frank Gehry, has done before. You could call it a 21st-century take on the Grand Palais, the wildly extravagant Beaux-Arts exhibition hall off the Champs-Élysées, and you could also say that it’s Gehry’s attempt to render his own Guggenheim Bilbao in glass. But even these, which get closer, miss a lot of what makes this building remarkable, just as calling it a descendant of Gehry’s IAC office building, in New York, which is made up of billowing white glass that also always reminds people of sails, only begins to explain what Gehry has wrought on this unlikely site within the Bois de Boulogne at the western edge of Paris.

Gehry, who is now 85, continues to push himself forward, as Picasso and Wright did late in their careers, relentlessly determined that, however important his past work may be, it must serve for him as the foundation for something more than a mere dénouement. He has been experimenting with curving glass for years, twisting and torquing it into lyrical, dancing shapes, and here the long quest that began with the glass panels decorating the cafeteria he designed for the Condé Nast Building in 1999 culminates in enormous glass sails that are pieces of architecture in themselves, sumptuous forms that give shape to an entire building.

Gehry loves the form of the fish as much as he loves sailing and boats, and it is not hard to see this building as the moment when these preoccupations come together into one gargantuan and complex object. Yet another longtime theme in Gehry’s work has been his desire to tear away the façades of his buildings, making the structure—what he calls “the bones”—visible as a way of celebrating the aesthetic hidden within it, and what began decades ago when he started revealing the wooden framing inside the walls of small houses has grown here into exhibiting vast and monumental curves of steel and timber, a framework that seems at once to evoke the Eiffel Tower and an ancient church. This building is muscular, and it is delicate: it is a linebacker with the moves of a ballerina or, if you prefer, it is Moby-Dick with the athleticism of a sailfish.

The reported $143 million Fondation Louis Vuitton, which opens to the public in October, was commissioned by Bernard Arnault, the chairman and C.E.O. of the luxury-goods conglomerate LVMH Moët Hennessey Louis Vuitton, as a contemporary-art museum and cultural center, and it is not only its architecture that is unusual. There are relatively few private museums in France, and in building this one Arnault—himself a major collector—was obviously hoping to reinforce a connection between his company and advanced art and design. But it has the potential to develop a brand even more potent than that of LVMH: that of France itself, and of Paris, where more creative energy surrounded modern art, architecture, and design in the first half of the 20th century than anywhere else. Paris long ago ceded its leadership as a creative center to New York and other cities, and not even the vast investment of the French government in such architecturally ambitious projects as the Centre Pompidou, by Richard Rogers and Renzo Piano, the expanded Louvre, with its glass pyramid, by I. M. Pei, and the Cité de la Musique, by Christian de Portzamparc, has been enough to get it back.

But not until now has there been a significant private investment in a cultural institution, a new entity conceived, designed, constructed, and managed without the heavy hand of French bureaucracy. Gehry’s building—which is his first project in Paris since he completed the American Center, now the Cinémathèque Française, in 1994—is the most compelling work of new architecture the city has seen since the Centre Pompidou opened, almost 40 years ago, and the new museum and cultural center it houses represent the unbridled zeal of the private sector. Paris has never experienced a marriage of cultural ambition and private enterprise of this magnitude, and it may have a shot at making something happen that extends way beyond Gehry’s glass doors.

Its roots go back to 2001, when Jean-Paul Claverie, who joined LVMH as a special adviser to Arnault after working under Jack Lang in the French Ministry of Culture, became so excited about Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum, in Bilbao, that he insisted that Arnault make a trip to Spain to see it. “I wanted him to discover it and share with me the feeling I had standing in front of it,” Claverie said to me. “It wasn’t easy—he canceled twice, but finally we succeeded in November of 2001,” when Arnault, face-to-face with Gehry’s building, Claverie recalls, could say only, “How can a person imagine this architecture?”

Arnault said he had to meet Gehry, who is based in Los Angeles, and the two arranged to have lunch a month later in New York. Arnault told Gehry that he envisioned a building in Paris that would embody his Louis Vuitton Foundation for Creation’s mission to support the arts and education and that he wanted it to be a significant work of architecture.

“The building was to be the first artistic act of the foundation,” Claverie, who was put in charge of the project, said to me. He and Arnault took Gehry to the site, which is at the Jardin d’Acclimatation, a children’s park toward the northern end of the Bois de Boulogne. The location might seem to make little sense: the cultural energy of Paris has been shifting to the east for years.

Arnault had his reasons, however. Although the Jardin d’Acclimatation was inside a public park, its concessions were owned by LVMH. And since Arnault had always wanted a striking piece of architecture—“a haute couture building,” in Claverie’s words—he hoped that erecting it in the Bois de Boulogne (construction began in 2008) would free him and Gehry from the inevitable battles that ensue whenever anyone tries to insert a strong piece of modernist architecture into the Parisian streetscape. They hardly had carte blanche, however. The city government first insisted that the building not be taller than the low, boxy one that had previously occupied the site, and later, after Gehry’s final design was approved, there were objections from a NIMBY group that protested with the zeal of people for whom the notion of backyard meant the entire Bois de Boulogne. (The nearest residents were actually a couple of blocks away.)

Gehry, for his part, had to relate his design mainly to trees and lawn, which for him was almost too easy. Gehry likes his buildings to play off their surroundings, not by mimicking them but by shifting shapes, focusing vistas, or raising their heads high at a particular moment, such as the way the tower of the Guggenheim in Bilbao acknowledges a nearby bridge and the industrial heritage of the adjacent river. The 126,000-square-foot Fondation Louis Vuitton is surrounded mainly by open space and trees, and Gehry’s sculptural instincts could run freer here than in many of his buildings.

Paradoxically, this probably made designing the building all the harder, because there was no clear starting point other than the foundation’s desire for lots of gallery space, an auditorium, and the usual public amenities such as a café, a bookstore, and a large central lobby. Gehry designed the building from the inside, starting not with the final shape but with three piles of boxes containing art galleries, and three circulation towers, containing stairs and elevators. “You can’t hang art on glass,” he said to me. It is the way Gehry usually works—for all he is identified with striking sculptural shapes, he almost never starts with them, because he wants to be sure that the functions of a building are taken care of before he starts letting his sculptural instincts run free. The gallery sections—which will house a corporate collection featuring works by Jeff Koons, Richard Prince, and others—are covered in a white fiber-reinforced concrete called Ductal, which led Gehry to name them “the icebergs.” He then began to arrange an array of curving glass pieces over the icebergs and towers, precisely composed to serve as both façade and roof, as well as to enclose the lobby and to cover the roof terraces. “I could do neutral galleries, and I could do me at the same time,” Gehry said.

Here, too, Gehry is referencing his earlier work, since one of the things he did a lot of before he started creating unusual, curving shapes was to make buildings that consisted of unevenly stacked boxes. In Paris, he has taken that old idea and re-invigorated it by connecting it to his most assertive structural leap, the huge glass sails. It is a hint of early Gehry wrapped in late Gehry, but without a whiff of nostalgia—this is less a case of looking back than of reaching back and grabbing a piece of the past and pulling it along into the future. (The building also features an auditorium facing a waterfall that tumbles down a series of steps and helps bring natural light down into the space, which will be used for LVMH fashion shows.)

Gehry has often been accused, mostly unfairly, of making architecture that overwhelms art, but it will be harder to level such charges at the Fondation Louis Vuitton, because the icebergs make for relatively neutral galleries—not plain white boxes, which Gehry is probably incapable of producing, but rooms that for the most part are shaped like rectangles with straight, flat walls. When there is no art in the building, it feels incomplete, which is arguably the most important test of whether the architecture is too assertive. “It makes me crazy when people say, ‘Oh, Frank, your architecture is too complicated—it’s overpowering the art,’ ” Gehry said to me. “I’ve talked to artists, and they’re willing to play.” In Paris, Gehry has come closer than ever before to having it both ways—to showing art in straightforward rooms that just happen to be part of an utterly spectacular building, one that only heightens the intensity of the art within.

More than 50 years ago, when his career was just beginning, Gehry spent a year in Paris working in an architect’s office, and he discovered European architecture for the first time. He was struck by everything he saw, but most of all by the powerful, heavy forms of Romanesque churches and the lyrical lines of late buildings of Le Corbusier, particularly his great chapel at Ronchamp. You can see all of this in the Fondation Louis Vuitton: the strong structure, the soft curves, the whole idea that a building is a sensuous experience. Gehry has been exploring these ideas for a long time, but they have a particular resonance here, as if he knows how deep his debt to French architecture is, and he saw this building, most of all, as a chance to pay it back.

vanity fair - sept. 2014
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for this thread, i find how these big companies work very interesting.
 
Thank you for starting this thread! I'm incredibly fascinated by the business side of fashion, and especially by LVMH.
 
LV is reducing their costume jewelry and expanding their fine jewelry. That popular padlock/chain DIY necklace is available from LV in 18k gold priced at 17k. Their costume jewelry pieces mainly consist of the bag charm selection - which is enormous.

LV is trying to transform into Hermes and Patek Phillipe combined.

that new watch - the automata - had 3 patents issued on it. Making patents is how a watch brand builds their name up.
 
Last edited:
LV is reducing their costume jewelry and expanding their fine jewelry. That popular padlock/chain DIY necklace is available from LV in 18k gold priced at 17k. Their costume jewelry pieces mainly consist of the bag charm selection - which is enormous.

LV is trying to transform into Hermes and Patek Phillipe combined.

that new watch - the automata - had 3 patents issued on it. Making patents is how a watch brand builds their name up.

On the watch side, LVMH maisons like TAG and LV watches seem to be reducing their model selection and increasing their prices.
 
Interesting NY Times article on the whole Arnault family. According to the article, the first time Bernard Arnault and his children spoke on the record to an international newspaper about LVMH and the future...

It's a pretty long and insightful article: Bernard Arnault Built a Luxury Empire on ‘Desirability.’ Who Will Inherit It?


Bernard Arnault Built a Luxury Empire on ‘Desirability.’ Who Will Inherit It?

By Liz Alderman and Vanessa Friedman

Reporting from Paris

  • Sept. 14, 2023
One afternoon in July, not long after being named the wealthiest man on the planet by Forbes, Bernard Arnault, the head of the LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton luxury goods empire, took his place on a stage with a view of the Eiffel Tower before a packed crowd of French dignitaries and reporters.

In the front row sat four of his five adult children — the fifth was watching from New York, where he is an executive at Tiffany & Company. Their father had raised all of them since they could walk to one day run the LVMH conglomerate.

The occasion was Mr. Arnault’s announcement that LVMH would provide 150 million euros (about $161 million) to sponsor the 2024 Paris Olympics. LVMH companies will play a starring role. Chaumet, a Paris jeweler whose clients once included Napoleon’s wife Joséphine, will design the Olympic medals, and Moët Hennessy wines will flow in hospitality suites.

“The partnership will help promote France throughout the world,” Mr. Arnault declared. As television cameras zoomed in, his eldest son, Antoine, the head of communications and image for LVMH, uttered what could be a tagline for this huge company his father has built: “For a dream, there is no price.”

It was a moment of public triumph for Mr. Arnault, a sign of how embedded in the fabric of France LVMH has become. Over more than 30 years, he has forged LVMH into the world’s largest luxury group and the most valuable company in France, with a presence in 81 countries. His brands — 75 of them — are the stars of the luxury world, including Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Tiffany and Dom Pérignon Champagne. It has given him entree to prime ministers and presidents, and allowed him to amass a museum-worthy art collection.

But his success has brought challenges. In France, Mr. Arnault has become a lightning rod for anger over growing economic inequality. In April, 10 days after Forbes put him atop its annual list of richest people, protesters stormed his office in Paris during nationwide strikes over raising the retirement age. His effigy was burned as a symbol of capitalist evil.

Mr. Arnault’s five children were taught in France’s best schools and raised to take leadership posts in the business, but his dream of keeping LVMH in the family may force him to elevate one above the rest.

And in recent months LVMH’s stock has taken a beating, down 19 percent since hitting a high in April. The company reported a dip in U.S. sales in the second quarter, and the Chinese economy, a big source of LVMH’s revenue, is faltering.

The falling shares mean that Mr. Arnault (now worth about $195 billion, Forbes says) dropped to the second-richest person in the world in June, eclipsed by Elon Musk. This month, LVMH was replaced as Europe’s most valuable company by Denmark’s Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, the hugely popular drugs being used for weight loss.

At 74, Mr. Arnault has been working to make sure his company — created by gobbling up many European luxury houses that had been weakened by bickering family owners — will stay firmly in his family’s hands, safe from corporate raiders like himself. Last year, he persuaded the board to raise the mandatory retirement age for the chief executive and chairman to 80, from 75, and created a corporate structure that ensures the family’s control of LVMH, locking in his children — each of whom has been named to highly visible positions within the company — as the chief decision makers.

Mr. Arnault has broadened LVMH beyond extravagant playthings into the world of experiences, acquiring over 50 grand hotels and resorts. And with the Olympics deal, he has extended his tentacles more deeply into the world of sports.

Mr. Arnault’s changes mean he doesn’t have to retire next year as originally expected. That hasn’t stopped speculation about whether he can ensure that his heirs — who dress in almost identical Dior navy suits (save for Delphine, his one daughter, who often wears Dior skirts) — avoid a “Succession”-like drama.

The French media is full of headlines comparing the Arnaults to the Roys, the fictional family in the HBO series. There are TikTok videos explaining why the Arnaults are “the real ‘Succession’ family.” The family hates this talk, and takes pains to play down parallels to the show.

The eldest sibling is Delphine, 48, chairman and chief executive of Christian Dior Couture and a member of the LVMH executive committee and its board. Antoine, 46, is not only in charge of the group’s image and sustainability efforts but chief executive of its men’s wear brand Berluti, chairman of the Italian luxury house Loro Piana, chief executive of Christian Dior S.E. and a member of the LVMH board. Both are from Mr. Arnault’s first marriage, to Anne Dewavrin. The youngest three are from Mr. Arnault’s second marriage, to Hélène Mercier, a Canadian concert pianist: Alexandre, 31, is executive vice president of product and communications at Tiffany; Frédéric, 28, is chief executive of Tag Heuer; and Jean, 24, is Louis Vuitton’s watch director.

In a rare interview in LVMH’s discreetly lavish headquarters in Paris — this article is the first for which Mr. Arnault and his children have agreed to talk on the record to an international newspaper — Mr. Arnault brushed off any comparison to television’s Roys with a wave of his hand.

“It’s not an obligation, nor inevitable, that a kid is my successor,” he said, leaning back in a buttery leather chair at a round table in his private conference room. On one wall was a Picasso; on two others, Warhols. His son Antoine, in his role as image gatekeeper, sat across the table.

Mr. Arnault was wearing a white shirt, a blue tie, a navy jacket and black slacks, though these days he’s usually without a tie, Antoine said, part of a more casual uniform that has accompanied new efforts to engage with the outside world. The children have been instrumental in pushing their father to be more open about the conglomerate.

“The best person inside the family or outside the family should be one day my successor,” Mr. Arnault continued. “But it’s not something that I hope is a duel for the near future.”

Still, legacy is clearly on Mr. Arnault’s mind. He grew up in Roubaix, once a booming textile center in northern France, and watched family industrial dynasties collapse as children or grandchildren took their eyes off the business or squandered inheritances.

“After one or two generations, it broke down because they had it too easy,” he said. It was a mistake he vowed not to make with his own children. “I didn’t want them to start going to big parties,” Mr. Arnault said. “I made them work.”

Business at the Dining Table

Every month, the five siblings meet with their father over lunch on the top floor of LVMH’s headquarters.


For an hour and a half, they discuss business, including finances, the curve of the bracelet on a new €50,000 Vuitton watch, upcoming product introductions and the social media payoff of over-the-top events. For example, a Vuitton men’s wear show by the brand’s new designer, Pharrell Williams, shut down Paris’s Pont Neuf and attracted such names as Kim Kardashian and LeBron James, resulting in over 16 million YouTube hits.

“Make no mistake,” Jean said. “We discuss things, but at the end, it’s he who decides.”

Amid the bonhomie, the siblings say, Mr. Arnault is gauging how each of his children is measuring up.

A graduate of France’s elite École Polytechnique, Mr. Arnault honed his children’s math skills nearly every night before dinnertime. Antoine recalled that getting anything less than a perfect grade on important exams “wasn’t acceptable.”

Jean jokes about having “24 years of experience, because every lunch and dinner was always about work.”

Ian Rogers, a former chief digital officer at LVMH, said Alexandre had told him, “My business education started when I was 9, at the breakfast table.”

By age 10, Delphine was accompanying her father to Dior stores. He has made weekend inspections of LVMH properties in Paris with his children a routine for more than three decades. Alexandre said: “I remember, age 7, thinking, ‘Why is he doing this, and why is he asking the same question to the same salesperson, every Saturday of the year?’”

The father paired each of his children with a mentor as they entered the business, to teach them the brands and monitor their performance. Delphine and Antoine started in novice positions (Delphine sold Dior perfume at age 17) before ascending to the C-suite. The three youngest moved more quickly into senior roles, “probably because he feels time is running out and he needs to speed up the process of learning,” said Pierre-Yves Roussel, a former chief of the LVMH fashion group and the current chief executive of Tory Burch.

All of them understand that the family itself is now as much a brand as the brands they own, and have wasted no time making their presence known.

In less than two years at Tiffany, Alexandre helped seal a deal with Beyoncé and Jay-Z, creating a social media sensation. (In 2016, Alexandre persuaded his father to acquire Rimowa, a German maker of aluminum suitcases, which was founded in 1898. He immediately set about making the utilitarian luggage company cool.) Delphine created the LVMH Prize for Young Fashion Designers, a high-profile talent competition. And Antoine has thrown wide the previously closed doors of many LVMH companies with a series of “open days” that invite the public inside factories and workshops.

Their father never forced them to join LVMH, the children said. Even so, Frédéric said, “he found a way to make me want to give my life to the family business like he did.” (Children from both marriages grew up vacationing together, and were raised to play tennis and piano — their father’s favorite pastimes.)

The clan has gotten bigger after two glamorous marriages: Antoine to the model and philanthropist Natalia Vodianova, and Alexandre to Géraldine Guyot, who has an accessories brand, Destree, that is independent of LVMH. Delphine’s partner is a digital entrepreneur and billionaire, Xavier Niel.

When Alexandre wed Geraldine in Venice in 2021, guests included Beyoncé, Jay-Z and Roger Federer (who frequently plays tennis with Mr. Arnault). His three brothers were groomsmen. They share a family group chat, in which they swap baby pictures.

“I know it’s disappointing for a lot of people,” Antoine said, “but we actually get on well.”

The iPhone vs. Dom Pérignon

Mr. Arnault was born into a construction company run by his father and founded by his grandfather, who took him to building sites when he was 7.

When Mr. Arnault was 28, his father handed him the keys to the business. He refocused it on real estate, and soon after moved to New Rochelle, N.Y., to expand in an environment friendlier to entrepreneurs than socialist France.

It was the era of the corporate raider, and Mr. Arnault soaked in the more aggressive approach to mergers and acquisitions. When he returned to Paris at 35, after a rather unsuccessful run developing condominiums in Palm Beach, Fla., he came back as a barbarian at the gate — and with a new idea: A New York cabdriver had told him that he didn’t know the name of France’s president, “but I know Dior!”

As it happened, the French government wanted to unload a bankrupt textile conglomerate that included Dior. Mr. Arnault bought it for 1 franc, fired 9,000 people and discarded everything except Dior, which he then used to help finance a brutal takeover of LVMH, a group recently formed from the luggage maker Louis Vuitton and the Moët Hennessy Champagne and cognac house.

The battle for LVMH made his reputation. Enlisted by Henry Racamier, one of LVMH’s founders, to buy shares and prevent another group from gaining control, Mr. Arnault did as he was asked, but didn’t stop. He ultimately turned the tables, seized control of LVMH and forced out Mr. Racamier, who said at the time, “We would like to find a modus vivendi, but it’s hard with a person like that.

His style sent shock waves through the clubby world of French business, where he became known as “the Wolf in Cashmere.” It was the beginning of a three-decade spree of empire building. He pursued family-owned brands known for craftsmanship and style: Pucci, Fendi, Celine, Loro Piana. Some were happy to be bought out; some were not. Losses were rare: Gucci and Hermès slipped through his fingers after ugly public battles.

During Mr. Arnault’s takeover of Tiffany in 2020, as the pandemic hurt earnings, he was accused of enlisting the French government’s help to delay the deal’s closing, and in the end won a discount on the negotiated price. (At $16 billion, it remains the luxury sector’s biggest deal.)

He has expanded LVMH into luxury hospitality in recent years. LVMH’s holdings include the Cipriani hotel in Venice, the Orient Express train and the “21” Club in New York. There are restaurants in flagship stores for Tiffany and Dior, and a new four-story Moët cocktail bar in Paris.

Mr. Arnault’s bets have usually paid off. Luxury, in all its forms, has been one of the most resilient investments on Wall Street in the last decade.

“He was always saying, ‘The iPhone is great, but who knows if we will be using an iPhone in 10 years?’” Mr. Rogers, the former chief digital officer, said. “‘Whereas I know people will continue to drink Dom Pérignon.’”

Mr. Arnault has steered clear of picking sides when dealing with polarizing world leaders, whether cutting the ribbon on a new Vuitton factory in Texas alongside Donald J. Trump, who was president at the time, or meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, to seal a loan of art to his museum in Paris, the Fondation Louis Vuitton.

“We are like Henry Kissinger,” Mr. Arnault said. “We are not there to agree or disagree on the political aspect of the country in which we are doing business.”

‘They Need to Find a Type of Enemy’

Mr. Arnault insisted repeatedly during the interview that his main goal was not profits. “It’s desirability,” he said, “and we must make sure that in 50 years we are still at the top.”

“Desirability,” said Mr. Roussel, the former LVMH executive, is the most popular word at the company. But it highlights a potential problem, he said: “A consumer waking up and saying, ‘You know, I’m buying this product, but there’s someone making so much money out of it.’”

“Is it desirable that you’re buying a product from someone who is the richest man in the world?”

That sentiment was not evident this summer when Mr. Arnault visited China, one of LVMH’s most lucrative markets. The “richest man” headlines from months earlier earned him a rock star’s welcome. In Shanghai and Chengdu, crowds followed him and vied for selfies. Mothers asked him to bless their babies.

“Like the pope. Can you believe that?” he said. He was called, he said with a laugh, “the God of Fortune.”

But back home, where passion about social and financial inequality stretches back to the French Revolution, Mr. Arnault is a divisive figure: hailed by the business and political worlds for building France’s biggest corporate titan, and reviled by others for his almost unimaginable wealth.

For a family that tries to keep its fortune discreet, the “richest man” ranking this year still brings an unwelcome spotlight.
“The attention that you get when you’re on the top of that list,” Antoine said, “you can’t really prepare for that.”

In April, as France’s raucous nationwide protests gathered steam over President Emmanuel Macron’s bid to raise the retirement age two years to 64, demonstrators broke into the LVMH headquarters, lighting smoke bombs and denouncing Mr. Arnault as the embodiment of the ultrarich.

“He is a symbol of what is wrong in this society!” one shouted. Others carried signs showing Mr. Arnault as Mr. Monopoly in a top hat, with accusations that he evaded taxes, exploited workers and laid off thousands to build power and wealth.

This month, when Mr. Arnault announced that the Arnault family would donate €10 million to Restos du Coeur, a food bank, critics said it was a drop in the bucket.

“They need to find a type of enemy,” Mr. Arnault said. “France is not a country which is motivated by business success, unlike the United States.”

When his friend Warren Buffett walks around Manhattan, Mr. Arnault added, “he’s like a Beatle.” But when Mr. Arnault visits his stores in France, “I have to be careful,” he said. “I don’t like this, but I need bodyguards.”

Antoine has advised his father to push back, and these days Mr. Arnault stresses the company’s economic contributions: hundreds of thousands of jobs created worldwide, €5.5 billion paid annually in French taxes, and vast sums for art and culture, energy sustainability, scientific research, sports and youths.

What no one debates is that Mr. Arnault understood, before almost anyone else, luxury’s potential as a generator of profit — that creating beautiful things is about aspiration and belonging.

The question now is who can keep desirability at the heart of LVMH in an age of protests and global economic uncertainty.

Last year, Mr. Arnault tinkered with the corporate structure of his empire, concentrating decision-making with his five children. Each has a 20 percent stake, and they cannot sell their shares for 30 years without unanimous board approval.

His heirs “have been schooled by the best player in the world: All of them know the business,” said Sidney Toledano, head of the LVMH fashion group and one of Mr. Arnault’s longest-serving executives. “Are they going to be the pilots? Maybe.”

If the next chief executive is not named Arnault, the children say they are OK with that. After all, Alexandre said, “there’s the risk that none of us is able to run the business as well as he has.”

The siblings are beginning to discuss how they can raise their own children with the same sense of duty that was instilled in them, Delphine said. Mr. Arnault has begun taking her elementary-school-age daughter on his weekend rounds of stores.

But Alexandre added: “By the time they reach ages where they can have responsibilities, my father will still probably be C.E.O. of LVMH. He’ll be 110 years old.”
 
Nothing new was said in this article that has not been captured by Le Monde and other French newspapers.

1694781216023-png.5128945


If this was the case they would not have a mega yacht, multi-million dollar homes in LA, Bahamas, etc. Being discreet means just having what is necessary and maybe a second vacation home. Of course you can buy whatever you want with your money, but don't characterize yourself as discreet unless you don't know the meaning of the word.


1694781293405-png.5128946
\


So out of touch. I'm sure most Americans, especially New Yorkers will not recognize Buffet on the street or even care. Does he want a Nobel peace prize, a pat on the back every time he crosses a French person for LVMH? It's a luxury goods conglomerate, not an enterprise advancing society, tackling climate change, etc. If LVMH or even Kering or Prada were to disappear tomorrow the world will neither be better nor worse for it.



1694781366689-png.5128950


Art and culture? If their museum was free and not funded by tax payers, sure. Or maybe I suppose having Pharrell as CD of LV, inviting Jay/Bey and black celebrities/influencers to everything is culture (insert eye roll). Oh yea, I forgot the kpop/kdrama ambassadors. I concede, they do promote culture. Sports? If by that they mean dressing athletes in LV, making trophy cases? Sure. Scientific research? LVMH adds nothing of value to society compared to other people. I can't stand Musk for the life of me, but he has contributed immensely to technological ingenuity, scientific research, sustainability, space exploration, things that are of actua I honestly prefer Delphine's quiet nature than that of Bernard and Antoine who are constantly complaining that they are not getting gold stars, that they are criticized. Woe is me! Boohoo I am wealthy but unloved by the French people. Suing newspapers because they printed something bad. You are the CEO/future CEO of a publicly traded company, GET.A.GRIP. I don't hear FHP or American CEOs (with exceptions) complain this much about being criticized.

I really hope either Delphine or someone outside the family succeeds Bernard because the men in this family are insufferable.

That being said I'll admit to having purchased LVMH shares and will still continue to buy almost everything Celine and some Dior, so they can have some of my money.
 
If this was the case they would not have a mega yacht, multi-million dollar homes in LA, Bahamas, etc. Being discreet means just having what is necessary and maybe a second vacation home. Of course you can buy whatever you want with your money, but don't characterize yourself as discreet unless you don't know the meaning of the word.

I understand what you mean but I'm not sure that's what discreet means. It's more about not showing or flaunting your wealth and keeping a low profile. And there are plenty of billionaires who are extremely discreet, yet live a very wealthy lifestyle with homes all over the world.

I guess the presence of the especially the younger Arnault children (and their spouses) on social media is far from discreet though. Only Delphine and her husband seem to get it right.
Especially Alexandre with his whole Jay-Z/Beyonce 'friendship'......embarrassing

The comment section on The NY Times article contains some spot-on comments...more interesting than the article itself perhaps
 
I guess the presence of the especially the younger Arnault children (and their spouses) on social media is far from discreet though. Only Delphine and her husband seem to get it right.
Especially Alexandre with his whole Jay-Z/Beyonce 'friendship'......embarrassing
LOL haha yea. Not only is his obsession with Jay-Z/Beyonce is embarrassing, his and his wive's jetsetting makes you wonder if they even work and spend time with their child. Not going to lie, I wouldn't mind their life.

I agree with your comment on Delphine. Of course with age comes maturity and different personalities too, she has always seemed more centered. I wager she's not much different in person than she appears to be from a distance.

The comment section on The NY Times article contains some spot-on comments...more interesting than the article itself perhaps

Yea the comment section alone would have made a better article, "burn the rich" people aside.
 
I’ve always had some mixed feelings with Bernard Arnault.
I’m extremely admirative on the way he raised his children and the sense of responsability he instilled in them…Something you don’t necessarily find in those type of circles, even more in the fashion industry. I’m also quite fascinated by his rise to fame, as sneaky as it was…It’s almost insane to think that it was true. He is merciless in his way to conduct business but his sensibilities towards Art (and designers) is something that I have always appreciated.

That being said, I have always been annoyed with his desire to be celebrated or loved for being rich considering that his takeover of Dior started with a lie and terrible social collateral damage.

No extreme wealth, even more as an entrepreneur, is possible without collateral damage. A lot of billionaires are more immune to criticism because their collateral damages are in other part of the world…For his part, even more in luxury, all his collateral damages are French workers.

What the article doesn’t touch on is also his very public involvement in French politics. That’s an element that makes him unpopular.

The Dumas family, The Bettencourt are also very rich but very discreet and while there is a lobby for those big luxury conglomerates, they always have made it mandatory to not make any public support of anybody.

Arnault was a very visible personality in the 80’s because that figure of the young and dynamic executive helped him for his rise to success…It was his public persona that fooled Racamier after all. But once his reputation was sealed, it was a little bit more difficult to own that persona.

He wants the butter, the money for the butter, the dairyman and the dairy shop but you can’t have it all. He wants people to stroke his ego but no, you can enjoy your success, the success that is your family and it can just be ok.

‘That constant need for praise is annoying. Regarding his children, I don’t mind the celebrity associations…It’s part of their age and what they grew up with.
 
LVMH et al. is dumb af because they clearly got the money but they don't do anything cool with it. If you have to amass that crazy astronomical amount of wealth then okay I guess but... wyd at this point? Nicolas is there and I appreciate him but they can afford to invest in someone to pursue their unique artistic vision and they just don't. Even if the project didn't make any money the potential for cultural significance (beyond a social media post) would still there. I'm sure everyone's tired of hearing about Galliano at Dior but that's just an example of what could be (not necessarily in the same style) standing behind someone so they can have the resources to bring a vision to life at the highest level possible, with the ability to push every aspect of the art to its limit. I guess Phoebe is coming so we'll see with that but for so long it's been gimmick and product based. And not even fun stuff. Where's the magic? I would think someone like Arnault would wanna be remembered as a patron of the arts rather than a scummy product pusher.
 
LVMH et al. is dumb af because they clearly got the money but they don't do anything cool with it. If you have to amass that crazy astronomical amount of wealth then okay I guess but... wyd at this point? Nicolas is there and I appreciate him but they can afford to invest in someone to pursue their unique artistic vision and they just don't. Even if the project didn't make any money the potential for cultural significance (beyond a social media post) would still there. I'm sure everyone's tired of hearing about Galliano at Dior but that's just an example of what could be (not necessarily in the same style) standing behind someone so they can have the resources to bring a vision to life at the highest level possible, with the ability to push every aspect of the art to its limit. I guess Phoebe is coming so we'll see with that but for so long it's been gimmick and product based. And not even fun stuff. Where's the magic? I would think someone like Arnault would wanna be remembered as a patron of the arts rather than a scummy product pusher.
I think that giving the constant growth of Vuitton…It would be ridiculous for Nicolas to launch his own brand now.
I can see that as a project post-Vuitton but currently, with the collections (now they are showing prefall on the runway), the capsules, the new CEO…It’s a lot of things to handle.
And his aesthetic vocabulary is consistently evolving at Vuitton. I wouldn’t want to have his on line being a subpar of his Vuitton.

‘I also think that Phoebe’s project will be the ultimate test for LVMH.
 
‘I also think that Phoebe’s project will be the ultimate test for LVMH.

Yes, even though they only have a minority stake in her business. Not sure what the exact arrangements are but I hope Phoebe has been advised well.
Of course LVMH has a great track record with many commercial successes but there have been a few failures too, stakes and brands that have been sold/closed or that are no longer part of the fashion conversation.
 
LVMH et al. is dumb af because they clearly got the money but they don't do anything cool with it. If you have to amass that crazy astronomical amount of wealth then okay I guess but... wyd at this point? Nicolas is there and I appreciate him but they can afford to invest in someone to pursue their unique artistic vision and they just don't. Even if the project didn't make any money the potential for cultural significance (beyond a social media post) would still there. I'm sure everyone's tired of hearing about Galliano at Dior but that's just an example of what could be (not necessarily in the same style) standing behind someone so they can have the resources to bring a vision to life at the highest level possible, with the ability to push every aspect of the art to its limit. I guess Phoebe is coming so we'll see with that but for so long it's been gimmick and product based. And not even fun stuff. Where's the magic? I would think someone like Arnault would wanna be remembered as a patron of the arts rather than a scummy product pusher.

But LVMH is exactly that just product pushers. The only house that stands out to me is Dior even under MGC, arguably she is riding the coattails of this historic house and that's what keeps the magic and desirability for me with Dior. LV is a different kind of desirability for the gauche IMO; I'm obviously not the customer for it, with the exception of Nicolas' fw '23 for me.

The rest of the houses and their non-fashion brands is just gimmicks standing behind perceived French elegance and savoir-faire. It's laziness, the brands are prestigious because what they are perceived as by consumers: the ultimate luxury, what you need to aspire to. Otherwise there is no substance behind the group. No one cares about how artistic an LV bag is as long as it has the LV logo so everyone knows it.

I love Phoebe and hope that there is limited involvement from LMVH and that she is the ultimate decision-maker. I am excited to see what she does with this new project but also apprehensive because of LV involvement.
 
Antoine Arnault to Relinquish CEO Role at Berluti

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else in this forum. Antoine will be stepping down as CEO but remains chairman of Berluti and Loro Piana. Wonder if this places Antoine at the front of Bernard's succession plan. He would make the most sense as someone who doesn't mind being in the public eye and the face of the company.
 
Antoine Arnault to Relinquish CEO Role at Berluti

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else in this forum. Antoine will be stepping down as CEO but remains chairman of Berluti and Loro Piana. Wonder if this places Antoine at the front of Bernard's succession plan. He would make the most sense as someone who doesn't mind being in the public eye and the face of the company.
Bernard Arnault extend the age limit before retirement so, he is still there.
I don’t think that Antoine has proved himself from a business/strategic perspective for the big position.
Berluti and Loro Piana are successful and profitable the biggest brands in the group have now had the imput of Delphine.

For me Delphine has all the advantages in her hand. The experience, the discretion, she is good with talents and having a billionaire husband linked with new technologies is also a plus. She is the one that has been the longest involved with the group…Going back to Dior in the Galliano years.

Antoine is good with communication, philanthrophy.

I also think that it would be a strong signal to have a woman at that position.

Anyway, everybody in the fashion industry, in that sphere of business and even more in Paris knows that Delphine is far more superior to her brothers.
 
Antoine Arnault to Relinquish CEO Role at Berluti

Not sure if this was posted anywhere else in this forum. Antoine will be stepping down as CEO but remains chairman of Berluti and Loro Piana. Wonder if this places Antoine at the front of Bernard's succession plan. He would make the most sense as someone who doesn't mind being in the public eye and the face of the company.
That's definitely NOT a promotion.
And yes, everybody in Paris knows Delphine is the best at the job...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,719
Messages
15,124,980
Members
84,417
Latest member
Sl4vicd0ll
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->