Recently I got in to a debate about LVMH taking Tony Balir on its board to help its business especially in India.  http://bit.ly/6CRqHD

To me that spelt a departure of the true spirit of what luxury should be. My argument was as follows, if  Mr Blair’s alignment with LVMH was to make the brand (of both of them) greater. To me, it had the opposite effect I would argue that it’s not gravitas that makes luxury respectable, it is understatement and scarcity that are essential.

In fact I would go so far as to say that Tony Blair working for (not representing – he is being paid after all) LVMH, is everything that is wrong with luxury and politics for that matter. Sure LVMH has got amazing brands, brands that once upon a time defined luxury, but the over consumption of all things opulent came to a head an end in 2009 and with it a new definition of luxury was borne.

LVMH should not be looking for economies of scale, moving production away from France to the 4 corners of the globe. LVMH should be a breeding ground for individuality and master craftsmanship, creativity and of scarcity. It should not be the General Motors of apparel (I’m sure they thought they were in the luxury business too on some level) . This is not luxury this is just flashy – the opposite of luxury.

Let me know your thoughts