Saudi Gazette report The drive for luxury is as old as civilization, in that luxury can be anything that is given high and exceptional regard compared with ordinary things, things that are necessary for existence. That is a broad and insubstantial definition, but then the concept of luxury is broad and insubstantial, varies with the social and physical environment and cannot be enumerated. It is the nature of the beast. The interesting aspect of the history of luxury is to inquire why would anyone want something that is given high regard, probably costs effort and money (or its equivalent) to obtain and makes its possessor different from and a target of envy of his fellow humans. In that sense, luxury is perhaps a disruptive power of desire, one that potentially divides rather than unites. Human existence tends to be a history of structured groups; family, tribe and country. Despite the occasional effort to enforce the pretence that “all men are equal” the reality is clearly very different. Humans, being able to conceptualize and attribute value to symbols, have ever practiced this through recorded history, acquiring and using luxury goods to symbolize their real or perceived status within the group. This goes a long way to explain the egregious luxuries of many European monarchs and emperors and indeed religious institutions. Luxury is to equate with power. I use luxury here in the sense of a good of a quality or type that is beyond the actual need of the individual. Examples might include a gold coffin, a silver chalice in a society of wooden beakers or a handmade suit in the days of mass production. In the pursuit of luxury, there comes a point at which we are satisfied, after which we cannot be further sated, just have too much which fails to please. Often then, the acquisition of luxury items becomes an end in itself. The only caveat to the idea is that the limit may be different for each person. The Romans, or at least those with the money and connections to do so, became the most cultivated yet decadent people of their time. Daily life became increasingly driven by pleasure and extravagance, especially in dining and leisure. The decadence itself became a symbol of class power and through the process of the common logical fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, (after this, therefore because of this) the ability to behave in a decadent manner and display the possessions of the class, then the possessions themselves became symbols of membership of that class. That is close in essence to sympathetic magic where to possess a piece of one's dead enemy is to take on his powers. Fast-forward a few centuries and the fallacy is even more ridiculous in the “spin off” sales from the celebrity industry. A well-known individual lionized for some entertainment talent puts her name to a perfume; sales soar. A similarly celebrated individual puts his name to an established brand of after-shave; sales soar. The ruling/wealthy classes have ever been the luxury market, using their wealth to buy expensive, handmade clothing and accessories. Most of the luxury brands famous today are about 100-200 years old, some more recent. According to Globalization101.org, part of the US-based Levin Institute established to promote a greater understanding of globalization, the first wave of consumption of branded luxury goods began in Europe 100-200 years ago. It was followed by the second wave in the US, starting after World War II, followed by the third wave in China, starting about 30 years ago. “China is expected to become the biggest luxury goods market ($27 billion) worldwide within the next four years and will consume 44 percent of the luxury market by 2020. There are now about 960,000 millionaires in China and a growing middle class that has discretionary income, both of which are ready to spend money on luxury items”. Given that China's political history for half a century centered on “equality” and “comradeship”, its massive growth in the drive for possession of luxury goods and all that implies rather supports the idea of a basic human drive for discrimination and aspiration to status that the conspicuous consumption of luxury goods is perceived to give. The customer's perception of the value luxury is linked to financial, functional, social and individual utilities of the brand. Financial dimension might address direct monetary aspects, such as price and investment — as for example in the case of art. Functional dimensions address aspects such as quality, uniqueness and usability of the product. Social dimensions address how peers will perceive the product in the owner's social group. The individual dimension includes personal orientation to luxury, hedonistic and self-identity value — such as a replica of a celebrity footballer's shirt. The industrialization of luxury however, and therefore extension of the market into areas other than the privileged classes, has only taken place in the past couple of decades. It has become globalized extremely rapidly, as a walk in any major city will establish. The same high-end stores line the fashionable streets. The majority of clothing, jewelry and accessory brands, for example Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Dior, Armani, Cartier, Versace, started out as small French or Italian family businesses, centered on a creative designer. In the 1970s, many of the French firms suffered from a slew of management and ownership problems. They lacked both capital and the cash flow from the mass marketing of their products. The 1980s saw a turn around in their fortunes with the use of celebrities to promote brand awareness. The Academy Awards for example were heavily used to showcase designer clothing. The fantasy hero James Bond became an icon for Omega, Aston Martin and a variety of beverages. Another reason was the influx of capital to these firms and leading the charge was real estate manager Bernard Arnault, who took control of Agache-Williot-Boussac-Saint-Frères and only kept its affiliate Christian Dior. Arnault soon thereafter took control of Louis Vuitton and Moët-Hennessy, and united them under LVMH. From 1985 to 2006, he took over 64 brands and almost became the “luxury industry”. In the 1990s, the luxury firms started employing new strategies either diversifying their products toward mass consumption and/or focusing on select high-quality goods. Hermes and Vuitton followed the latter by increasing the quality of their products and by increasing the number and skills of craftsmen. It proved a successful move. In China, “aspirationalism” is commonplace as receptionists save three months of salary to buy a Louis Vuitton handbag. And as of 2007, a startling 40 percent of Japanese owned monogrammed Louis Vuitton product. At the beginning of 2013, the winter sales in London's Oxford and Regent Streets attracted chartered aircraft-loads of shoppers from Hong Kong and Mainland China to, quite literally in some televised cases, fight for the opportunity to buy high-status luxury goods cheaply. In Russia as well, there is a habit of consumption as the newly rich show off their wealth. Affluent Russians spend 13 percent of household budgets on clothes and shoes, double the percent of well-off Japanese and British. Businessmen are the main consumers. As with the Chinese, they were brought up in a time that lacked luxury and are making up for it. The drivers behind the luxury market are the same worldwide; the difference between cultures is the weight placed on the different dimensions. Always though, the underlying elements of status, social difference in increasingly homogeneous societies and quality remain.
