I always look forward to Sundays - it's the day where I turn off my Blackberry and kick back with the weekend papers. One of my preferred broadsheets is the Financial Times. The weekend edition is particularly satisfying with a good mix of financial and political news balanced out with art, fashion, gastronomy and exotic travel in its Weekend section - in the words of George Gershwin, "(...) who could ask for anything more?" Well, this past weekend, a piece on LVMH's Bernard Arnault penned by Paul Betts and entitled Enigmatic God of Luxury left me rethinking my subscription.
Photographic References:
Left to right: Bernard Arnault, photo by Greg Kessler; Antoine Arnault, photo by Olivier Borde; Delphine Arnault-Gancia, photo by Greg Kessler. All photos courtesy of Style.com.
The article of course examines Arnault's well-documented litigiousness (by French standards) in the context of his court victory last week that pitted a number of LVMH's most prestigious brands against embattled online auction giant eBay. What disturbed me in this article was less the glorification of Arnault as "the god of luxury" (something to be expected given LVMH's rank in the luxury industry) but rather a number of half-truths and omissions in the weaving of that particular tale. The piece recounts the now familiar story of an unassuming young man from Northern France, an "outsider" (or so we're told), who took a failed textile group (Boussac), stripped it down to its bare essence (Christian Dior and le Bon Marche department store) and, using the family construction business as leverage, turned it into the world's leading luxury conglomerate. I'm not absolutely certain how someone who graduated from the prestigious Ecole Polytechnique, one of France's grandes ecoles, the fertile breeding ground that turns out most if not all of France's ruling class, can still credibly claim to be an outsider but perhaps it's more a state of mind. Along the way, we learn that this supposed outsider is no longer an outsider because he now boasts a "close friendship" with French president Nicholas Sarkozy. It's a compelling tale but hardly tells the whole story.
For instance, in discussing Arnault's recent acquisition of French business newspaper Les Echos from Pearson (owner of the FT), the article concedes that the purchase was controversial (an understatement at best given that journalists walked out at the mere rumour of Arnault's possible acquisition of the newspaper back in early 2007) but quickly points out: "(...) Mr Arnault says he has no intention of interfering with the paper's editorial independence." (Source) While strictly speaking, this statement is indeed accurate (Arnault did at the time state his intention not to interfere), what the piece fails to mention is that one of Arnault's first acts upon finalizing the acquisition of Les Echos was to appoint his son Antoine Arnault, to the paper's editorial board. (Source). He also named his son, his daughter Delphine Arnault-Gancia and LVMH executive Nicolas Bazire to the paper's Conseil de surveillance. (Source). Far be it for a humble blogger to tell a venerable publication such as the FT how to conduct the business of journalism but that additional information might have been an important counterbalancing fact to Arnault's assertion, wouldn't it? This is especially true given that Arnault's usual MO is reportedly to exert pressure at a distance, usually through handpicked emissaries. (Source)
It's difficult to come away from reading this article without concluding that it was anything more than a fluff piece, the kind that passes for editorial content in fashion publications these days. We've come to expect this type of " soft journalism" in fashion magazines because they're beholden to deep-pocketed brands like Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Chanel, Gucci and others for the lucrative advertising dollars. The only problem is that I didn't read this feature in Vogue or Harper's Bazaar - I read it in the Comment & Analysis section of the FT. Much was made in the article about Arnault's litigiousness (towards eBay but also towards Morgan Stanley and one of their analysts for a dispute arising from LVMH's battle with PPR over Gucci). Are readers to surmise that Arnault's litigiousness had a chilling effect over FT's journalist and editors as well? Or is it because the FT itself is also rumored to be on Arnault's acquisitions "wish list"? Or, is it simply that the FT didn't want to upset "god"? Whatever the reason, it left me wondering what else the FT glosses over and whether I should be renewing my subscription.
Sincerely,
The Luxe Chronicles
Comments