Luxury: Bulgari's Delicate Balancing Act

The onset of the recession has prompted an important shift in the way luxury brands market themselves. There are decidedly fewer celebrity-fronted campaigns and generally less ostentation now than what we had grown accustomed to over the past decades. While this may provide a nice respite from all the glitz, a brand still needs to communicate to sell its products. How does a luxury brand craft a message that is at once enticing to those who can still afford its products while not appearing insensitive to the surrounding hardship? How does luxury as an industry remain relevant during hard times? For a number of brands, most notably Louis Vuitton and Gucci, a return to vague notions of heritage seem to be à l'ordre du jour. In contrast, Bulgari, fresh off celebrations for its 125th anniversary, has just unveiled its very first celebrity brand ambassador, the actress Julianne Moore.

Bulgari's strategic move can seem at odds with the direction of other luxury brands in the face of difficult economic times. At an elegant party attended by Ms. Moore for the unveiling of a special collection of the brand's Chandra handbags (more on this later), the CEO of Bulgari Mr. Francesco Trapani graciously answered my questions about the brand's marketing strategy and its choice of brand ambassador. When I politely remarked that Bulgari's strategy of choosing a celebrity spokesmodel seemed counterintuitive given the times, he was keen to point out the need for balance: "Bulgari celebrated its 125th anniversary last year and so we focused a great deal on our rich history and heritage. But the appeal of a luxury brand can't rest on heritage alone. You need a touch of glamour as well. The trick is to achieve the right balance. I think we've achieved this with Julianne Moore."

In some respects Moore, whose roles have included a fragile porn star (Boogie Nights), a high society matron involved in an incestuous relationship with her son (Savage Grace) and most recently an aging 60's party girl with an unhealthy attachment to her gay best friend (A Single Man), seems like an unusual choice for an Italian luxury brand. Never one to fit neatly into Hollywood's female archetypes, her career success has been largely built on playing a succession of complex characters (many in smaller independent films) with subtelty and nuance. In other words, she is a grown-up actress who makes movies for grown-up audiences. More pointedly, she is more actress than celebrity. Perhaps herein lies her appeal for a historic brand like Bulgari - a critically acclaimed actress better known for her work than for her movie star lifestyle.

When I broached the subject of Moore as the embodiment of the Bulgari brand, Mr. Trapani explained: "It's tricky to find the right person who will embody your brand's values. We had a number of candidates in mind. In the case of Julianne Moore, she's very elegant and intelligent, values which we feel correspond very well to the Bulgari brand. She's also a warm, lovely person. We enjoy working with her and we think she will be an excellent ambassadress for our brand."

It's difficult to argue with Bulgari's choice of Moore as a spokesmodel. Judging by her body of work and her decidedly low-key personal life (a rare occurrence in her line of work), I can of course see her appeal and have no doubt she will indeed make an elegant and gracious ambassadress for the brand. Nor can you find fault with the gorgeous campaign shot by Mert Alas and Marcus Piggot at the legendary Duquette estate in Beverly Hills, the perfect setting for Moore's Titian features. Yet, despite Bulgari's pitch perfect campaign, I still can't quite shake the feeling that this is a step backward rather than forward for the venerable Roman jeweler. It's as though the entire luxury industry has only one of two notes from which to sing, heritage or glamour, when in fact they have so much more to offer.

Sincerely,

The Luxe Chronicles

N.B. As a guest of Bulgari, my round-trip ticket from London to Milan and my accommodations were graciously provided by them. I received no further gratuity, gift or remuneration.

Comments

[Chris]

Helene: Thank you so much for catching my mistake. I was thinking "Gilt Groupe" while typing "Net-A-Porter". Apologies to Net-A-Porter.

[Helene]

Dear Chris:

Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment (and for your very kind words). I would like to address your points about the relationship between luxury and fashion and the relationship between luxury and quality if I may.

First, your point about luxury and fashion. Ever since luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton and Gucci entered the fashion business in the mid-90's, there has been increasing confusion in the minds of most consumers as to what luxury actually is. In many respects, modern fashion (excluding haute couture and very high end pret-a-porter) is more or less incompatible with traditional notions of luxury in that the former is by nature ephemeral and constantly changing while the latter is meant to last. Personally, I think luxury brands who dabble in fashion should do a much better job of keeping their luxury arm separate from their fashion arm. (They're not likely to do this of course because the luxury arm helps market the fashion and helps justify the sometimes eye-popping price tags). I do share your view regarding diffusion lines - the waters get even muddier when premium fashion brands introduce diffusion lines where the price has little rational connection with the quality of the garments in question. Who can blame consumers for feeling jilted?

As for the connection between luxury and quality, the problem is not that luxury is no longer a gage of quality but rather that good (sometimes exceptional) quality can be found at much lower price points. Thanks to innovations in production and textiles for instance, consumers no longer have to pay a premium to acquire a well-made, durable garment. Case in point: Jil Sander's debut collaboration with Japanese high street fashion chain Uniqlo under the "+J" label (Fall/Winter 2009). This leaves luxury brands with no choice but to distinguish themselves in other ways. The most common way they achieve this is by playing with the notions of heritage and glamour (and I agree with you, a number of brands who are busy chatting up their heritage are on thin ice given how they've transformed their production practices to keep up with demand).

Based on what I've learned about the Bulgari brand, Bulgari's claim to heritage is perfectly genuine. I will be posting a little later about their accessories collection which is (in my opinion) a good illustration of this.

Finally, just a minor correction: Net-A-Porter is an online luxury retailer of fashion (and one of my favorites thanks to their exceptional service combined with their stellar product mix). They don't sell discounted fashions. You may be confusing it with it's subsidiary theOutnet.com which sells only discounted fashions.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comment. My readers definitely keep me on my toes.

Helene

[Chris]

Helene:
Julianne Moore was born at Fort Bragg, so my wife and I thought this was just a push for the North Carolina demographic. And rightly so, since this is surely the finest state in the Union.

I wonder if luxury brands are just using heritage and glamor as a shorthand for quality? "Hey, we've been here for 125 years and you don't get to say that if you're selling glass baubles to the hayseeds." Or, more subtly, "Julianne Moore wanted a lot of money, and she wanted it upfront. Obviously, we're going to be around for a while, so please be comfortable buying from us."

But luxury is not co-terminus with quality. Luxury brands can pursue diffusion lines and dump their overstock at Net-A-Porter all they want. (Or, more cynically, manufacture lines specifically for sale at Net-A-Porter.) Differential pricing is great if you're a shareholder, but the brand ceases to be luxury good. I think it is wonderful that Hermes and Chanel understand the distinction.

In a perfect world, luxury brands should forcefully point up how exactly they are superior goods. But many of these brands can't reasonably make that sweeping claim any longer. I absolutely do not think that Bulgari is guilty of this. But I do think that a brand such as Burberry would have a hard time making an explicit claim of quality, quality, quality. How could it when it gleefully sells "luxury" half-canvassed men's suits? Far better simply to hint at craftsmanship through heritage and glamor.

And before I go, thank you so much for this blog. You are an original thinker!