Disgusting businesses and their despicable practices

[Michie]

• Brands are willing to take extreme measures to maintain their luxury status
• READ MORE: Hermès is sued over Birkin-buying 'scheme'

Opulence, exclusivity and cost: these qualities give a brand its luxury status and keep it in high demand among consumers.

A number of labels are willing to take extreme measures to maintain these attributes and prevent their products from ending up in the wrong hands.

Hermès, the latest brand facing scrutiny, is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by two customers, alleging that the fashion house imposes expensive requirements on clients to qualify for the chance to purchase one of its bags.

Burberry admitted to burning unsold goods, while H&M was intentionally destroying 12 tonnes of unsold clothing each year.

Furthermore, Richemont, the parent company of Cartier and Montblanc, disposed of £400million worth of designer watches to prevent unauthorised resale.

Hermès

Hermès is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by two customers who claim that the fashion house enforces costly prerequisites for clients to be eligible to purchase one of its bags.

Hermès is being accused of antitrust and unfair business practices after taking advantage of the 'unique desirability, incredible demand and low supply' of the designer bags.

The lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs, Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga, in Northern California on Tuesday.

Tina and Mark have alleged that Hermès uses the exclusive bags to boost their sales of other products - claiming that shoppers are told to develop a close relationship with their sales associate and work their way up to procuring the handbag by purchasing other items first.

The duo has accused the design house of having 'a scheme to exploit the market power' of the Birkin, by 'requiring consumers to purchase other, ancillary products from [it] before they will be given an opportunity to purchase.'

The plaintiffs accused Hermès sales associates of having the ability to 'only offer Birkin handbags' to people with the correct purchase history of other products, including shoes, belts, scarves and more.

Tina said in the complaint that she ended up spending tends of thousands of dollars, and when she asked about buying another Birkin in September 2022, the sales associate said that those bags go to 'clients who have been consistent in supporting our business.'

Burberry

Continued below.

How far are luxury brands willing to go to maintain exclusivity?

A number of labels are willing to take extreme measures to maintain these qualities and prevent their products from ending up in the wrong hands.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[chevyontheriver]

• Brands are willing to take extreme measures to maintain their luxury status
• READ MORE: Hermès is sued over Birkin-buying 'scheme'

Opulence, exclusivity and cost: these qualities give a brand its luxury status and keep it in high demand among consumers.

A number of labels are willing to take extreme measures to maintain these attributes and prevent their products from ending up in the wrong hands.

Hermès, the latest brand facing scrutiny, is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by two customers, alleging that the fashion house imposes expensive requirements on clients to qualify for the chance to purchase one of its bags.

Burberry admitted to burning unsold goods, while H&M was intentionally destroying 12 tonnes of unsold clothing each year.

Furthermore, Richemont, the parent company of Cartier and Montblanc, disposed of £400million worth of designer watches to prevent unauthorised resale.

Hermès

Hermès is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by two customers who claim that the fashion house enforces costly prerequisites for clients to be eligible to purchase one of its bags.

Hermès is being accused of antitrust and unfair business practices after taking advantage of the 'unique desirability, incredible demand and low supply' of the designer bags.

The lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs, Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga, in Northern California on Tuesday.

Tina and Mark have alleged that Hermès uses the exclusive bags to boost their sales of other products - claiming that shoppers are told to develop a close relationship with their sales associate and work their way up to procuring the handbag by purchasing other items first.

The duo has accused the design house of having 'a scheme to exploit the market power' of the Birkin, by 'requiring consumers to purchase other, ancillary products from [it] before they will be given an opportunity to purchase.'

The plaintiffs accused Hermès sales associates of having the ability to 'only offer Birkin handbags' to people with the correct purchase history of other products, including shoes, belts, scarves and more.

Tina said in the complaint that she ended up spending tends of thousands of dollars, and when she asked about buying another Birkin in September 2022, the sales associate said that those bags go to 'clients who have been consistent in supporting our business.'

Burberry

Continued below.

How far are luxury brands willing to go to maintain exclusivity?

A number of labels are willing to take extreme measures to maintain these qualities and prevent their products from ending up in the wrong hands.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Sorry. I just think this is a rediculous exploitation of the filthy rich by the filthy rich. It’s not even close to my world.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure that any of this would against the law...

While it displays an unhealthy reverence for materialism, the concept of brands wanting to maintain exclusivity, and even the concept of "you have to already own these other things before we'll sell you this thing", isn't unique.

Ferrari did the same thing with their Enzo model that was "all the rage" among car aficionados a few years back... where someone already had to be a current Ferrari owner before being eligible to buy one.

Silly business practice? I think so (if someone's willing to shell out a million dollars for a car, doesn't matter if their other car is a 98 Taurus if it were me selling one)

What they call "Manufacturer Imposed Requirements" for how, and at what price, retailers sell their goods were found to be legal by the FTC (and SCOTUS) in 2007 so long as they're not being done in a way that creates an unfair advantage for themselves over their competitors.

 

[Michie]

Sorry. I just think this is a rediculous exploitation of the filthy rich by the filthy rich. It’s not even close to my world.

It’s disgusting and the waste is shameful. Those purses are ugly as well. A sucker born every minute.

 

[comana]

I couldn’t walk around in public with one of the Hermes Birken bags without being totally embarrassed that I was swindled out of 40k - 100k plus. They are not remarkable in design, nor are they very practical to use. But I guess the super wealthy will drop any amount to be seen as special with their “exclusive, by invitation only, criminally overpriced, frankly- ugly” bags.

 

[Michie]

I couldn’t walk around in public with one of the Hermes Birken bags without being totally embarrassed that I was swindled out of 40k - 100k plus. They are not remarkable in design, nor are they very practical to use. But I guess the super wealthy will drop any amount to be seen as special with their “exclusive, by invitation only, criminally overpriced, frankly- ugly” bags.

Some people never outgrow the peer pressure and real priorities. Nothing wrong with having funds but the waste, self absorption is telling. And yes, they are just ugly.

 

[durangodawood]

The Hermes associate sold me my Birkin out of the trunk of his car. No questions asked. So Im not seeing the problem here.

 

[Nithavela]

I can see the problem with wasteful destruction of goods instead of offering them for a cheaper price, but the Birkin bag situation doesn't seem so bad. They are a free business and can sell their products to whoever they want, using any criteria they deem right. What's "disgusting" about that?

 

[comana]

I ag

I can see the problem with wasteful destruction of goods instead of offering them for a cheaper price, but the Birkin bag situation doesn't seem so bad. They are a free business and can sell their products to whoever they want, using any criteria they deem right. What's "disgusting" about that?

I agree that disgusting is a bit dramatic. I do find it hilarious that these wealthy persons who buy them are doing so for status. I mean if you can afford one why all the need to signal you have so much money? It does remind me of teenage peer pressure to show off you got that expensive jacket for Christmas that everyone is jealous of.

 

[durangodawood]

....They are a free business and can sell their products to whoever they want, using any criteria they deem right.....

But what if they make the bag smaller without telling you?

 

[Nithavela]

But what if they make the bag smaller without telling you?

Changes of a product price should be indicated. I don't think you can apply the "size" logic to designer accessories the same way you'd apply them to groceries, though.

 

[Michie]

Disgusting? I find this disgusting.

Burberry admitted to burning unsold goods, while H&M was intentionally destroying 12 tonnes of unsold clothing each year.

 

[Nithavela]

Disgusting? I find this disgusting.

Burberry admitted to burning unsold goods, while H&M was intentionally destroying 12 tonnes of unsold clothing each year.

That's pretty despicable, yes. Though nothing compared to what Amazon is doing. Compared to that, 12 tonnes is small potatoes.

Honestly, for a big clothing firm like H&M, I'm surprised it's just 12 tonnes overall per year. Is that worldwide? H&M has over 4.000 stores, so that amounts to only 3 kilos per store and year. Even if they only dispose of the clothing that's damaged by customers or accidents, that seems like a very low amount.

 

[Michie]

That's pretty despicable, yes. Though nothing compared to what Amazon is doing. Compared to that, 12 tonnes is small potatoes.

Honestly, for a big clothing firm like H&M, I'm surprised it's just 12 tonnes overall per year. Is that worldwide? H&M has over 4.000 stores, so that amounts to only 3 kilos per store and year. Even if they only dispose of the clothing that's damaged by customers or accidents, that seems like a very low amount.

I refuse to use Amazon as well.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ferrari did the same thing with their Enzo model that was "all the rage" among car aficionados a few years back... where someone already had to be a current Ferrari owner before being eligible to buy one.

Ferrari and Porsche both do it with their higher-end, limited-run models. I imagine the same is true of most of their competitors, too.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ferrari and Porsche both do it with their higher-end, limited-run models. I imagine the same is true of most of their competitors, too.

Yeah, it's basically just an "exclusivity" way of rich people to compete with other rich people by getting them to spend stupid sums of money lol.

Does is say something bad about our material culture? Absolutely...

Is it anything illegal or any more despicable (as the threat title suggests) than what a lot of places are engaging in? I don't see how.


To me, Amazon's business practices (especially with their warehouse employees, and the way they put strain on the US postal system) are more troubling than "expensive brand makes rich people buy other expensive stuff before they can buy the super-exclusive thing"

 

[chevyontheriver]

I can see the problem with wasteful destruction of goods instead of offering them for a cheaper price, but the Birkin bag situation doesn't seem so bad. They are a free business and can sell their products to whoever they want, using any criteria they deem right. What's "disgusting" about that?

Well, you would wonder if they only allowed sales to Asians and not Africans. Or only to college graduates and not high school dropouts. But otherwise who cares.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, you would wonder if they only allowed sales to Asians and not Africans. Or only to college graduates and not high school dropouts. But otherwise who cares.

"Asian" and "African" would constitute protected classes based on race in the US.

Income level (with regards to consumer goods), prior purchase history, and "propensity for overpaying for conspicuous consumption goods that aren't functionally any better that what you could get for $20 at Target" aren't protected classes.
(nor should they be)

 

[bèlla]

The lawsuit is frivolous. No one forces you to purchase a Birkin or luxury handbag. You do so by choice. Anyone in the market for an Hermes bag is aware they aren't produced en masse. Acquisition is dependent on demand (the style you're seeking) and availability.

Unlike some retailers, they rely on mystique in their marketing. The privilege of owning a bag has always been its cache as has the workmanship. The brand has grown in popularity and limits were put in place to discourage fraud and reselling.

Nevertheless, if you want a bag you have several options. If you have a local store you can build a relationship with the SA and buy through them. You can purchase through the flagship store or other locations when traveling. If you're a fan of cruising you can buy them on board. Or you can look at resellers for new or gently used options.

The plaintiffs aren't being exploited. They just aren't VIPs. If they had higher standing with the brand they'd have fewer restrictions as we've seen with celebrities. They're in the public eye and the brand receives free publicity and they're rewarded in turn.

Just because you have the means doesn't mean you'll get it. That's a difficult concept for some to accept who aren't familiar with the luxury and ultra luxury markets. Deservedness is part of it and there's a measure of discrimination. Relationships matter most and it's demonstrated through patronage. Not a one time shopping spree but a steady display of purchases over a period of time made better when you bring in your loved one. Then it becomes a tradition and that's what they want.

Hermes doesn't want to be trendy. They control production to prevent over saturation. Unlike most they hold their value and they're collectible. Vintage pieces have sold for a lot.

~bella

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I I do find it hilarious that these wealthy persons who buy them are doing so for status. I mean if you can afford one why all the need to signal you have so much money?

Truly rich people don't buy this kind of branded stuff anyway.