Best Global Green Brands 2013

political brands

LVMH Enlists Tony Blair To Help Take Over The World

Posted by Sara Zucker on January 14, 2010 11:55 AM

Luxury firm Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton LVMH has concluded negotiations with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair will serve as an adviser to the brand (which includes luxury brands Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, Sephora, Givenchy, Fendi, Hennessy, and Dior). It is well-known that Blair and LVMH head Bernard Arnault, the world’s 16th richest person, are close friends.

Although the pairing may seem unlikely, luxury analyst at Bernstein in London, Luca Solca, commended the partnership. "Blair could help LVMH open up new markets, get necessary authorizations, and resolve complex issues.”

One such market is India. The French umbrella corporation, like many of its competitors, has had trouble expanding into India due to lack of retail space, high restrictions and requirements, and a poor political foundation. According to analysts, India has the potential to bring LVMH $15 billion in annual sales.

Now that Blair is out of the running for the EU presidency, he has pursued opportunities advising JP Morgan Chase and Zurich Financial. But this recent partnership is gaining the most criticism.

Liberal Democrats, like head Norman Lamb, are worried that political priorities are becoming a bit skewed, while other critics are also citing examples of Blair’s unusually close relationship with Arnault when he was in office. This includes Blair’s son’s work experience at LVMH’s vineyard and at a French radio station owned by Arnault.

This isn't the first time that LVMH has approached political leaders for brand involvement; Louis Vuitton placed Mikhail Gorbachev in its 2007 luggage campaign.

What do you think of Blair's partnership with the luxury group? Do the positives outweigh the negatives?

Comments

Richard Haruni United Kingdom says:

My initial reaction to this is that, if anything, the luxury component of the brand is compromised in a big way.  Sure it add gravitas to the corporation, and will enhance the profile of the brand and Mr Blair' brand. I can't help think it is sending the message that LVMH are so big we can buy anything including statesmen?  
What does it say to the customers of that brand?  Is this what modern luxury is it about?  In today's economy you would want to show how individualistic each brand is and how much care goes into each product. NOT how corporate you are you even have ex prime ministers on the payroll

January 15, 2010 08:18 AM #

Paul Wilson United States says:

Mr. Haruni's criticism poses a non sequiter.  If Brand Blair's coupling with LVMH adds gravitas to the corporation, how does that necessarily compromise the luxury image of the brand? In fact, I would argue that Luxury needs gravitas to remain respectable.  I think LVMH is not sending a message of Bigness, but demonstrating affinity with someone who is qualified to discern and represent distinction and refinement in his judgment of brands. Contrary to Mr. Haruni's argument, I think the message being sent is that a man so powerful he could do any kind of work has chosen LVMH, not the opposite. Mr. Blair will be a boon the LVMH brand, and his ability to navigate difficult waters of Indian commerce, will make him a boon to their business as well.
  

January 18, 2010 11:30 AM #

Richard Haruni United Kingdom says:

I feel that Mr Wilson and myself are approaching the issue of luxury from two opposite perspectives. If I understand correctly, Mr Blair's alignment with LVMH makes the brand (of both of them) greater. What I'm saying is that these two giants diminish the brand of Luxury.
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.
Rant over.

January 18, 2010 07:41 PM #

Comments are closed

elsewhere on brandchannel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
brandcameo2013 Product Placement Awards
Which brand is most bullish on Hollywood?
Coca-ColaIt's the Journey That Matters:
Coca-Cola Opens Up With Story-Based Web Refresh
debateJoin the Debate
What makes a great brand?
BPBP
Branding Comeback Challenges
Digital Watch: WahlAT&T
Rethinking Possible With Transmedia Storytelling
paperGlobal Competitive [Ad]vantage
The latest from GeoEdge
Sheryl Connelly
Sheryl Connelly

Meet Ford's Resident Futurist
Marketing to the New MajorityBranding 123
A primer by Barry Silverstein