Hello, hello everyone. Hi, come on in…. welcome to “Tea & Gemstones”, your shiny happy home for a mix of history, science and social commentary about anything and everything to do with jewelry, gemstones, and precious metals. No topic is too random, and I love to dive into all the little details, because I think that is where a lot of the joy is. I am your host, Jen. I am a lifelong sparkle enthusiast just out to do some learning, laughing and taking a deeper look at both trends and history. Oh! Thanks again to everyone who has been leaving reviews and ratings, especially if you’re listening on Spotify or Apple podcasts. That feedback from yall is literally the only thing that keeps Tea and Gemstones discoverable in the algorithm… I got an email from Apple Support saying exactly that haha So because of yall, more people can find and listen to the show… so… again, my most heartfelt thanks. Okay- let’s get started on this week’s episode!
*music*
What’s cool? What’s… “classic”? Can a classic brand be cool… and inversely, can a cool brand be a classic? I want to take a look at one specific iconic brand and how they have recently fallen into a quagmire of their own making, a totally messy tangle of this concept of cool versus classic. Tiffany & Co.
Classic jewelry companies that know they are classics are like Cartier and Van Clef & Arpels, or Harry Winston. They don’t chase fads, they are timeless and they know their motifs. The Cartier panther and the Van Clef & Arpels alahambra lucky four-leaf clover are everlasting symbols of luxury, able to deftly be redesigned, reimagined, and reinterpreted endless times without aging or becoming too… “try hard.” Because it’s pretty universally agreed upon that there’s nothing more intrinsically uncool than trying too hard. I feel that Tiffany & Co. has always had a bit of a struggle to focus themselves on a narrow range of motifs. They have in current rotation the “Return to Tiffany” line, “Atlas”- based on the roman numerals of the large clock in the NYC flagship store, the Tiffany Keys collection with dozens of designs of the little tool, I mean, Tiffany’s website has a vast dropdown menu… do you want Tiffany T, Tiffany Hardwear, Tiffany Knot, Tiffany Victoria, Save the Wild, Lovebugs, Elsa Peretti, Schlumberger, Paloma Picasso, or Tiffany 1837? It’s an enormous catalog of inventory- and that list I just gave you isn’t complete and doesn’t include engagement rings, or Tiffany home goods like vases, candlesticks, tea sets, baby rattles, or purses, jewelry boxes, tote bags and sunglasses and watches. I suppose there is a great benefit to the ‘something for everyone’ approach. The published financials could certainly point to “yes”: Tiffany’s revenue in 2020 was over three and a half billion dollars. Billion. With a B. But it seems like Tiffany’s is not content with billions of dollars… they don’t want to just be rich… they want to be COOL.
Tiffany’s wants to be the cool kid everyone wants to invite to their party. Whenever I think about someone rich trying to be cool, Jeff Bezos comes to mind, especially that picture that went viral on social media a couple months ago with him wearing tight white pants and heart shape sunglasses on some beach… it was radiating “try too hard” energy. But forget about Jeff, I really want too… why did Tiffany & Co, this 184-year-old company suddenly decide to start campaigning for cool points? Well, because in January 2021, the Tiffany’s that has existed for nearly 200 years- it wasn’t *that* Tiffany’s anymore. The company was sold to a mega conglomerate called “LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton,” but that’s a mouthful and everyone just says LVMH. So, a ‘conglomerate’ is a term for a multi-industry company, combining different kinds of businesses into one unified group- like the Avengers for superheroes, LVMH is like that for luxury goods.
Founded in 1987 when fashion house Louis Vuitton merged with high-end champagne and cognac company Moet Hennessy. LVMH has spent the last three decades swallowing up every luxury company you’ve probably ever heard of, including: Marc Jacobs, Fendi, Stella McCartney, Celine, Christian Dior, Givenchy, Fenty, Sephora, Benefit Cosmetics, Gucci, Tag Heuer, Dom Perignon and Bulargi… and more! As of 2021, LVMH owns 75 prestigious brands and the conglomerate was valued at $339 billion dollars, making LVMH the most valuable company in all of Europe. It was into this ultra-luxury, massive blended… *family* that Tiffany joined on January 7th, 2021. The price tag for Tiffany & Co.? $15.8 billion dollars. After dropping that kind of cash, LVMH hit the ground running with their quest to take the blue box engagement ring company in a new “cool” direction. Whatever it takes.
*music*
You know the analogy that if you throw a frog in boiling water, it’ll leap right out- but if you slowly increase the temperature, the frog in the water will never notice the temperature rising? To parley the analogy over- Tiffany’s is the chef, we the consumers are the frog, and the water temperature is the “we are cool” factor. If Tiffany’s underwent a massive, sudden full-on rebranding overnight, all the frogs would leap from the suddenly boiling water. So, instead Tiffany’s has been slowly, deliberately trying to change the temperature of their pot; so subtly their established customer base won’t exit, and maybe new, younger, cool customer frogs will come over… finding the now hot water appealing. Haha- this analogy makes perfect sense to me- I hope it came out as coherently as I intended.
At first, the changes did seem slow. But changes, they sure were. Here’s an example. For over one hundred years, Tiffany’s has run a print ad in the top right corner of page A3 of the New York Times. It’s premium placement; essentially the ad is the first thing a reader sees when they turn the front page over. Steve McKee, cofounder of ad agency McKee Wallwork + Co; said the regular ad showed the power of brand growth. He wrote, quote, “Rain or shine, good times and bad- you can always find a Tiffany ad on page A3 of the New York Times. Tiffany’s small space newspaper ads are almost as iconic as the blue box,” end quote. But nope- like ruthlessly abandoning a streak on Snapchat; Tiffany’s pulled their ad at the start of 2021, just after they got acquired by LVMH. Former Times editor Quentin Hardy tweeted on March 3rd, quote, “the page three Tiffany ad disappeared from the print New York Time. It’s like a disturbance in The Force,” end quote. I mean, it isn’t a secret that people, especially younger people- aren’t reading print newspapers anymore. But the print New York Times still has about 800,000 individual subscribers, not to mention people grabbing a copy at newsstands, airports and coffee shops. I couldn’t find out how much Tiffany’s had been paying for their iconic prime ad placement since 1896- but I guess it wasn’t worth maintaining. Or… wasn’t ‘cool’ to maintain.
Okay, the son of the boss of LVMHis a is 28-year-old man named Alexandre Arnault. And Alexandre was given the job of ‘executive vice president of product and communications’ at Tiffany’s… so as these changes started happening, Alexandre was viewed as the orchestrator and spokesman. Which is valid. When questioned about the ad being cancelled- an ad mind you, that in the 2016 edition of “This Is Tiffany,” a magazine/catalog combo published annually- Tiffany’s themselves lovingly said quote, “In an ever-changing world, perhaps Tiffany & Co’s most consistent relationship with the public over the last century is it’s daily advertisement on page A3 of the New York Times.” End quote. When Alexandre was asked about ending that, ‘most consistent relationship,” he replied that the company would be sharpening their social media presence and moving away from a corporate tone to one that is more personal. Well… yes- that did happen. What Tiffany’s did next on social media did feel sharp and personal; it was basically an attack ad on their own established customer base.
*music*
July 2021 was when Tiffany’s got tired of being coy with their… transition. The “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” ad campaign popped up in July 202l with videos and posters featuring young, sort of stereotypical ‘cool’ models- very thin bodies, slicked back hair, wearing white tank tops and Tiffany jewelry, staring at the camera with sullen, unsmiling faces. Rather than advertising featuring a beautiful piece of jewelry, these ads were trying to sell a lifestyle, a “vibe”… but people immediately bristled at the tagline, “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” in huge letters. It felt like the company was stepping on their generations of loyal customers to lift themselves into some new place of being. A lot of hurt women took to social media to share their sore feelings. On Instagram, one user, @ drea_steiner commented, quote, “as a mother who has spent the last 15 months working from home and homeschooling my daughters at the same time I feel really offended. Mothers all over the world have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic- I am not sure this is the right moment to diminish us. It obviously never is. If it wouldn’t hurt my husband I would take off my Tiffany’s wedding band and my Tiffany’s engagement ring right now,” end quote. Whoa. I thought this woman’s response was so earnest, I decided to reach out to her. I messaged her on Instagram, explained this episode’s concept, referenced her comment and asked how she was feeling now, seven-ish months later. And lo’ and behold, the beauty of social media, I got a response in less than a day! We connected and talked for almost half an hour. I got permission to publicly discuss our conversation.
My hurt Tiffany’s customer is named Andrea, she lives in Germany and really had a uniquely insightful view on the “Not Your Mother’s” tagline. Andrea actually runs a PR company specializing in beauty brands and she has a masters in Luxury Management. Andrea told me she understood Tiffany’s targeting of new, younger, Millennial/Gen Z customers but stated there is no need to put off your existing customers. Andrea is definitely still angry, repeating that her disappointment in Tiffany’s shifting values made her wish her wedding set rings were from somewhere else. We concluded our conversation with Andrea telling me she only intended to buy vintage Tiffany’s on ebay from now on, to avoid supporting quote, “the new owners,” end quote.
I think today’s consumers- especially that coveted youth demographic- are pretty media savvy. The youth customer has grown up saturated in social media and technology, and consequently can smell a phony or a ‘try-hard’ instantly. Authenticity is prized. Look at the exploding success of the simple Carhartt beanie in the past few months. Carhartt doesn’t even advertise it, heck it used to be a free gift with purchase when the blue-collar workwear brand first created the unisex solid colored hat. The $16 beanie is currently riding a booming wave of popularity with that ‘youth’ demographic Tiffany’s is drooling over. Because Carhartt is unpretentious and authentic… and definitely not ‘trying to be cool.’ Carhartt was just existing, doing their thing and people like that. With LVMH at the controls for 13 months now as of February 2022, Tiffany’s has been trying to present a new overnight “authenticity” to the world. But for 180 plus years, people saw one consistent persona… it’s just jarring the way changes have been done. Steve Jobs had a famous quote, “deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do.” And LVMH decided to *do* something unexpected with their blue box brand. A collaboration.
*music*
Tiffany’s doesn’t want to be your mother’s pearls or your great aunt’s china… millennials, gen Z’s, etc, have already caught onto the price mark-up of a Tiffany engagement ring and they aren’t shelling out for a blue ring box like people used too… So, Tiffany is chasing, *chasing* the youth, the cool factor, hard. You can’t just say a tagline, “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany”, but still sell all the same ‘traditional’ products, you gotta show new hip cool designs, right? Well, a couple months after July, Tiffany did just that with an action speaking a lot louder than campaign words. They dropped their collaboration with Supreme. …. Supreme is an American clothing and skateboarding lifestyle brand founded in New York City in 1994. Their purview is a combination of skateboarding and hip-hop culture. Not even in the same realm or dimension as Tiffany & Co, who sells things like a $550 sterling silver clothespin or a diamond ball pendant for $13,000. Though Supreme isn’t cheap- far from it- Supreme produces high-quality items in very limited quantities. This creates a feverishly hot resell and secondhand market laser focused on their brand. And in the last ten years Supreme has become like, the go-to creator of instant street cred to companies seeking the young, fiercely loyal Supreme customer. Supreme has collaborated and released limited edition collections with over 50 brands, including The North Face, Nike, Dover Street Market, Vans, and in 2017, the ultimate luxury giant of Louis Vuitton.
The iconic LV logo pattern work was turned Supreme’s signature fire engine red with the bold white italic lettering of “Supreme” nestled among the Vuitton monogram flowers. It’s new and fresh and definitely interesting to look at- it’s like your brain is so used to the pattern in browns and cream that seeing it in such bright red is like a glitch in the matrix. But… did it make Louis Vuitton- who I consider a classic brand… did it make them “cooler”? Well, people smarter than me said… “no.”… Guy Trebay, a style writer for the New York Times wrote, quote, “Nothing is more lethal to cred than a sellout. You may think, in the case of the Louis Vuitton collaboration with Supreme… the only victim would be Supreme, the street-style label with a rabid fan base and seemingly bulletproof cool… but both parties appeared to take a hit in the fall 2017 collection… It was the fashion version of a murder-suicide.” End quote. Yeah… he wasn’t beating around the bush. And while the sale numbers for the collab aren’t really public- the fact is- the collection was pulled from production after a super short time. While the pieces are now like, a cult obsession, with sweatshirts from the collection selling in resale for over $7,000… I don’t think Louis Vuitton- the 168-year-old fashion mega-powerhouse, really changed their status from “classic” to “cool” from the blink-and-you-missed-it Supreme collaboration in summer 2017.
So, what about Tiffany’s date with Supreme just a few months ago? Are they now enjoying a new “cool-kid” persona in the hallways after Supreme took them to a party? Well, under Tiffany & Co.’s own Instagram post about the collaboration there are a wide range of opinions. One person wrote, quote, “can’t wait to not afford it,” end quote. One commenter expressed excitement saying, “wow the only collab I’ve ever needed in my life.” End quote. Well, I’m gad they’re so happy- because most of the almost a thousand comments on the post were more of a skeptical variety. Lot’s of people calling the designs, “tacky”, “trashy” or just… “ugly”. One person wrote out a full thought that I felt echoed a lot of my own musings, they said, quote, “I get the collab if you’re trying to attract a younger pop culture clientele. I love it! But your marketing is getting a bit too obvious, try to stay in your lane without looking desperate.” End quote. ……looking desperate… ouch. It is such a cutting phrase. Tiffany got caught turning the temperature up a little too fast. And the perfect example of this is from the collaboration with Supreme… guys. Tiffany’s made a Heart Knife Key ring… yeah! It’s a freaking knife protruding down from a “Return to Tiffany” heart…. It looks like something a teenage dude would make in a friend’s garage and wear to impress girls at Hot Topic at the mall. I mean- you can’t wear it on an airplane or take it into a school… it’s as if Tiffany’s has just dyed it’s hair black with dye from Walgreens and yelled at their parent’s, “this is me now! I’m edgy!” The knife key, along with six other pieces including a bracelet of stamped silver stars and a plain white t-shirt with the Supreme logo in Tiffany blue, were released on November 11th, 2021. The knife key retailed for $525.
I suppose Tiffany’s felt they primed their customers with actions like the declarative “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” ad campaign just five months earlier. Except- I don’t feel the Tiffany’s customer WANTED to be primed. I sense Tiffany’s seeing the social media hashtags and long lines for people buying “drops” limited edition capsule collections from brands that sell out in single digit minutes. But just because that’s a buzzy, popular system for some brands, I don’t feel it invalidates or ruins any other approach for selling luxury goods. There’s a comfort in an enduring, timeless, classic piece. The gold classic Cartier Love bracelet has existed since 1969. Yes, new blingy version with diamonds or other gold colors than yellow have entered inventory since it’s creation, but the iconic original is unchanged for 53 years- and it remains one of the most popular jewelry pieces ever- in 2016, Google released data that the Love bracelet was the most googled piece of jewelry that year.
But is the fanatic obsession with limited edition pieces the love for the object itself- or is the joy mostly from the adrenaline of the chase and the dopamine rush of acquisition with thousands of other people after what you wanted? And once it’s bought… now what? Resell it, (after some pics on Instagram and TikTok of course) and then onto the next one- the next drop, the next release. It’s an addicting- and fun, yes, cycle that must keep churning out fresh limited editions all the time to keep the consumer base engaged in the process. Or people will get bored and take their money elsewhere. Why else would the 28-year-old company of Supreme have done over FIFTY brand collaborations? That’s… exhausting. But I mean, I get it, from a fast fashion ever evolving streetwear, hip-hop company, it makes sense. But why on earth is Tiffany & Co, the company universally credited with creating the modern classic engagement ring- trying to squish and squeeze themselves into that kind of new mold? The financials of like 2017 would suggest that yes- our world wasn’t solely enamored with the world of Tiffany, sales fell, numbers weren’t growing. But instead of like, being okay with a few less billions and holding firm and true to their aesthetic, Tiffany’s is rapidly trying everything they can to morph into a modern cool kid. But they’re trying too hard. You can’t suddenly become something you just are not… people can tell when you’re not embracing your own identity. You get comments on the Instagram post that you’ve changed, people miss who you were- there was nothing wrong with who you were!
Dear Tiffany’s, it’s okay to be a fancy place with a reputation for quality, albeit high prices and a killer New York legacy. In a world with so much luxury trending towards a fast fashion distribution system… is that really where we’re going to find our heirlooms? Growing up, loving Tiffany’s, being gifted pieces, the thrill of saving up and buying my own- I have always felt like I was creating my future heirlooms for me, my daughter, for whoever comes after. With the classics being shoved aside for trying every new thing possible--- the last few years of Tiffany designs really have seemed like they’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, like they’ll greenlight anything. There’s no other explanation for the oddness of the ‘Lovebug’ collection.
I guess Tiffany has given up on having a true iconic classic- like the Cartier Love bracelet. Well, their “classic” was the six-prong round white diamond engagement ring and people just aren’t buying those like they used too. So, it’s as if Tiffany said, “well- if we can’t have an icon, we’ll just do a bunch of random stuff.” I mean, Tiffany & Co. was founded in 1837, making them a 185-year-old company, 17 years older than Louis Vuitton. But with Tiffany’s sold to LVMH in 2021, their choices don’t match with their heritage, they seem like a very young, new company floundering around, trying to figure out who they are. Which is so befuddling for the literal generations of established customers, who I feel like want to tap Tiffany’s on the shoulder and be like, “do you have amnesia or is this an identity crisis?” to which I think 2022 Tiffany & Co would respond, “which answer makes us sound cooler?”
*music*
This episode went HARD on the ‘tea,” haha but I do it out of passion- my friends and family know about my very long-standing deep love affair with Tiffany’s, and I’ve talked about it a bit in previous episodes. I don’t want to be a fair-weather fan and abandon a brand for experimenting… but I also feel pretty intensely that Tiffany’s has closed the book on it’s old self without caring about the people who really liked that book and thought it was worthwhile. But Tiffany’s is absolutely allowed to change. Some of yall, I guess who might’ve turned off the podcast by now haha but you disagree with my views and think all the new things Tiffany is doing are amazing. I hope people *do* like the new stuff… it sure would be a shame if people are disappointed on both ends.
Whatever which way your opinion falls, I wanna hear about it, I do! Head to Tea & Gemstones on Instagram and leave a comment on the grid post for this episode- Oh! And if yall could please, please leave a review and a rating on your preferred listening platform- especially Apple- I would appreciate it so, so much. Reviews are the necessary component to getting this podcast active in the search and discovery algorithm so people interested in jewelry, gemstones and commentary can find the show. It seriously means the world to me, thank you. Check out the show notes for a link to our website which has transcripts for every episode and the bibliography. Our theme song is by Joseph McDade with additional audio provided by Audionautix. As always, I have been your host, Jen. Until next time… stay sparkly.
T&G EPISODE 015
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“The How and Why of the Louis Vuitton x Supreme Collaboration.” The Fashion Law, 27 Mar. 2020, www.thefashionlaw.com/the-louis-vuitton-x-supreme-collaboration-is-here.
“Just a Moment...” The Morning Brew, 23 July 2021, www.morningbrew.com/marketing/stories/2021/07/23/not-mothers-tiffany-campaign-sparks-backlash.
Markets, Cpt. “Why Supreme Brand Is So Expensive? - CPT Markets.” Medium, 12 Dec. 2021, medium.com/@cptmarketsofficial/why-supreme-brand-is-so-expensive-881ee69e051b.
Ritschel, Chelsea. “Supreme Collaboration Disappoints Tiffany and Co Fans: ‘Who Thought This Was OK?’” The Independent, 8 Nov. 2021, www.independent.co.uk/life-style/supreme-tiffany-and-co-collab-b1953702.html?amp.
https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/news/lvmh-is-now-the-most-valuable-company-in-europe-1234599368/
Selter, Emily. “10 Things You Didn’t Know About the Cartier Love Bracelet.” Town & Country, 10 Feb. 2021, www.townandcountrymag.com/style/jewelry-and-watches/a10262588/cartier-love-bracelet-history.
“Tiffany Ditches Its New York Times Ads, after 125 Years.” IDEX, idexonline.com/FullArticle?Id=46643. Accessed 12 Feb. 2022.
“Tiffany Giving Up Century-Old ‘New York Times’ Ad.” JCK Online, www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/tiffany-new-york-times-ad. Accessed 12 Feb. 2022.
Wikipedia contributors. “LVMH.” Wikipedia, 4 Feb. 2022, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH.