Distribution and the internet dilemma
197
the client. But, as in the affective parent–child relationship for example (very close to the brand–client relationship), the fact that one dominates the other does not mean that they do not respect them; otherwise, it is not an affective attachment, and a brand that does not respect its client is no more a luxury brand than a father who does not respect his children is a true father. This relationship, intrinsic to luxury, is a logical one: if the client is seeking social elevation in a luxury product, it is clearly with a brand whose social status is higher than theirs; to carry it is to appropriate part of the brand’s value to increase your own. Let us also note that in consequence, each product sold carries away part of the brand value and weakens it; it is therefore necessary to continually regenerate it (see the dream equation, page 129). This specificity of luxury in the client–brand relationship is manifest in the distribution:
• the client often asks the brand, through its sales personnel, for a prescription on what they need, or rather what it would be right to buy;
• in the case of a gift, the client often gives the salesperson free rein. Here we find another of these contradictions that abound in luxury, and one of the most difficult to manage since it is a doubly subjective universe: from the side of the client (who is king, but expects help), and the side of the salesperson (who manages the game, but must convince the client); this implies a rigorous choice of personnel, and training of sales teams in listening to the client. Here, again, the role of the sales personnel is key in the application of anti-law number 6: ‘Dominate the client’, that is, don’t look for equality. It is clear that this law applies to the brand, and not to the sales personnel; on the contrary, the warmth and friendliness of the sales personnel should reassure the client and cause them to feel that they are indeed king (or queen): the true ‘class’ of a salesperson is that of charm, elegance and finesse, not arrogance or pretension. This is much harder to achieve than one might think: despite the genuine friendliness of almost all the sales personnel in the Louis Vuitton stores, there were constant complaints towards the end of the 1980s about the ‘arrogance’ of the staff. They were not responsible for this: the stores were too cold and impersonal (architecture as rigid as the suitcases, colours as dark as the Monogram, products under glass cases to protect the leather, sales behind a counter). It was necessary to completely rethink the store concept. With the new, warmer, more open concept, where you could touch the products, the complaints disappeared… although it was still the same staff in attendance!