Comment by DubiousPusher | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DubiousPusher | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The other problem here is that it doesn't account for differences between industrial sectors. Different industrial sectors have different amounts of consolidation. This lends itself to higher valuations. Certainly European engineering as a sector is worth far more than luxury fashion. But engineering has more resistance to consolidation. Some of this even comes down to how the different sectors are differently regulated. Consolidation in many sectors will face more intense scrutiny than in others. Lastly, we have to account for how global a sector is able to become. Certain sectors like construction, in large struggle to sell their services in a global market this limiting their size. Fashion, like movies is exactly the kind business you would expect to attain a global reach.

I will agree on one point though. As an export, LV demonstrates a grossly uncraftsman-like aptitude. My wife rebuilds and repairs designer bags. Late LV is some of the cheapest and most shoddily made shit she works on. The older bags are great. But since the 90s, the bags have declined tremendously. The same is true of Gucci. I think this is pretty clearly the product of those two brands absolute explosion in demand over the same period. Most other designer brands are tiny in comparison to these two. Except Hermes, which my wife rarely gets hold of so I'm not sure if they've suffered the same decline with scale.

But no joke, if you're looking for quality, Michael Kors is a far better bag.

Both LVMH and in some measure Kering somehow managed to keep luxury margins while having their entry-level bags bought by a ton of women especially in China which is an humongous market for them.

As far as I know, Hermes never played fast and loose with quality like the other two but remains considerably more expensive. Note that I mean that in the context of luxury products - quality remains high and I'm not sure I agree that Michael Kors is currently higher quality than Vuitton.

> Fashion, like movies is exactly the kind business you would expect to attain a global reach.

Why is that so? Fashion is often local to the culture, with different cultures appreciating different, if not opposite things. Eg, tanned skin tone. Tanned skin is popular in America, to the point of having tanning salons - it means you have the leisure time to spend it outside. In China, the opposite is true: tanned skin means you're so poor, you work outside. Fairer skinned people have the money to not go outside to work. Thus, what's fashionable isn't been the two countries isn't going to be the same because of similar differences in culture, so it's hard for me to take that for granted that fashion should be movies. And then even then, movies have the similar problem. How many Bollywood hits are global hits?

Absolutely, you have to localize or internationalize cultural products. Culture export mostly does the later, relying on the fact that colonialism and international consumer capitalism have created a veneer of "common" culture across many geographies.

I mean that from a physical standpoint it's easier to export these things. This because they can largely be exported without a great deal of material or persons moving across borders. For obvious reasons, it's easier to export a purse than a house.

Also, from a legal perspective it is easier. Cars are a great example of this. Car companies have had to expend an enormous amount of effort and money for even just the opportunity to build cars in another country, much less wholly import them there.

> Except Hermes, which my wife rarely gets hold of so I'm not sure if they've suffered the same decline with scale.

Hermès keeps very high standards and treats its employees very well. I've got nothing but good to say about this company, really.

How does Hermès rates in terms of quality ?

I hear still very high. Even Chanel is not handmade anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com