A Gilded Age Is Fading for Luxury Brands - Kanebridge News
Share Button

A Gilded Age Is Fading for Luxury Brands

The latest results from Louis Vuitton owner LVMH show that luxury shoppers are sobering up after years of heavy spending

By CAROL RYAN
Thu, Oct 12, 2023 8:21amGrey Clock 3 min

The end of easy money is catching up with luxury brands. It took a long time, so the skills needed to protect their profit margins may be a bit rusty.

Shares in the world’s biggest luxury company, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, fell 6% Wednesday after it reported a slowdown in sales for the third quarter the previous evening. LVMH grew sales by 9% for the three months through September compared with a year ago. That sounds impressive, but the business was growing at almost double this pace in the second quarter.

Demand for luxury goods has slowed for most products and in all major regions. One surprise was a 14% drop in sales at LVMH’s wines and spirits divisions. Shipments of cognac brands such as Hennessy have been weak in the U.S. all year as cash from pandemic stimulus checks runs out, but the trend is getting worse.

The slowdown is no longer limited to “aspirational” shoppers, as the industry lingo frames less wealthy buyers. Sales of LVMH’s expensive watch and jewellery brands were weaker than analysts expected. And wealthy European consumers who were spending freely on luxury goods early this summer turned cautious in the third quarter.

Investors knew that a slowdown was coming, but not how big it would be. After Wednesday’s share-price drop, LVMH has lost a quarter of its market value in roughly six months. The slump may be more severe at weaker rivals like Burberry or Gucci owner Kering, whose stocks also fell Wednesday. Recently, the entire luxury industry has fallen out of fashion with shareholders, who at the start of the year expected a bigger surge in Chinese demand after the country lifted all pandemic restrictions.

With business probably as good as it can get in China, there is no obvious place the industry can turn to for new growth. Weaker demand for luxury goods will damp brands’ ability to raise prices. Last year, exceptionally strong sales helped them lift prices by 8% on average, according to UBS estimates. This pricing power has been a big draw for investors, and boosted profit margins, but it is probably over for now. In the four years leading up to the pandemic, prices rose only 1.2% annually on average.

Luxury companies face a balancing act with their multibillion-dollar advertising budgets and store-rollout plans. They may need to save cash to protect margins. At the same time, they must continue to spend on advertising to maintain their trademark desirability.

Some perspective is necessary, though: Today, LVMH’s fashion-and-leather-goods division, its main profit driver, is 80% larger than it was in the third quarter of 2019, before the pandemic. The industry has had an amazing run and is expected to grow in 2024. Still, some of the sheen that made it particularly attractive to investors in recent years has faded.

Last month, LVMH was even dethroned as Europe’s most valuable company by Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharmaceutical company behind weight-loss drug Ozempic. Leaner times ahead.



MOST POPULAR

The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.

Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Meta PR Goes Back to Playing Offense
By Adam Levine 13/08/2026
Lifestyle
Why Apple Stock Just Got Downgraded to Sell
By 11/08/2026
Lifestyle
Helicopter Parents Are Co-Piloting Their Adult Children’s Careers
By Ray A. Smith 03/08/2026

Meta is betting on a human-first AI future, but growing legal battles and declining public trust are putting Mark Zuckerberg’s vision to the test.

By Adam Levine
Thu, Aug 13, 2026 3 min

“Call us optimists. Call us dreamers. Call us whatever the hell you want, but we’re betting on people, and we like those odds. The future is for everyone.”

That ad copy is from the voice-over of a July Meta Platforms META -3.38%.

 spot that’s been part of a public-relations blitz to position Meta as the humanist AI company. The message was undercut by the ad’s inclusion of David Bowie’s “Five Years,” a brooding 1972 song about an impending apocalypse. But this week CEO Mark Zuckerberg left no ambiguity, publishing a 6,500-word manifesto—about 10 times the length of this newsletter—with a title that echoed the ad: “The Future is for Everyone.”

That seems to be Meta’s new tagline. In light of sinking public opinion and the company’s thousands of lawsuits from states, school districts, parents, and users, Meta’s public relations have been defensive. This push represents a return to offense, with a chance to distinguish Meta’s approach to AI from other labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, or SpaceX SPCX +9.65%.

“It is surprising that the discourse from many developing AI is so filled with doom,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity’s relevance would rush to build that future.”

Zuckerberg frames what sort of future we build with AI as the central issue of our time. “We believe that delivering superintelligence to everyone is the way to answer this question,” he says. “This has the potential to begin a new era of personal empowerment where individuals can use this powerful new capability to reach their full potential, pursue their interests, and improve their lives and the world more than ever before.”

The flood of words belies the situation on the ground in mid-2026. Americans, at least, have a love-hate affair with social media. A November Pew Research Center poll reported that 71% of U.S. adults used Facebook, and 51% used Instagram. Worldwide, 3.6 billion people use at least one Meta app every day.

But in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in July and August, 61% of respondents said they wanted more government oversight of social media, and two-thirds supported laws to keep children under 16 years old off the platforms. When it comes to Meta in particular, in the 2026 Axios Harris 100, an annual poll about corporate reputation, Meta placed 96th out of 100. It’s only above two other social media companies, Chinese ultracheap retailer Temu, and Spirit Airlines, a defunct air carrier. Regarding ethics, Meta came in last, and it was only ahead of TikTok in trust.

The steady drip of headlines in the teen social media trials isn’t helping. Last week, Meta lost a judgment in New Mexico state court that raised their liability in that relatively small jurisdiction to nearly $1 billion dollars. On Wednesday, jury selection began for a federal case with four states suing Meta over addictive product design, and false marketing that said its platforms were safe for teenagers. In July, Meta claimed that the states are asking for a total of $1.4 trillion in damages, in addition to design changes in the apps. This is part of a multidistrict litigation, where thousands of federal trials with social media defendants are coordinated in Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ district courthouse in Oakland, Calif.

There is a separate such group of thousands of cases in California state court, mostly with individual plaintiffs. The steady drip of bad headlines from the courts will continue unless Meta decides to settle en masse.

Meanwhile, in the second quarter, Meta booked “$2.40 billion of charges related to legal proceedings,” according to its quarterly filing. That may be just the beginning.

Zuckerberg spent 6,500 words getting his utopian message out, but I can sum it up in two: Trust us. The evidence is that Meta has a long way to go to win back that trust.