直到不久曩昔，我還一向以為Snapchat是一款主如果20幾歲和十幾歲年青人用來相互發送愚昧圖片的運用軟件。如今我再也不這麽以為了。上周，我在英國《金融時報》在舊金山主理的一次奢靡品峰會上采訪了蒂芙尼(Tiffany & Co)首席履行官弗雷德裏克•科莫納爾(Frederic Cumenal)。
在咱們發言時代，科莫納爾泄漏，蒂芙尼比來開辟了一款閃閃發光的Snapchat“過濾器”，把鉆石的殘暴光線通報到任何具有電話的人。它乃至許可潛伏購置者假造“試戴”戒指，而不須要進入那些寧靜得使人驚恐不安的蒂芙尼門店。
這是個好主張嗎?這是個大題目，現實上，是一個代價2220億美元的題目——假如咱們依據現在奢靡操行業的年發賣額盤算的話。蒂芙尼等公司創立Snapchat過濾器的一個緣故原由在於，它們願望在網上引發燒議，吸引“千禧一代”。
另外一個緣故原由是奢靡操行業正面對壓力，請求他們有所作為(任何行為)，說服持疑惑立場的投資者：該行業可以或許持續強大，由於今朝它仿佛正位於一個拐點。在2007年至2008年環球金融危急以前的10年裏，西方富有花費者在信貸高潮時代大批買入奢靡品。厥後，當經濟放緩湧現時，中國、俄羅斯和巴西等國現金充分的花費者進入市場，帶來新的需求起源。
現在，這些新興市場國度正位於低潮，同時中國的反腐活動停止了珠寶發賣。與此同時，歐洲需求仍舊疲弱，乃至在理應位於蘇醒階段的美國，遠景也遠非光亮。難怪曩昔一年蒂芙尼的股價(與許多奢靡品公司同樣)下挫近三分之一。
科莫納爾等人以為，這在必定水平上反應出貿易周期的變化多端。但對付社會學家和人類學家而言，真正風趣(不外對付那些奢靡品高管而言這點更使人擔心)的一點在於，西方的花費習氣大概在閱歷更龐大的構造性變更。在20世紀，人們想固然地以為，當富人願望“享受”他們的財產並誇耀其位置時，他們會購置昂貴商品，比方房產、汽車、藝術品和鉆石。但據萬事達(MasterCard)高管、每個月剖析大批花費數據的薩拉•昆蘭(Sarah Quinlan)稱，富人和不那末富有的人士的花費方法比年湧現了變更。
現在，團體花費付出在增加(只管富人花費增幅跨越窮漢)。這類增加險些全體出如今餐館、旅店、旅行和度假等辦事業方面，不單單在中檔市場，在高端市場也是如斯。“比年的大闌珊帶來一個征象，那便是咱們再次愛咱們的同夥和家人，珍愛與他們一路的時間，”昆蘭表現，“大部門花費(增加)來自旅行和休閑，而非商品。”大概，正如德勤(Deloitte)咨詢參謀們撰寫的申報所指出的那樣，“全部的花費者，特殊是千禧一代，看重感受……旅行花費占小我奢靡品市場的40%。”
據昆蘭稱，生存方法和代價觀的變更可以或許說明這類變更：現在的千禧一代每每生存在都會，而非郊區，是以沒有那末多可以存儲“器械”的物理空間;他們還看重“可連續成長”和“社區”等觀點。
……
我以為另有一個身分：在收集時期，什物商品再也不讓人感到異常“專屬”。再想一想那些鉆石吧。50年前，一個衣衫不整的年青人是沒法逛珠寶店和試戴鉆石戒指的;切實其實，100年前，窮漢基本不曉得富人穿甚麽。但互聯網拓寬了每小我的視線：任何人如今都能“親目擊到”奢靡品並在線購置。
仍舊比擬專屬的是“感受”，這恰好是由於這些沒法在網上商品化。現在，最強有力的誇耀性花費情勢之一不是商品的積累，而是回想(和故事)的積累。它們之以是名貴是由於它們沒法被復制。
這並不料味著人們不會再購置鉆石。但它確切象征著奢靡品公司正被發起將感受與商品混雜在一路來創立煊赫名譽。不要只是在Snapchat上曬鉆石了;還要向富有客戶供給與手工藝巨匠會晤的機遇。
換句話說，咱們的生存被機械人和收集鏈接把持得越多，小我(人類)作風也就開端變得越主要。這有力地提示咱們，咱們對付“代價”(和奢靡品)的意見其實是何等果斷。大概這是一個值得鼓掌稱快的來由。
點擊下一頁檢察譯文
【參考譯文】
Until recently, I thought Snapchat was an app used primarily by tweens and teenagers to send each other silly pictures. No longer. This week, I interviewed Frederic Cumenal, chief executive of Tiffany & Co, at a Financial Times luxury summit in San Francisco.
During our conversation, Cumenal revealed that Tiffany had recently created a sparkly Snapchat “filter” that communicates the dazzle of a diamond to anyone with a mobile phone. It even allows would-be purchasers to virtually “try on” the rings, without ever needing to go into one of those reverentially hushed Tiffany stores.
Is this a good idea? That is the big question — actually, the $222bn question, if we go by the sector’s annual sales — hanging over the luxury goods world today. One of the reasons companies such as Tiffany are creating Snapchat filters is that they are keen to catch the cyber buzz — and appeal to “millennials”.
Another factor is that the luxury sector is under pressure to do something — anything — to persuade sceptical investors that it can continue to grow, because, right now, it seems to be at an inflection point. In the decade leading up to the financial crisis of 2007-08, rich consumers in the west gobbled up luxury goods amid the credit boom. Then, when the slowdown hit, cash-rich consumers in places such as China, Russia and Brazil jumped in to provide a new source of demand.
Now those emerging market countries are in the doldrums, and an anti-corruption drive in China has halted jewellery sales. Meanwhile, demand in Europe remains weak, and even in the US, which is supposed to be recovering, the picture is far from buoyant. Little wonder, then, that the share price of Tiffany (like many luxury goods companies) has tumbled by almost one-third in the past year.
People such as Cumenal argue that this partly reflects the vagaries of the business cycle. But what is really interesting for sociologists and anthropologists — albeit more worrying for those luxury executives — is that consumer habits in the west could be undergoing an even bigger structural change. In the 20th century, it was taken for granted that when rich people wanted to “enjoy” their wealth and display status, they acquired expensive goods such as houses, cars, art — and diamonds. But according to Sarah Quinlan, a MasterCard executive who analyses vast reams of spending data each month, there has recently been a shift in terms of how wealthy and not-so-wealthy people are spending money.
These days, overall consumer spending is growing (albeit more among the rich than the poor). This growth is occurring almost entirely in services such as restaurants, hotels, travel and holidays, not just in the middle market but in the luxury sector too. “One thing that comes out of these great recessions is that we like our friends and families again — we prize spending time with them,” Quinlan says. “The majority of [the growth] in spending is going to travel and leisure, not goods.” Or, as a report by Deloitte consultants notes: “All consumers, but especially millennials, value experiences . . . spend by people travelling accounts for 40 per cent of the personal luxury markets.”
According to Quinlan, this shift can be explained by changes in lifestyles and values: today’s millennials often live in cities, not suburbs, so have less physical space in which to store “stuff”; they also prize concepts such as “sustainability” and “community”.
. . .
I suspect there is another factor too: in the cyber age, physical goods simply do not feel very “exclusive” any more. Think once again about those diamonds. Fifty years ago, a scruffy teenager couldn’t wander into a jewellery store and try on a diamond ring; indeed, 100 years ago, poor people barely knew what the rich were wearing. But the internet has democratised the view: anyone can now “see” luxury goods and buy them online.
What remains more exclusive are “experiences”, precisely because these cannot be commoditised online. One of the most powerful forms of conspicuous consumption today is not the accumulation of goods but the accumulation of memories — and stories. These are precious because they cannot be replicated.
That does not mean that people will stop buying diamonds. But it does mean that luxury goods companies are being advised to mix experiences with goods to create prestige. Don’t just put diamonds on Snapchat; offer rich clients the chance to meet the master craftsman too.
To put it another way, the more that our lives are hijacked by robots and cyber links, the more valuable the individual — human — touch starts to become. It is a striking reminder of just how arbitrary our ideas of “value” — and luxury — really are. And perhaps a reason for cheer.
市場價：HK$ 92
