Chanel, Armani, Tiffany's: What's killing ‘big logo' luxury brands?
Three years ago, they began adding handbags to the mix. 'We started with just one rack,' Lamme said.
Now, third-party authenticated handbags have a prized place in the centre of their busy stall, where they can sell more than 20 vintage Coach or Louis Vuitton bags from $200 to upwards of $1000 on a single weekend.
'It's getting more and more popular,' Lamme said. Some teenage girls come with their parents, who buy them their first designer bag. 'If they have three kids, they buy for three.'
The Sathalets' busy stall is a stark departure from what's happening at the big end of town. Some traditional 'big logo' luxury brands are battling declining profits and popularity among Australian shoppers who are making fewer in-store purchases and favouring more affordable options at resellers.
Fashion houses Chanel, Tiffany & Co and Giorgio Armani recorded declines among their Australian sales and profits in 2024, while Hermes and Prada have found ways to sharpen their competitive edge, according to recent financial reports filed to the corporate regulator.
Australia is no exception to global trends affecting a fall in the luxury market as it experiences its toughest slowdown since the global financial crisis, says the director of RetailOasis consultancy Trent Rigby.
Growth in the global luxury market in the years ahead is expected to slow to 1-3 per cent, from 5 per cent between 2019 and 2023, when luxury giants' profits tripled, a 2025 McKinsey report has found.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
‘Trends are worrying': Incoming US naval boss sounds AUKUS warning
Washington: The incoming chief of US Navy operations has warned the US will not be able to fulfil its AUKUS obligations without doubling its submarine-building capacity, in a fresh sign of the doubts over whether the agreement can be honoured. Meanwhile, this masthead can confirm Australia's second $800 million payment to help the US build nuclear-powered submarines was made in June, when the Australian government was already aware of the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. Admiral Daryl Caudle, President Donald Trump's nominee as chief of navy operations, told his confirmation hearing it was not yet certain the US defence industrial base was capable of producing enough Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to sell three to Australia. 'As you know, the delivery pace is not where it needs to be to make good on Pillar 1 of the AUKUS agreement, which is currently under review by our defence department,' he said last week. 'I think rightly so. We do have to understand whether the industrial base can produce the submarines required so that we can make good on the actual pact that we've made with the UK and Australia.' Across the two US shipyards that build the submarines, the current delivery rate is about 1.2 boats a year, but needs to reach 2.2 to 2.3 a year. 'That's going to require a transformational improvement. Not a 10 per cent improvement, not a 20 per cent improvement – a 100 per cent improvement,' Caudle told the hearing. 'We need a transformational improvement and the ability to deliver twice the capacity that we're currently delivering.'
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Trends are worrying': Incoming US naval boss sounds AUKUS warning
Washington: The incoming chief of US Navy operations has warned the US will not be able to fulfil its AUKUS obligations without doubling its submarine-building capacity, in a fresh sign of the doubts over whether the agreement can be honoured. Meanwhile, this masthead can confirm Australia's second $800 million payment to help the US build nuclear-powered submarines was made in June, when the Australian government was already aware of the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. Admiral Daryl Caudle, President Donald Trump's nominee as chief of navy operations, told his confirmation hearing it was not yet certain the US defence industrial base was capable of producing enough Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to sell three to Australia. 'As you know, the delivery pace is not where it needs to be to make good on Pillar 1 of the AUKUS agreement, which is currently under review by our defence department,' he said last week. 'I think rightly so. We do have to understand whether the industrial base can produce the submarines required so that we can make good on the actual pact that we've made with the UK and Australia.' Across the two US shipyards that build the submarines, the current delivery rate is about 1.2 boats a year, but needs to reach 2.2 to 2.3 a year. 'That's going to require a transformational improvement. Not a 10 per cent improvement, not a 20 per cent improvement – a 100 per cent improvement,' Caudle told the hearing. 'We need a transformational improvement and the ability to deliver twice the capacity that we're currently delivering.'
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Kill switches' disguised as business: How BHP is selling out Australia's national security to a Chinese battery giant barred by the US for its alleged Beijing military ties
BHP's recent partnership should concern every Australian who cares about national security. The country's largest company has chosen to align itself with CATL, a Chinese battery giant blacklisted by the Pentagon in January. The ban targeted companies that actively support Beijing's military industry. CATL says that it has never engaged in any military-related business or activities. And yet BHP presses ahead, as if none of it matters. This isn't just another business deal. Australia's mining sector is the backbone of its economy and a pillar of national sovereignty. By allowing companies like CATL access to critical systems, Australia risks handing Beijing control over its most vital resource operations. This is about dependency. It's about surveillance. It's about forfeiting sovereignty in exchange for short-term convenience. For those rolling their eyes and brushing this off as overblown Sinophobia, take a closer look at what BHP has actually done. They've invited an alleged Chinese military-linked contractor into the heart of Australia's most strategic economic sector. CATL operates at the murky intersection of energy and surveillance. In recent years, the company has expanded into smart battery systems, units that come embedded with advanced sensors, data collection tools, GPS modules, and remote connectivity features under the banner of efficiency and monitoring. On the surface, it's marketed as innovation. However, in practice, these features enable constant data harvesting—location tracking, usage patterns, and environmental metrics—all of which can be remotely accessed or transferred, often without oversight. In other words, the technology powering your grid could also be watching it. The timing makes this betrayal all the more unforgivable. China has spent years weaponising trade against Australia, banning coal imports, slapping punitive tariffs on wine, and disrupting the barley market. These were more than policy disagreements. They were warnings. Beijing made it clear: economic ties with China come with strings attached, and when pulled, they tighten into a noose. Yet BHP has apparently learned nothing. The following statement cannot be overstated: According to the Pentagon, CATL is a company operating under a military-civil fusion doctrine, where private industry exists to serve the state. Western business models prioritise shareholders. Chinese firms, especially ones like CATL, answer to Communist Party officials. They don't see Australian resources as commodities. They see them as leverage. And that leverage is built into both software and hardware. Very soon, unless the partnership is prohibited, Beijing could have a live map of Australia's mining activities: who's producing what, where the pressure points are, and when systems can be disrupted. That type of intelligence is incredibly powerful. In a future trade war - or worse, an armed conflict - China wouldn't need to fire a shot. It could simply turn off the lights. Battery-integrated infrastructure allows for remote interference: causing breakdowns, blackouts, or 'accidental' failures with plausible deniability. BHP may be installing remote kill switches across Australia's most strategic sector, and pretending it's just business. Australia's mining sector is a geopolitical asset. It powers industries, allies and defense capabilities. Once compromised, everything downstream is at risk: agriculture, transport, telecommunications, even defense manufacturing. It won't stop with lithium. It never does. And where, I ask, is the outrage? Intelligence agencies spend billions trying to keep foreign threats out of critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, BHP is voluntarily rolling out the welcome mat for a firm flagged by the US Department of Defense as a security risk. It's like hiring a burglar as your home security consultant, except the home is the nation. The justification, as always, is economic. CATL offers cheaper technology, supposedly more efficient systems, and bulk capacity. But Australia doesn't lack domestic alternatives. The lithium exists, as does the engineering talent. What is lacking is corporate courage. BHP didn't choose CATL because it was the only option - it chose CATL because it was the cheapest. This is the price of short-term thinking: a few dollars saved today, sovereignty possibly sold tomorrow. Chinese companies don't underbid because they're efficient, they do it to drive competitors out, then control the market. Once they've embedded themselves in your infrastructure, they own you. BHP may have fallen for the oldest trick in the CCP's playbook. Parliament should be demanding answers. Who at BHP signed off on this deal? Were Chinese officials involved, either directly or through back channels? And what safeguards, if any, exist to stop data theft or cyber sabotage? If US lawmakers won't trust these companies with their supply chains, why on earth should Australians? Beijing doesn't seize control in one bold stroke. It advances slowly, through trade partnerships, infrastructure deals, and quiet influence. What begins as a battery contract ends as strategic dependence. BHP's executives seem to believe they can contain this risk, that Chinese access will stay neatly confined to technical specs and maintenance contracts. That's a fantasy. There is no such thing as a benign deal with a company that allegedly reports to a hostile state. This partnership should be terminated immediately, before a single bolt is installed. Parliament must move to outlaw future contracts with blacklisted entities. Australia is at a crossroads. BHP has chosen profit. It's up to the government to choose sovereignty - before it's too late. This is a potential national security breach, disguised as commerce, enabled by cowardice, and paid for by every Australian who thought the people in charge were looking out for them. Wake up, Australia. Your mining giant may just have invited enemy surveillance into your most critical industry. And no one in power seems willing to stop it. John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist who writes on psychology and social relations. He has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation.
