Analysis-US tariffs will be test of luxury brands' pricing power
PARIS/NEW YORK (Reuters) -Luxury goods companies were spared their worst case scenario in Sunday's EU-U.S. trade deal but they face a delicate balancing act as already weak consumer demand tests their ability to raise prices further.
Big labels like Chanel and LVMH's Louis Vuitton and Dior have relied on dramatic price increases in recent years to drive a chunk of their profit growth.
Jacques Roizen, managing director, China, at Digital Luxury Group, said the deal struck by U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday, imposing a 15% tariff on EU goods, brings much needed certainty to luxury's key U.S. market.
Yet, "brands are treading carefully with further price hikes to avoid alienating younger and occasional shoppers," he said.
Although baseline duties are below a hefty 30% levy that Trump had threatened just a couple of weeks ago, they are a far cry from the zero-for-zero tariff deal Brussels was hoping to clinch.
Fresh tariffs also come as the luxury goods industry is counting on the U.S. as former growth engine China sputters and sales globally are in decline.
'Tariffs are definitely going to affect my buying behaviour, depending on the rate of the tariff. I would think twice before I just pick things up,' said Abida Taher, a 53-year-old physician who was out shopping at Saks Fifth Avenue in New York City last week and likes Valentino among other Italian and French brands.
Bernard Arnault, chairman and CEO of French luxury giant LVMH, embarked on an intense lobbying campaign with EU leaders to ease tensions with the Trump administration and last week announced plans for a new Louis Vuitton factory in Texas.
Such a move, however, would be too complicated and costly for most European brands - involving the transfer of local skills that take years to build up, industry experts caution.
Some high end labels say they will be able to draw on pricing power to offset the cost of tariffs, but analysts and industry practitioners warn some players have limited wiggle room after a series of outsized price tag hikes.
Big luxury companies profited from a rebound of consumer demand after the pandemic, hiking prices by 33% on average between 2019 and 2023, according to RBC estimates.
The price tag of Chanel's classic quilted flap bag more than tripled between 2015 and 2024, while the Lady Dior bag and Louis Vuitton Keepall travel bag more than doubled, according to UBS analysts.
LUXURY DISCONNECT
Half of the luxury industry's sales growth came from price hikes in the four years from 2019, compared to a third between 2016 and 2023, UBS analysts said.
Yet the sector lost 50 million customers last year, according to consultancy Bain, as economic pressures and price fatigue dampened appetite for designer clothing and handbags.
Brands that got the pricing balance wrong are the ones struggling more today, said Flavio Cereda, who manages GAM's Luxury Brands investment strategy.
"The significant deceleration in momentum, uneven as it was, is a natural consequence of a period of excess," said Cereda.
Hermes, which notably held back on large price increases during the post pandemic boom, has outpaced rivals and analysts forecast a 10% rise in second quarter sales when it reports on Wednesday.
UBS estimates that a 15% tariff on exports to the United States will require luxury brands on average to raise prices by around 2% in the United States, or around 1% globally if they want to avoid widening regional price gaps – or face an impact of around 3% on earnings before interest and tax.
Such hikes may prove challenging while the latest round of luxury players' earnings shows little sign of a rebound.
LVMH's second quarter sales missed expectations, weighed down by weakening sales at flagship brands Louis Vuitton and Dior, while outerwear specialist Moncler's sales contracted by 1% and Kering-owned Gucci is expected to continue to struggle.
Caroline Reyl, head of premium brands at Pictet Asset Management, said there has been a "disconnect" between the prices of certain luxury items and their perceived quality and creativity in the past four years.
Precious Buckner, a 37-year old clinical therapist from North Carolina, was looking at a Chanel classic flap bag at Saks Fifth Avenue in Manhattan last week but said if it goes up in price because of tariffs it would no longer be worth it.
'I'm going to these stores to see the size, the fit, how I like it, so I can get it on resale," Buckner said, noting she would be willing to pay $8,000 for a bag on a resale platform like The RealReal or Fashionphile rather than pay $12,000 in a department store.
Bain forecasts worldwide luxury goods sales will fall by between 2% and 5% in 2025 after a 1% decline last year, the biggest contraction in 15 years excluding COVID.
To counter the downtrend, the industry has embarked on a recruitment drive, with new designers at Chanel, Gucci, LVMH labels Dior, Celine, Givenchy and Loewe, and Versace.
Yet, renewing styles to find a better alignment between prices and product value will take time.
"You can't snap your fingers and do it in a couple of weeks," said Reyl.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Scrubbing Your Instagram, TikTok And X Accounts Could Backfire And Hurt Your Job Prospects
F or college students looking for jobs or internships, the standard advice about social media has been this: Build up your professional profile on LinkedIn, but scrub other social media accounts (the ones displaying your political opinions or party antics) or just make them private. Yet recent developments could make that playbook obsolete. The most jarring is the Trump Administration's order to U.S. consular personnel to require those applying for student and cultural exchange visas to set their social media to public, so as to allow a review of their 'entire online presence.' The State Department is explicit about what it's looking for: indications of 'hostility' to the U.S. government or culture, as well as views it considers supportive of terrorism or antisemitism. Those who do not make their accounts public could have their applications denied. In addition, an absence of a social media presence can also be held against an applicant, as a possible effort to evade scrutiny of their true views. 'You're damned if you do post, damned if you don't,' sighs one international student who requested anonymity because she fears undermining her own immigration status. The new policy has foreign students doing everything from requesting their columns be removed from student publications to painstakingly undoing any of their Instagram likes on pro-Palestinian or anti-Trump posts. (It must be done manually and takes many clicks. But this way, their accounts will still be public and active, just not political.) While visa applicants clearly have the most to worry about, American students, too, are facing a potential Catch 22. What they've said on social media can hurt them when they are job hunting. Yet erasing or cloaking their public online presence can potentially backfire in less obvious and predictable ways, as some prospective employers adopt AI driven screening of social media to determine if applicants are real–and even a cultural fit. 'It creates a double bind: students are told to curate or clean up their profiles for professionalism, yet efforts to control their digital presence can be framed as suspicious or evasive,' says Paromita Pain, an associate professor of global media at the University of Nevada, Reno. This is a new twist. Research published in 2019 suggested that making accounts private didn't hurt, and might even help, job hunters. 'In general, hiring managers saw those that used privacy settings and had strict privacy settings as slightly favorable, I think because they understood they know how to manage confidential information,' explains Chris Hartwell, an associate professor of management at Utah State University who conducted that research. To be clear, U.S. employers haven't explicitly said they're going to demand private accounts be made public or that they'll hold the existence of private or deleted accounts against prospective workers, the way the State Department has with visa applicants. Indeed several states, including California, Maryland and New York, have laws that explicitly bar employers from asking for access to private social accounts. But artificial intelligence is beginning to change hiring practices in significant ways. AI has led to an explosion of fake (or stolen) identities, and fake job candidates. In one notorious case, an Arizona woman was just sentenced to 102 months in prison for her role in an elaborate scheme that used stolen U.S. identities to place North Koreans in remote information technology jobs at 309 U.S. companies. A fourth of candidates applying to any job could be fake by 2028, research and advisory firm Gartner predicts. The technology is getting good enough that in just 70 minutes, a novice AI user can create a fake profile and masquerade as a real person during a virtual interview with a recruiter or hiring manager. In March, Dawid Moczadlot, cofounder of Vidoc Security Labs, posted a video on LinkedIn of an interview he cut short with a job candidate who was using AI to mask his true appearance. It was the second time he'd encountered that ruse in two months, he wrote. So employers have good reason to be wary, which is spawning a whole new business of AI pre-screening of applicants' social media. Companies are looking to make sure people are real, and also in some cases, a cultural fit. For example, Tofu, a small, two-year-old startup, pivoted last September to using machine learning and AI to screen applicants' social media profiles and publicly available information to corroborate their real identity. 'The point is to find them before hiring managers spend time interviewing fake applicants,' explains Jason Zoltak, Tofu's cofounder and CEO. Some of the things Tofu looks for include age of social accounts, posting and liking activity and even the number of LinkedIn connections. Tofu will also report to a prospective employer the last found date of a deleted profile, as well as any accounts that seem empty. A typical fake candidate might have a LinkedIn account that's about four months old with two or three connections or an empty Instagram or TikTok profile, Zoltak says, So what does this mean for students and workers who've scrubbed their online presence? They won't necessarily get flagged as fake candidates, says Zoltak, although he doesn't entirely rule out that possibility. But, he points out, there are other ways to validate people are real, including checking the age of the email address they used to apply for a job, as well as their phone numbers and carriers and metadata in profiles. The advice here for students: Set up a LinkedIn account and the email address you'll use for job hunting well before you start your search. A LinkedIn account might seem like a no-brainer. But Elizabeth Soady, a member of the career services advising team at the University of Richmond, says because students have heard for years about the dangers of their digital footprint, many are actually hesitant to use social media profiles for professional purposes. They're also still scrubbing away. Delete Me CEO Rob Shavell reports students are increasingly turning to services like his as they approach graduation. 'All of a sudden [younger users are] realizing they've been very cavalier about the information they were sharing online and how it's showing up everywhere,' he says. 'It dovetails really nicely with their first job search.' But erasing too much personal and private information from the internet could backfire as screening tools like Tofu use that information to verify you're a real person. It's not just a search for fake applicants that AI is spurring. Companies are increasingly screening social media history as part of their background check for future hires. Darrin Lipscomb, founder and CEO of Ferretly, says he launched the company in 2019 to vet social media activity and online presence (including news articles) as a part of security clearances. But now, with the spread of AI, he's offering the same sort of screening for pre-employment checks. In addition to working with police departments and political campaigns, Ferretly has signed up companies across business sectors to vet not only high-ranking executives, but also customer-facing employees and even social media influencer partners. The company is up to over 40 employees and 1,000 clients and even vetted candidates for the NFL draft. It has also worked with Democratic and Republican congressional campaign committees in the United States and political parties in the U.K., Australia and Canada to vet political candidates, staff and appointees. For every candidate, Ferretly produces a social media report that includes behavioral trends (including likes and post count), sentiment towards specific topics, and engagement analysis (private versus public accounts). The company makes no judgment on the contents of the report, Lipscomb emphasizes. 'We're providing a tool to be able to look at a profile and ask 'does this person represent our values as an organization? Are they going to strengthen our culture?'' he says. 'You can apply that same thinking to the student visa application. Is this person going to strengthen the American culture?' In other words, even if the practices aren't exactly the same, there's a correlation between the State Department's enhanced viewpoint screening and what's gaining a foothold in the private sector. In today's charged political atmosphere, and with today's AI capabilities, American students aren't crazy to worry about how their social media will be used. Last year, college guidance site surveyed 672 recent and current students who said that had participated in pro-Palestinian protests on campus. More than half said they were always (11%), often (19%) or sometimes (23%) asked about their activism and 28% said they had removed online evidence of that activism. In addition, 29% said they'd had a job offer rescinded in the last six months, with 68% of those who lost an offer believing the decision was either "definitely" or 'probably' linked to their activism. Beyond political activity, Pain, the Nevada prof, warns students to think twice before sharing anything identity-based (including sexual identity and religion) or related to mental health or disabilities. Even with state anti-discrimination laws, she says 'bias still operates subtly in hiring.' So what about those laws? Rod M. Fliegel, an employment lawyer and co-chair of Littler's background check practice group, says that 28 states regulate what information garnered from social media or internet searches employers can use as part of their hiring decisions. 'Just by posting something public doesn't give an employer free reign to consider the information during the hiring process,' he says. Of course recruiters or employers could still unwittingly come across protected information in public profiles. Which is why, if they want to avoid legal trouble, Fliegel urges they set company-wide policy and guardrails describing what they can use during pre-employment screening. Which raises the question of whether such limits will be built into any AI screens. College students looking to enter a tough entry job market would probably be wise not to count on it. More from Forbes Forbes One More Worry For College Students: Medicaid Work Requirements By Fiona Riley Forbes The Best Career Advice From 2025's Commencement Speakers. By Maria Gracia Santillana Linares Forbes These 26 Rich Private Colleges Just Got A Tax Cut From Republicans By Emma Whitford Forbes The Dangers Of AI-Generated Job Candidates By Maria Gracia Santillana Linares Forbes Even As Companies Retreat From Diversity Efforts, Many Quash Anti-DEI Shareholder Resolutions By Maria Gracia Santillana Linares
Bloomberg
8 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why US Partners Are Giving In to Trump on Trade
In Donald Trump's first term as president, Japan stood out as an exception in opting not to retaliate against his tariff hikes, as the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reckoned it was better to shrug them off in favor of maintaining the broader economic and security relationship. Most others did retaliate, however, and that experience conditioned economists to anticipate damaging tit-for-tat levies in Trump 2.0 if he proceeded with the aggressive trade actions he campaigned on. Except, something happened on the way to the global recession: Aside from China, American trading partners have largely accepted Trump's new duties.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Epstein files controversy consuming Capitol Hill has fueled less fire at first lawmaker town halls of summer recess
The Jeffrey Epstein files saga at times all but ground Capitol Hill to a halt last month — driving a wedge between Republicans in the House as Democrats went on offense to press President Donald Trump's Justice Department to release more investigative material. But since returning to their districts for summer recess, lawmakers aren't hearing much about Epstein at public town hall meetings they've hosted so far. The debate that's dominated Washington in recent weeks didn't come up at all in some town halls Republican and Democratic House members have held — including a raucous event Thursday hosted by Wisconsin GOP Rep. Bryan Steil and two more mild-mannered affairs held by Wyoming Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman. During others, it's been the topic of just one or two questions. In Wisconsin on Thursday, Rep. Mark Pocan — a Democrat who hosted a town hall in Prairie du Chien, in neighboring Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden's district — brought up Epstein himself, as part of a response to a question about whether Trump might declare martial law and cancel elections. 'It's a step too far to say you're going to release something and then say, 'No, there's nothing there to look at,'' he said. Only one questioner raised the topic of Epstein — and she did so to call it a distraction. Pocan kept his comments focused largely on the Republican tax and cuts spending bill that Trump signed into law on July Fourth — repeatedly warning that cuts to Medicaid could gut Wisconsin's public health insurance programs and force the state to spend tax dollars filling holes left by the federal government. The Democratic congressman said afterward that's why he mostly avoided talking about Epstein. 'I keep it to economics. I'm an economic, progressive populist. I think that's how most people make decisions when they go to elections. That's how Donald Trump won the election. That's why Donald Trump's doing poor in the polls,' he said. The woman who'd brought up Epstein, Krista Brown, a 38-year-old stay-at-home mother from Viroqua, said she has bigger concerns than Epstein — such as whether steep cuts in staffing at the Department of Education will delay action on a Title IX complaint she'd submitted on behalf of her children, or whether National Weather Service offices will be staffed. 'It has more to do with the things that people need as a foundation than it does about arguing over things that the administration wants us to spend our oxygen on. I'm just not interested in that,' Brown said. 'When you live rural, you care about who's going to plow your goddamn roads — when it's going to get plowed, if the buses can get through, how cold it is, if the weather's going to be reported,' she said. 'That's what matters. And the rest is just going to float away, because pretty soon it's going to get so hard in real life that there's not even going to be time to talk about that.' The relative lack of focus on Epstein at town halls reflects the broader priorities of Americans. A recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS found that the economy and immigration-related concerns are the issues Americans consider most important. The poll also found increased Democratic attention to government spending, concerns about separation of powers and the rule of law, and Trump himself. The amount of information the federal government has released on the Epstein case was an issue that didn't rise to prominence, with just one respondent mentioning it as the most important problem. Still, even if Epstein isn't Americans' top priority, half of respondents said they are dissatisfied with the amount of information released about the Epstein case after the Justice Department released a memo saying there is no evidence the convicted sex offender kept a so-called client list or was murdered. That includes 56% of Democrats, 52% of independents and 40% of Republicans. Democrats, in search of an advantage against Trump and administration officials who pledged prior to taking office to release Epstein-related files, have sought to force the issue. In the Senate this week, ahead of its own recess, Democrats are using an arcane procedural tool to try to force the Justice Department to release all of the files related to Epstein, including audio, video and any other relevant documents. Republican leadership, meanwhile, is eager to stay away from the topic of Epstein. House Speaker Mike Johnson cut legislative business short and sent members home early last week to avoid being forced to hold votes on releasing Epstein-related files. The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP's campaign arm, encouraged House Republicans in a memo to use the August recess to focus on selling Trump's agenda. 'With the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law just a few weeks ago, this is a critical opportunity to continue to define how this legislation will help every voter and push back on Democrat fearmongering,' the NRCC memo said. Some House Republicans who have held town halls have been asked about the Epstein files. Utah GOP Rep. Mike Kennedy compared the unreleased Epstein files to 'a festering oil-infected wound with pus underneath' in response to a question about whether he would vote in favor of releasing the documents during a virtual town hall last week. Kennedy pledged to push for 'full transparency' in the matter and that he would 'vote immediately to get all that released,' permitted that the identities of victims are concealed. As Republican Rep. William Timmons of South Carolina fielded questions at a telephone town hall last week, one caller shared his 'outrage' over the Epstein files – asking why the House adjourned 'when this hasn't been dealt with.' 'If there's a group of pedophiles out there who are just getting away with it, this is an outrage, and I don't care who they are. I don't care if they're the president of the United States,' the caller said. Timmons responded that 'there is evil in this world, and we have to protect the innocent, so we need to get to the bottom of it.' 'The president and the attorney general are doing the work necessary to release all of the information,' he said. 'The Republican Congress should not be attacking the president,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'The president has earned our trust, has earned the right for us to defer to him on issues at the executive branch.' But other issues have dominated town halls so far this summer — including the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' border security and deportations and federal funding cuts. At a Hageman town hall earlier this week, Jane Sanderson, 75, of Worland, who voted for the congresswoman, asked her why the Department of Government Efficiency's spending cuts hadn't put a dent in the United States' national debt. Timmons, the South Carolina congressman, was asked about health care, tariffs and aviation safety. Trump's golf habits came up as often as Epstein. At the same time Pocan held court in Prairie du Chien, Steil, a three-hour drive away in Elkhorn, was accused of doing Trump's bidding too frequently. 'President Trump seems to run Southeast Wisconsin through you,' one audience member told him. Steil faced criticism over the Trump administration's treatment of undocumented immigrants. He was shouted down as he defended Trump's implementation of tariffs on imports from a host of trading partners. And the town hall ended amid shouting after he began to answer a question about starvation in Gaza — an issue that is splintering the right, as Trump pushes Israel to address the humanitarian crisis as its military actions there continue. 'To me, the easy answer to address this crisis is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages. That ends the war tomorrow,' Steil said, in a comment that was met with a mix of cheers and shouts of disagreement. 'Israel was unfairly, unjustly attacked, their civilians were killed and kidnapped by Hamas terrorists.' CNN's Veronica Stracqualursi, Sarah Davis, Jenna Monnin and Betul Tuncer contributed to this report.
