Luxury is not for everyone — and that’s okay
A critique of the masses’ current perception of luxury.
Lately, I’ve had this intrusive thought more and more often: why are people so entitled nowadays? As Harry Styles would say, maybe it’s a sign of the times.
A propos of Mr. Styles, he just released tickets for his latest tour, Together Together, and it has sent fans everywhere into a frenzy.
“Harry and I are in a fight ATM”, claims one UK fan on Instagram. “Harry charging me $1200 face value for a concert ticket like it’s my fault that he hasn’t done anything for 3 years. It is NOT my job to fund his lifestyle”, argues a US fan on X.
At first glance, these complaints sound -sort of- fair, don’t they? But if we truly think about it, Harry’s concert is just like any other piece of performance art, in which the artist determines what they believe their work is worth. So that brings me to the following question: When did it become okay to tell artists what their art is worth?
The intriguing part of this PR drama is that tickets for Harry’s concert go from £44 for general admission to £725 for a VIP ticket. Yet, many of his fans don’t even seem to recognise — let alone consider — the existence of the cheaper option. Much like it happens with the legendary Hermes Birkin Bag, buyers conveniently ignore that there are plenty of other quality bags and designer brands for them to purchase, to the extent of filing lawsuits in an attempt to bypass the waitlist.
In our current hyper-consumerist society, people want it all (Cue Taylor Swift’s Wi$h Li$t). They want the expensive bag, but also the members-only club. They want first-row concert tickets, a chalet in the south of France, and a private plane, of course. And why shouldn’t they? The real issue is believing they are entitled to all of these luxuries, because, as grim as it may sound, they are not meant to own them all.
The luxury concept and its system might be controversial, even frustrating for some, but it prevails because it simply makes sense. By definition, a luxury item is not popular or accessible. It’s not a need, which implies it’s not meant to be for public consumption; it is exclusive, rare, and limited, and that is precisely what makes it special, and it is also what justifies its price.
Get Nora Portela’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Descriptive terms such as VIP, deluxe, first-class, or elite are not solely boastful buzzwords or ornamental adjectives. They are meant to indicate exclusivity, status, priority, scarcity, unparalleled quality, and exceptional experiences. They represent the work behind luxury, be it an exquisitely handcrafted bag that took 40 hours to make by a single skilled artisan, or a seat so close to your favourite singer that you might get to interact with them.
In essence, luxury items are not available to everyone because it would be a counterproductive oxymoron, stripping them of their value and causing them to lose their unique selling proposition.
Meanwhile, in the last decade or so, there has been a shift in the way luxury is perceived. The rise of mid-market brands crafting pieces that greatly resemble designer brands has made consumers from various income levels feel closer to this lifestyle. Entry-level products, dupe culture, and high street x luxury collaborations are all signs of the democratization of the luxury lifestyle, and social media is the perfect platform to entertain unfair comparisons and aspirational thoughts, widely shielded by anonymity.
Thereby, what we are experiencing now is a direct result of that access at scale: The audacious, unapologetic, price-driven shaming of exclusive experiences and luxurious items, be it a £40k exclusive bag with a litigation-triggering waitlist or a £725 VIP concert ticket.
This is not to say people don’t have the right to complain when something seems unusually expensive; what shouldn’t be normalized is to aggressively require explanations, as it seems like the “demand” side of supply and demand is being taken a bit too literally. Beyond that, luxury investment is a choice. One can buy a car instead of a yacht, but somehow, some consider that prices should be lower because they need to own both.
Luxury brands also have the responsibility of being reasonable with their price hikes, but when the motives behind them are to preserve exclusivity or simply reinforce their position of power, no justification would ever seem fair, because it’s not. Let’s not forget the not-so-positive ideologies connected to the luxury system, such as elitism, classism, and segregation.
At last, I have a few questions for entitled consumers everywhere:
Why do you believe complaining about the price of a luxury commodity, which is something not essential to survival, is productive?
Hasn’t a 200-year old designer brand earned the right to decide who they sell to and not?
Doesn’t an artist get to define how much the closeness to his persona is worth?
I look forward to debating you.
xx
