Coach, the maker of luxury handbags and other sundry accessories, has been having a rough year. It is odd, because the luxury market has been doing really well overall, fed by a global elite with assets that seem to have fully recovered from the recessionary dumps. So what’s the problem?

    Part of it is certainly hard-charging competition from newer brands, like Kate Spade and Michael Kors, that appeal to a younger audience. For them, Coach is their rich auntie’s label, more 5th Avenue than Mission District.

    But the bigger problem may have been growing too fast in the first place. Coach, under pressure from investors to boost revenue, added line after line of merchandise and dozens of factory outlet stores over the past few years, fueling a dramatic run-up in earnings — to the point where Coach isn’t really Coach anymore.

    “If you’re a luxury brand with outlet stores, maybe you’re not a luxury brand,” mused Tim Hanson, analyst of Motley Fool Funds on a podcast recently.

    It’s a problem all luxury brands face, especially public ones: How can you both sell enough on a quarterly basis to make Wall Street happy while at the same time maintaining the aura of exclusivity that got you where you were in the first place?

    Mark Cohen, a professor of retail at the Columbia University Business School, ticks off the companies that have fallen into the ubiquity trap. Bill Blass “never met a licensee he didn’t do a deal with,” he says. Neiman Marcus “has opened stores in the last seven, eight years that they wish they could take back.”

    “It’s the designer toilet seat problem,” Cohen says. “The luxury business is entirely contingent on limited availability, limited supply, and limited exposure.”

    In recent years, big luxury retailers have found a way around the problem by pivoting to Asia, leveraging their iconic status in places like Japan and China to achieve huge sales without tarnishing their image at home. Coach hasn’t had as much success there, perhaps because it doesn’t have the same kind of worldwide appeal of a Prada or Gucci.

    人手一个的奢侈品手袋是奢侈品吗？

    蔻驰是世界著名奢侈品牌，主营手袋和男女配饰，但今年业绩欠佳。在全球富有的精英阶层似乎完全从经济危机中恢复过来，并带动整个奢侈品消费市场走向繁荣之时，蔻驰糟糕的表现实在令人觉得费解。蔻驰究竟出了什么问题？

    攻势猛烈的新兴品牌自然是挑战之一，如凯特·思蓓和迈

    克·科尔斯，这些品牌更受年轻消费者青睐。他们眼里蔻驰是富有阿姨的专属，是纽约第五大道，而不是年轻时尚的教会区。

    但更大问题首先可能来自产品的过快发展。投资者追求销售的增长，面对这种压力蔻驰不得不在过去的几年间不断增加线下产品品类并增开几十家工厂直销店，这样做的确使其收入快速增长，但这时蔻驰已不再是原来的蔻驰。

    蒂姆·汉森是美国Motley Fool基金公司的分析师，他最近在自己的播客中提出：“开了工厂店的奢侈品牌也许已不再是奢侈品。”

    不仅是蔻驰，全球所有奢侈品牌，尤其是大众品牌，都在面临这样一个问题：如何保持令华尔街满意的季度销量，同时保持产品独有的格调，不违背其品牌初衷。

    哥伦比亚大学商学院零售学教授马克·科恩列举了几个陷入“普遍性陷阱”的公司实例。

    比尔·布拉斯从不拒绝任何要他们授权售卖产品的合作机会；尼曼·马克斯过去七八年间开了好几家分店，现在却后悔了。

    科恩说：“这是个定制马桶座的问题，奢侈品产业的前提是限量生产、限量供应和限量曝光。”

    近年来，一些奢侈品零售巨头找到了避开这个矛盾的办法，即以亚洲为销售重心，利用自身“品牌效应”在中国、日本等国取得巨额销量，却丝毫不影响在国内的形象。

    但蔻驰没有像普拉达和古奇那样的国际品牌知名度，所以并未在亚洲市场上取得多大的成功。

    Words to Learn 相关词汇

    【列举】

    lièjǔ

    tick off

    mark with a tick or ticks, check

    【施加影响】

    shījiā yǐngxiǎng

    leverage

    exert power or influence on