The Essential View: Too many maisons de luxe recommend or even require accessories for their items and then fail to include or even offer them. Luxury purchases should include everything required to use and care for them properly. An optional extra is a different matter: it’s reasonable of the customer to request and equally reasonable of the maison to decline. But the way a maison handles such a request can matter more than the value of the extra in question—and can determine whether the customer buys at all.
La façon de donner vaut mieux que ce qu'on donne.
The manner of giving is worth more than the gift.
A few months ago, I wrote about the Devialet Dione Opéra de Paris, a $2,999 / 2 800 € soundbar that doesn’t include a remote, which is an optional $199 / 189 € accessory. I wrote that not including the remote felt “stingy, if sadly on par for luxury”.
It’s something I always wonder about luxury: why it is that the more we spend, the less the maisons seem inclined to include? Is it that they figure we have money to burn, that we’ve proved we already want the item in question—or do they simply take us for a mark?1
“Oh, no, no, nuh-uh.”
I was reminded of this recently when I was shopping for my first heirloom-quality watch (not an heirloom yet; remember, an heirloom isn’t something we buy, it’s what something can become). I wanted to buy from a manufacture-owned boutique, and from reading online, I had learned that while this particular watchmaker wouldn’t discount in their boutiques, they were known to sometimes throw in something for free to sweeten the deal, including at the boutique I was about to visit. I visited the boutique and they had the watch I wanted. My moment was at hand. As I examined the watch, I asked:
“I understand that the boutique price is fixed. Since I’m purchasing the watch today, is there any boutique courtesy you would be able to include with it?” I thought that sounded understated and respectful. The salesperson asked for specifics, and I mentioned what I had in mind, an optional travel case they offered.
I wasn’t laughed at. But I wasn’t not laughed at, if you know what I mean. Do you remember the face that Bob made when Elwood Blues told him they thought the beer was free? That was the face I got, more or less. And the “Oh, no, no, nuh-uh”.
“Uh, well, like, when we first came in, uh, the bar lady never charged us for the first round, so, like, we figured, you know, beer was like, complimentary for the band, you know.” Dan Aykroyd as Elwood Blues and John Belushi as Joliet Jake Blues, The Blues Brothers. Image: Universal Pictures
“Oh, no, no, nuh-uh.” Jeff Morris as Bob of Bob’s Country Bunker, The Blues Brothers. Image: Universal Pictures
Was a case necessary to the operation of the watch? No. In fact the manufacture in question includes a travel case as part of the storage case—though no watch enthusiast I know would actually use such a thing as opposed to keeping the entire storage case pristine. Was the boutique under any obligation to offer me something for free? No. But would I have been satisfied with a watch case that retailed for just 2.2 percent of the price of the watch? Yes, and had they offered it, I would have walked out of the boutique with a watch that day. But they didn’t.
I politely thanked the sales associate and left. It was the principle of the thing. And the Bob face.
So what was the principle of the thing, anyway?
I quoted Corneille above: “The manner of giving is worth more than the gift.” That raises an interesting question. If the boutique had been polite and apologetic in explaining why they couldn’t offer me a gift with my purchase, would I have bought from them?
I honestly don’t know. I would have appreciated the attitude, to be sure. But when a company representative says “we can’t do that”, my general assumption is that what they really mean is, “we don’t want to do that”.
On the other hand, I walked into the boutique that day of a mind to buy a watch, having researched my choice for many months. (More on that in a future article.) I walked out disappointed that day. So I might have accepted the explanation.
What was the principle of the thing? I suppose it’s that while they weren’t under any obligation to offer anything, equally, I wasn’t under any obligation to buy anything. And I felt like my request was polite, respectful, and reasonable. So them turning it down—and especially the manner in which they did so—told me something about them. What it told me was that I wanted to look elsewhere.
When the omitted “extra” is actually necessary
As I wrote, charging extra for extras seems to be sadly on par for les maisons. That’s even true when the “extra” is necessary, or practically so.
Crockett & Jones Audley in Black Calf. Image: Crockett & Jones
Crockett & Jones recommends wooden shoe trees to absorb moisture and maintain shape, and sells such trees. They even use images of their shoes with shoe trees in them for many of their models, as with the Audley shown above, which retails for $1,100 / £770. In fine print, though? “Shoe Trees Not Included”. Those will be an additional $170 / £120, or $230 / £170 for the “luxury” version. (By the way, the Audley isn’t the most expensive shoe that Crockett & Jones offers that is pictured with shoe trees but doesn’t include them. As far as I can tell, that honor belongs to the Bury 2 at $1,460 / £990.)
Leica D-Lux 8. Power adapter and charging cable not included. Image: Leica
Leica doesn’t include a charging cable or power adapter with its $1,915 / 1 650 € D-Lux 8 camera. It’s one thing when a company like Apple does this; if you’re in the Apple ecosystem, then you probably have a drawer of unused power adapters and cables from them. I agree that it would be wasteful for them to keep shipping them with every new device. But Leica can’t possibly believe that its customers are buying so much of its equipment that they have spare Leica-supplied adapters and cables lying around. So this is just an unstated tax on your purchase, unless you believe that it’s reasonable of Leica to just assume you have unused (or under-used) adapters and cables on hand from other manufacturers.
(A reasonable compromise to avoid waste would be for Leica to tell customers that the D-Lux 8 doesn’t include a power adapter or charging cable, but if they need one or both, they only need ask and Leica will include them at no charge.)
There are exceptions to “extras cost extra”. Moynat includes free painted personalization2 with their bags, including a stripe and/or initials. Berluti recommends their shoes receive a new patina yearly, and the first patina is free. Well done, and in each case, both the maison and the consumer benefit from the free offering.
Put simply, luxury consumers pay high prices for the items they buy from maisons de luxe (and especially maisons de grand luxe). If luxury prices already include a premium for the brand and the experience, is it reasonable to expect that some small courtesies be included?
I understand the maisons’ point of view. Everything carries a cost. And with all they spend on sales and marketing, all they spend to build up their brand, they can go through those premiums quickly. It’s the basic maison-consumer contract. The maison spends money to make its story well-known and attractive. The premium the consumer pays is in exchange for taking a piece of that story home with them.
If I’m being honest here, the watch boutique I visited was being reasonable—not in how they answered my request, to be sure, but in the substance of the answer itself. The travel case I was hoping for as a courtesy wasn’t necessary to the proper functioning of the watch. And the presentation case it came in actually included a travel case.
But Crockett & Jones not including shoe trees with $1,100 shoes when they recommend them and display the shoes with trees in them? To me, that’s wrong. Leica not including a power adapter and cable when they’re fundamentally necessary to operating their camera? Again, to me, that’s wrong. Both firms—and others like them—need to do better.
What this means for you
Maisons de (grand) luxe don’t owe their customers any special considerations or favors, just as customers don’t owe them their patronage in the first place. It’s fine for it to be a business decision, so long as the maison treats customers not as transactions but as relationships.
If, though, a maison recommends or requires something to go along with their product, but charges extra for it, that’s disrespectful at best. What’s recommended or required should be included as part of the luxury premium.
When an extra is optional, it’s reasonable both for the buyer to request it and for the maison to decline—though if declined, manners count. When an extra is recommended or required, it should be offered at no charge.
1 For those readers not familiar with English-language slang, a mark is, according to Green’s Dictionary of Slang, “the potential and actual victim of a con-man, a gullible person”.
2 If you’re wondering about this in the context of my previous article, “Field Notes: Is complimentary personalization really free?”, that’s a fair question. The same caveats apply. That being said, I ascribe somewhat more value to something hand-painted onto a bag, whereas a boutique hot-stamping initials on something feels like a one-way exchange in which the store gives up one minute to add three letters to an item while the buyer gives up the ability to return the purchase.
