The Dinner

On September 4th 2025, Sam Altman and Tim Cook sat down to dinner at the White House.

The setting was gilded, the mood cooperative. Around the table sat the architects of the American technology industry, and among them, these two, the man who had unleashed the AI era and the man who ran the most valuable company in its history.

They were not rivals that evening. They were partners. A year earlier, Apple had done something it almost never does: it opened the iPhone to someone else’s intelligence. ChatGPT, woven into the operating system of a billion devices. Altman supplied the brain. Cook supplied the world. The future, it seemed, would be built jointly. Cupertino’s hardware wrapped around San Francisco’s mind.

Ten months later, Apple sued.

On July 10, 2026, in a federal courthouse in Northern California, Apple accused OpenAI of orchestrating a campaign of trade secret theft, a scheme it says ran “at every level” of the company, from junior engineers to the chief hardware officer. Code names leaked. Components allegedly carried into job interviews. Confidential files, Apple claims, downloaded by a departed engineer who kept his company laptop and found a way back into the vault.

Ten months from partners at the White House to adversaries in federal court.

The instinct is to ask what happened. Who betrayed whom, which meeting went wrong, what deal soured in a conference room we’ll never see.

But I don’t think anything happened.

I think this was always going to occur, and the reasons have almost nothing to do with the two men at that table.

Share

The Arrangement

Go back to the announcement, June 2024. On stage, it read as a coronation: the most celebrated AI company on earth, chosen by Apple, embedded in the iPhone. Commentators called it validation. In a sense it was.

But strip the theater away and look at the structure of the deal.

OpenAI would supply the intelligence. Apple would keep the customer.

Every query would flow through Apple’s interface, on Apple’s device, inside Apple’s ecosystem, under Apple’s terms. The relationship: the daily ritual of a billion people reaching for a glass rectangle before their eyes fully open, remained exactly where it had always been. Inside the iPhone, ChatGPT could answer the question. Apple still owned the moment in which the question was asked.

What OpenAI received was distribution. What OpenAI became was an ingredient.

OpenAI accepted the economics of a supplier.

Note the verb. Not forced. Accepted. It was a rational trade, reach in exchange for position, and OpenAI made it with eyes open, because when Apple offers you a billion pockets, you say yes. But the technology industry has a long memory for what happens to brilliant components inside someone else’s box. Intel spent decades as the most important component in personal computing, its sticker on nearly every machine.

Ask Intel who captured the margin.

Subscribe now

The Paradox

Here is where the story stops making obvious sense.

By every visible measure, OpenAI has been winning the race that defines this decade. The frontier models. The benchmarks. The mindshare. The verb, because “ask ChatGPT” entered the language the way “google it” once did. If you polled a thousand people on which company owns the future of intelligence, the answer would not be close.

And by the same visible measure, Apple spent those years losing that race publicly, almost theatrically. The smarter Siri it promised in 2024 slipped, and slipped again, a small humiliation in annual installments. When the fix finally came, it came with a price tag attached: Apple now pays Google roughly a billion dollars a year to put Gemini behind its own assistant. The company that prides itself on owning every layer of its products could not build the one technology everyone agreed mattered most and had to rent it from its oldest rival.

To be precise: Apple didn’t lose at technology. Its silicon remains the industry’s envy; its devices sip power while others gulp. What Apple lost was the race everyone was watching, the public contest to build the smartest machine.

Now look at the scoreboard.

OpenAI’s growth, while still extraordinary, has reportedly begun to lag the assumptions supporting its enormous cost base. Its reported operating losses exceeded its revenue in the first quarter of 2026, an economic profile that would destroy almost any conventional business. Its own finance chief has reportedly warned that the data centers it depends on may outrun its ability to pay for them. And they’re delaying their IPO.

Apple just posted the two largest quarters in its history. Its stock is up more than twenty percent this year. And on Friday July 17th 2026, amid the worst week for chip stocks in over a year, it drew level with, and by some closing calculations narrowly passed Nvidia as the most valuable company on earth.

The crown may change hands again. The repricing is the story.

The company that appeared to lose the race was being crowned. The company that appeared to win it was bleeding cash.

So why is Wall Street rewarding the company that appeared to lose the race everyone was watching?

The Desire Stack

There’s an older pattern that makes this legible. One that predates AI by more than a century, though the AI economy is rendering it in unusually high definition.

Markets like this one increasingly behave as a Desire Stack.

At the bottom sits invention: the raw capability, the model, the molecule, the machine. It is the layer that requires genius, and it is where cost and risk pool like water in a basement. Above it sits product, the work of making capability usable. Above that, distribution, the work of putting it in front of people. And at the top sits the desire layer: not advertising, but the accumulated relationship, ritual, trust and meaning that determines what people choose.

Share

The relationship. The ritual. The reason a person reaches for this and not that. What we in Paris call, desirability.

Here is the uncomfortable physics of the whole structure: value does not stay where it is created. It migrates upward, away from the invention that made everything possible, toward whoever owns the wanting.

The bottom of the stack pays for the future. The top of the stack collects it.

Hold that model in your head, and the last eighteen months stop looking like a feud.

They start looking like gravity.

The Prison Break

OpenAI is behaving exactly as economic theory predicts.

That’s the sentence to hold onto, because everything that follows: the acquisition, the poaching, the lawsuit, has been narrated as scandal, and almost none of it is. It is strategy. Rational, legible, almost textbook strategy, executed by people who understand precisely where they sit.

Every company tries to climb the Desire Stack. Not because executives are smarter than everyone else. Not because they’re greedier. Because gravity pulls value upward, and every board eventually feels it. Apple climbed from computers to an ecosystem. Microsoft climbed from operating systems to enterprise workflows. Amazon climbed from selling books to owning the Prime relationship. The entire history of great technology companies is a history of successful ascents.

OpenAI is simply attempting the same climb.

The tragedy isn’t that it’s climbing. It’s that it started from the most expensive layer.

And this, quietly, is the predicament of nearly every foundation-model company on earth. An entire generation of AI startups born in the basement of the stack, whose strange lunges into devices, browsers, feeds, and shopping are not diversification but the same desperate ascent, attempted from the costliest starting point in the history of business.

Read the last two years of OpenAI’s behavior as a climb, and every move snaps into focus.

Why would a company bleeding billions pay $6.5 billion for a hardware startup with no shipped product? Because the startup came with Jony Ive, and more than fifty veterans of Apple’s design and hardware organizations, the people who built the machines that own the morning ritual of a billion humans. Why recruit so aggressively from one company in particular that its former employer now catalogs the hires in a federal complaint?

Why promise, with theatrical confidence, a completely new kind of AI device? Because a device is not a gadget. A device is a relationship delivery mechanism — the only proven way to sit in someone’s pocket, and their life, without an intermediary taking the margin.

Altman diagnosed his prison correctly. He sits at the bottom of a stack, funding the most expensive layer of the modern economy, watching the value he creates migrate upward into other companies’ ecosystems.

Subscribe now

The question was never whether he’d try to escape.

The only question is whether the escape plan can work.

The $6.5 Billion Appraisal

Jony Ive may be the most consequential industrial designer since Dieter Rams; the objects he shaped at Apple defined the aesthetic of an era.

That’s precisely what makes the acquisition so revealing. When OpenAI paid $6.5 billion for io, it wasn’t buying a product, there wasn’t one. It was buying taste. The bet, at bottom, was that desire is a deliverable: that the man who designed the objects could conjure the wanting, that the architect of Apple’s cathedral could build another one across town.

But even Jony Ive may not be enough. Not because his gift has faded, because the bet misprices what he had.

The evidence, so far, reads less like a product launch than an appraisal coming in low.

The device has slipped, from late 2026, per OpenAI’s own courtroom admissions, to no earlier than February 2027. The name is already gone: “io” surrendered after a trademark fight with a small startup most people had never heard of. The “completely new concept in AI hardware” has, by recent reporting, taken the form of a smart speaker with a camera, expected to sell for two to three hundred dollars, a category Amazon and Google have occupied for a decade.

People inside OpenAI, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the project, describe unresolved struggles with the assistant’s personality, with privacy, and with something more basic: compute.

And while the revolutionary device slips, OpenAI’s first hardware to actually reach customers shipped this month: a small mechanical keypad for developers…

From “a completely new concept in AI hardware” to a webcam speaker and a keyboard accessory. That’s not a design failure. Ive’s team may yet produce a beautiful object. It’s a structural one: you can hire the world’s greatest designer, and still not own a congregation.

Share

The Predictable Violence

Which brings us back to the courthouse.

Follow the logic of the climb to its end. OpenAI could not build a desire layer from scratch, that takes decades it doesn’t have and margins it can’t spare. It then discovered, at a cost of $6.5 billion and counting, that a desire layer is extraordinarily difficult to buy. For a company that must climb or die, only one path remains, and Apple’s complaint alleges, in effect, that OpenAI is trying to ‘take’ the layer.

The allegations are specific. Apple’s confidential project code names, appearing in OpenAI’s recruiting outreach. Candidates allegedly encouraged to bring Apple hardware components to interviews. Departing employees allegedly coached on sidestepping Apple’s security. And one engineer who, Apple claims, kept his company laptop after resigning, discovered a bug that left him access to Apple’s internal cloud, and downloaded dozens of confidential files while building hardware for OpenAI.

These are allegations, and OpenAI will answer them in court. But notice what Apple is defending.

Every great platform eventually learns the same lesson: the hardest asset to build isn’t the product. It’s the relationship that makes the product matter.

The timing tells you how much is at stake. Apple filed this complaint eight weeks before Tim Cook hands the company to John Ternus, a lawsuit as part of the estate, the moat formally documented before the transfer. OpenAI, meanwhile, has delayed its public offering, postponing the moment it must ask the market to price the most expensive climb in corporate history.

Two companies, in the same summer, arguing their own valuations and the courtroom is part of the argument.

The Repricing

While the lawyers filed, the market moved.

Last Friday, amid the worst week for chip stocks in over a year, Apple drew level with, and by some closing calculations, narrowly passed Nvidia as the most valuable company on earth. One analyst described the rotation in a sentence that deserves framing: the market has rewarded, in sequence, the companies that build the models, then the companies that build the chips, and is now turning toward the companies that can convert compute into experiences customers will actually pay for.

For the past three years, markets rewarded whoever built intelligence. They may now be beginning to reward whoever owns the relationship into which intelligence arrives.

Notice, too, who is quietly winning while everyone watches the duel. Apple rents its intelligence from Google. Google also owns Android, and Search, and now the assistant inside its rival’s phone. There is more than one way to own the layer where the wanting happens, and the least conspicuous player in this story may hold the strongest position in it.

Perhaps Apple won’t ultimately win this era of AI. Perhaps OpenAI’s device will redefine computing. Perhaps another company entirely will build a relationship layer no one has imagined yet. That’s not the claim. The claim is simpler: the economic pressure to move up the Desire Stack is real, and once you see that pressure, the last eighteen months of Apple’s and OpenAI’s behavior become much easier to understand.

So does a great deal else:

• That is why Apple beat BlackBerry: not merely by making a better device, but by turning the phone into an ecosystem, an identity and a daily ritual.

• It is why Hermès can outperform luxury groups many times its size: it owns the wanting so completely that the wait itself becomes part of the value.

• It is why Dior’s debut of Jonathan Anderson drew over a billion views and eclipsed a World Cup final. No media budget buys that. Only authorship does.

• And it is why Visa, which lends nothing, manufactures nothing, and carries none of the credit risk — collects a toll on a significant share of the world’s commerce. The banks fund the risk. Visa owns the moment.

Once you start looking, the pattern stops being a technology story.

• The airlines discovered their loyalty programs were worth more than their fleets.

• The record labels may own the songs but Spotify owns the ritual.

So many of the decisions made in boardrooms are attempts to climb a stack nobody in the room has a name for.

The question is no longer simply who invents the future. It is who owns the relationship through which the future enters people’s lives.

Apple understood that long before AI. OpenAI now understands it too. Their partnership was useful for as long as each company could remain on its own layer.

It could never stay there.

Sam Altman invented the most consequential machine of his generation, and then went looking for the one thing his machine could not produce. Desire. He tried to build it, and it slipped. He tried to buy it, and it cost six and a half billion dollars and arrived as a speaker with a camera. He is now, Apple alleges, trying to take it.

The machine can be built, bought, rented, or copied.

Desire cannot, Monsieur Altman.

This is the first in an occasional series about the Desire Stack, where value migrates after invention.

Share

Enjoyed this analysis? Consider subscribing and reading my other recent pieces:

When you fire the CEO who tripled your revenue in seven years, you’re not fixing execution. You’re admitting the constitution was wrong from the start.

Calvin McDonald delivered everything Wall Street asked for. Under his leadership, Lululemon Athletica transformed from a $3 billion yoga-pants brand into an $11 billion global athleisure empire. He expanded into thirty new international markets. He built the omnichannel infrastructure that let customers shop however they wanted. He grew international revenue 33 percent in the third quarter alone, even as competitors struggled. By every conventional metric: revenue growth, geographic expansion, operational efficiency; McDonald succeeded spectacularly.

Yet on December 11, 2025, the board announced his departure. Not because of scandal. Not because of missed targets. The company had just beaten earnings expectations. But the stock told a different story:

Founder Chip Wilson took out a full-page advertisement in The Wall Street Journal titled “Lululemon: In a Nosedive” publicly excoriating McDonald and the board for what he called a “lack of innovation” and loss of “edge” The board, reading the room, mutually agreed to McDonald’s exit.

The problem wasn’t that McDonald failed as a CEO. It’s that he succeeded as the wrong kind of head of state. Lululemon needed an architect who could complete the construction of a Cultural Nation. Instead, it got the Prince of Infrastructure, a man brilliant at building roads but blind to where they should lead.

Share

Under his watch, Lululemon was strip-mined for efficiency and hollowed out for scale. What was once visceral became sterile. What was once tribal became generic. The stores multiplied. The soul evaporated. Revenue grew while desire died.

To understand what was lost, we need to understand what Lululemon was before McDonald arrived, and what it became under him.

THE CULTURAL NATION OF LULULEMON

A Nation Without a Capital

You can buy Lululemon in dozens of countries today. You still can’t tell what country it belongs to.

There’s no capital. No pilgrimage site. No sacred center from which the movement emanates. Just seven hundred stores that all look the same. Clean white walls. Neat product grids. Pleasant staff. Frictionless transactions. Generic architecture optimized for sales per square foot.

The geographic data reveals the paradox: International revenue grew 33 percent in the third quarter. The Americas, Lululemon’s home market, declined 2 percent, with comparable sales falling 5 percent. There’s clearly a global “idea” of Lululemon that travels across borders, that resonates in Shanghai, London and São Paulo. But it has no center of gravity. No embassy where the mythology is tangible. No capital city you can point to and say: “Go there. Then you’ll understand what Lululemon is.”

It wasn’t always this way.

Subscribe now

Early Evidence of Nation-Building

Between 2000 and 2015, Lululemon behaved like something more than a retailer. It exhibited all the markers of a Cultural Nation, a movement with its own language, institutions, and sacred objects.

Sacred Language. The “sweat life” philosophy wasn’t marketing copy. It was ideology. Manifesto bags carried quotes out into the world: “Do one thing a day that scares you” “Breathe deeply” “Dance, sing, floss and travel” These weren’t brand slogans. They were scripture made portable. Stores had walls where customers posted handwritten goals—not sales targets, but life intentions. “Run my first marathon” “Practice gratitude” “Be present with my children” This was a belief system, not a value proposition.

Tribal Institutions. Store ambassadors weren’t just celebrity endorsers. They were your neighbor who taught yoga, the local runner training for Boston, the personal trainer everyone knew by name. The bulletin boards were raw and analog, index cards announcing community runs, meditation circles, trail cleanups. In-store yoga classes meant stores were studios first, retail spaces second. You came to move, and maybe you bought something. The transaction was secondary to the gathering.

Sacred Objects. The logo wasn’t branding. It was a passport stamp signaling membership. The bag wasn’t packaging. It was a manifesto carrier. The pants weren’t apparel. They were the uniform of belonging, visible across coffee shops, farmers markets and Tribeca school pickups, a silent recognition between people who’d chosen the same tribe.

Just like Campbell’s Soup was always more than soup in the American psyche, Lululemon was always more than leggings in the urban wellness imaginary.

The seeds of a Movement Nation were there from the beginning. What they needed was an architect to complete the construction, to build the capital city, codify the citizenship, create the infrastructure of sovereignty.

What they got was Mcdonald, someone who knew how to build roads, not nations.

The Prophet on the Hill

Chip Wilson can be an annoying prophet. Difficult, outspoken, prone to saying things that make boards cringe. But he’s pointing at something that was desecrated, even if his full-page Wall Street Journal advertisement reads like the rant of a spurned founder.

“The board insists on operator/finance CEOs who can ‘speak Wall Street” Wilson wrote, “rejecting the idea of a product-driven CEO.” He accused management of failing to hold themselves accountable for innovation, of no longer understanding their target customers, of having “lost its edge.”

Depersonalize Wilson’s ego and what remains is a constitutional question: Who does the board think they serve?

Financial citizens: shareholders optimizing for quarterly earnings, analysts demanding predictable growth, investors who measure success in revenue per square foot? Or Lululemon citizens: the people who actually sweat in the clothes, who gather at dawn for run club, who treat the brand as something closer to religion than retail?

McDonald’s board chose to serve Wall Street. And in doing so, they built roads without destinations. Infrastructure without mythology. A retail state where a Cultural Nation should have stood.

Share

THE GREAT ABANDONMENT

The Prince of Infrastructure

Calvin McDonald is the Prince of Infrastructure. He builds superhighways with ruthless efficiency. But he doesn’t know where they lead. And without a destination, a road system is just expensive asphalt.

At Sephora Americas, where McDonald served as CEO from 2013 to 2018, he built what can only be described as the Beauty Superhighway.

• Omnichannel integration: order online, pick up in store, seamless inventory visibility.

• Geographic expansion: stores in every strip mall, inside JCPenney and even flirting with the idea of a Sephora-Amazon partnership (thankfully the latter never materialized because, allegedly, Monsieur Arnault and Mr. Bezos couldn’t agree)

• Loyalty infrastructure: the Beauty Insider program mechanics, tiered rewards, data capture.

The roads were immaculate. The traffic flowed perfectly. The infrastructure was brilliant.

But here’s what matters: Sephora only became the Mecca of Beauty, the incubator for emerging brands, the pilgrimage site for “Sephora Kids” treating store visits like cultural events - AFTER McDonald left. The transformation happened under different leadership. Global Sephora CEO Martin Brok (2020-22), global Chief Brand Officer Steve Lesnard, Americas CMO Deborah Yeh, and Artemis Patrick, then Global Chief Merchandising Officer, drove the shift that turned Sephora from administrative state into Cultural Nation. They embedded a new operating philosophy: working intimately with brand founders, activating the brand through a local consumer lens, and, building not stores but Beauty Embassies from the Champs-Élysées to Fifth Avenue to Nanjing Road to Place Vendôme Qatar, that’s now fully ingrained in how Sephora operates globally. After Martin and Steve moved on, Deb Yeh and new Americas CEO Artemis Patrick continued championing this vision, generating nearly $20 billion annually for LVMH. McDonald built the infrastructure. Someone else created the Sephora mythology.

At Lululemon, he built the same thing: the Yoga Superhighway. Seven hundred stores, meticulously optimized. Thirty new international markets. Omnichannel infrastructure working frictionlessly. The roads connected everything. The traffic converted beautifully.

But he left Lululemon as a highway system with no capital city. You could drive anywhere, but there was nowhere worth going.

The constitutional shift is visible in what stores became. Before McDonald: raw bulletin boards with handwritten community announcements, ambassadors who knew your name and your practice, classes where you moved together before anyone tried to sell you anything. Spaces that meant something beyond transaction. After McDonald: sales per square foot, conversion rate targets, product density maximized, generic layouts replicated across markets. Staff became associates hitting metrics. Customers became traffic to monetize. The bulletin boards disappeared. The soul was polished into something clean and corporate and utterly generic.

The Mirror: Lululemon’s Rosetta Stone

If you want to understand what went wrong at Lululemon under McDonald, look at Mirror. It’s not just a failed acquisition. It’s the Rosetta Stone of misunderstood sovereignty.

In 2020, Lululemon acquired the at-home fitness company Mirror for $500 million. The thesis was pure portfolio logic: athleisure is growing, home fitness is growing, put them together and capture the home. By 2023, Mirror was quietly shut down. Massive write-off. It never integrated, never achieved scale.

But the tragedy of Mirror isn’t that it failed. It’s that it was almost the greatest sovereign move in retail history.

Think about what Mirror actually was: a screen in the home. That’s sovereign infrastructure. They controlled the portal, the interface, the daily ritual. They had a direct line into the most private space—the living room where people practice, sweat, transform.

What did McDonald do with it? He treated it like a utility. A gym class subscription competing with Peloton and Apple Fitness. The screen became a conduit for instructors leading workouts. Functional. Forgettable. Hardware trying to justify its price through content available everywhere else.

He should have treated it like a theatre.

If McDonald had embedded Lululemon Cinema in that screen: athlete documentaries, movement philosophy, community stories streaming into the home, Mirror could have become the home screen of a Movement Nation. Not a utility competing with others, but a sovereign channel for movement mythology owned entirely by Lululemon. The screen could have been a portal connecting citizens to embassies, to the capital, to the movement itself. Instead, it became discounted hardware nobody wanted.

Share

The Pattern of Portfolio Thinking

Mirror wasn’t isolated. Every major initiative under McDonald followed the same infrastructure logic: horizontal expansion into adjacent categories, portfolio optimization, market capture through brand extension.

• Beauty and self-care, launched in 2019: failed.

• Footwear, launched in 2022: struggling.

• Secondary apparel resale platform, launched in 2021: failed to gain traction.

Every initiative was the same: McDonald saw a growing market segment, assumed Lululemon’s brand equity would transfer, and built infrastructure to capture it. Conglomerate thinking. The GE playbook of horizontal expansion into every adjacent category…

But Lululemon isn’t GE. It’s arguably the Hermès or Louis Vuitton of fitness. It’s a single-nation brand that needs to go vertical in sovereignty, deeper into movement, deeper into the science of feel, richer into the mythology of practice - not wider into categories.

Cultural KPIs vs. Financial KPIs

The board hired someone who speaks Wall Street. Someone who optimizes for financial citizens: store productivity metrics, revenue per square foot, earnings per share growth, geographic market penetration, operating margin expansion. These are the KPIs that analysts track, that earnings calls celebrate, that quarterly reports trumpet.

But in doing so, they ignored what Lululemon citizens care about:

• Has the brand lost its edge? Is there still mystique, or has everything become predictable and safe?

• Are we inventing or just iterating? Is there real product innovation, or are we running the same leggings in new colors season after season?

• Do the leaders actually move? Does the CEO practice yoga, run marathons, lift weights? Or is movement just a market segment to them?

• Are stores embassies or transactions? Do they feel sovereign, or do they feel like every other retail space optimized for conversion?

McDonald himself acknowledged the cultural failure in the third quarter earnings call. “We have become too predictable within our casual offerings” he admitted. “We let our product life cycles run too long. We missed opportunities to create new trends.”

This is the language of someone who knows the edge is gone but doesn’t know how to get it back. Because getting it back requires rebuilding sovereignty, not optimizing the SKU assortment.

He’s right.

In a Cultural Nation, when the edge goes, the numbers are just a delayed reaction. Lululemon’s stock collapse wasn’t a surprise. It was the market finally pricing the cultural bankruptcy that Wilson saw years earlier. The stores were full. The revenue grew. But the soul was empty. And eventually, the market noticed that the infrastructure McDonald built had no mythology supporting it.

So the board discarded the man who built the roads. And now they face the harder question: Can they find someone who knows how to complete the nation?

BUILDING THE MOVEMENT NATION

The job isn’t to fix Lululemon’s merchandising or recapture the Americas. The job is to finish building the nation that was abandoned halfway through construction. To take the roads McDonald built and finally give them a destination worth reaching.

Here’s the blueprint.

Pillar 1: Declare the Capital

Seven hundred stores. No center of gravity. No sacred site. This is the first problem to solve.

The solution isn’t more stores. It’s Movement Embassies in key cities, but not “bigger stores.” These are different institutions entirely. Less product density, more ritual density. Spaces that host events, screenings, labs, athlete talks, community gatherings. These are sovereign territory, not retail space.

Start with Vancouver: Lululemon’s birthplace, the natural capital.

Ground floor displays core products like museum artifacts, not merchandise. Each piece has a technical story: compression engineering, fabric innovation, athlete testing. Second floor hosts morning classes, afternoon athlete talks, evening film screenings. Third floor showcases R&D transparently behind glass, material scientists working on next-generation fabrics, quarterly tours for top-tier citizens. The rooftop becomes the town square: run clubs launch from here, yoga at sunset, community meals after long runs.

If your flagship feels like a big store, you’re not a nation. You’re a chain.

The constitutional principle: A nation without a capital is just a brand with distribution. The embassy isn’t about selling more. It’s about making the mythology tangible. It’s the place you tell people to visit when they ask, “What is Lululemon?” You don’t say “a store.” You say, “Go to the Vancouver Embassy. Then you’ll understand.”

Pillar 2: Grant Citizenship

Lululemon’s current loyalty program treats everyone equally. It rewards spending. This is transactional. Hermès makes you wait. Lululemon should make you vest. That’s sovereignty.

The solution is sweat equity vesting: citizenship that is earned over time, not purchased instantly.

Three tiers: Resident (anyone who creates an account), Citizen (two years as Resident plus verified participation in classes, challenges, community events), Ambassador (five additional years as Citizen plus demonstrated community leadership, hosting run clubs, teaching classes, organizing local events).

The hierarchy matters: A twenty-two-year-old yoga teacher who’s been participating for two years can become a Citizen. A wealthy executive who joined last month and spent five thousand dollars cannot. Tenure and competence beat spending.

Share

Citizens get priority access to limited releases and invitations to quarterly gatherings at embassies. Ambassadors get first access to all drops, invitations to the annual Movement Nation conference, and co-creation sessions with the design team. Both tiers gain access to Archive Re-Issues, discontinued hero products re-released with original formulations that only longtime practitioners would recognize.

This prevents the “rich tourist” from buying status instantly. You have to have been in the movement for years. The Hermès Birkin waitlist isn’t about money. It’s about relationship. Lululemon’s citizenship isn’t about spending. It’s about sweat equity: citizenship.

Pillar 3: Create State Media

McDonald had a screen in customers’ homes and used it for gym classes. Kill Mirror as hardware. Build Lulu Cinema as mythology.

Lulu Cinema becomes the national broadcaster of the Movement Nation. A streaming platform embedded in the app, with free and premium tiers. But critically: this is not fitness instruction. This is movement storytelling. Mythology, not utility.

The content strategy: Annual flagship documentaries following athletes for a year, ultramarathoners, weightlifters, practitioners exploring what happens in the brain during yoga. Short-form profiles of everyday athletes whose stories become the mythology. Quarterly deep-dives into product development showing fabric engineering and athlete testing. Live streams of embassy events and the annual conference.

Formula One didn’t let random sports bars become the default viewing experience. They built F1 TV, Fan Zones, Drive to Survive. They owned the content and the venue. Lululemon must do the same. The movement happens in your stores, your app, your embassies. Not on platforms where algorithms and Big Tech own the relationship.

Pillar 4: Codify the Disciplines

Lululemon’s product became commodity because it was treated like fashion. Predictable seasonal releases. Colors changed but the soul didn’t. The reframe is existential: Lululemon isn’t a fashion house. It’s a biotech company for the spirit. The only impenetrable moat it has is proprioception, how the fabric makes the body feel.

Structure the product line around the Science of Feel. Not “Houses” like marketing campaigns. Disciplines like scientific standards.

• The Discipline of Alignment. Yoga, Pilates, meditation practices. The goal: fabric engineered to disappear. In alignment practices, you should feel your body, not your clothes. Zero distraction, second skin, no seams or waistbands pulling you out of breath. Hero product: Align Pant, formula fundamentally unchanged since 2013. This is a standard, not a trend.

• The Discipline of Velocity. Running, HIIT, explosive movement. The goal: aerodynamic sensation, reduction of drag. You should feel air, not fabric. Lightweight, fast-drying, strategically ventilated for heat management. Hero product: Fast & Free Tight.

• The Discipline of Resistance. Weightlifting, training, power movements. The goal: structural integrity. Fabric that holds shape under load, provides compression support without restriction, stays opaque during deep squats. You should feel supported, not squeezed. Hero product: Wunder Train Tight.

Why “Disciplines” not “Houses”? Houses imply tribes, trends, aesthetics. Disciplines imply science, standards, technical mastery. If you can dupe it on Amazon, it belongs in fashion. If you can’t, it belongs in sovereignty.

Create a Product Council with veto power over trend-chasing.

Membership: material scientists, professional athletes across disciplines, longtime citizen representatives, design leadership. Their mandate: veto any design that compromises technical performance for aesthetics. Conduct quarterly “Innovation Audits” asking what have we invented, not just iterated?

Pillar 5: The Cultural Architect

The board will be tempted to hire a “Digital Native” CEO to fix the stock. Someone who “understands the new rules of commerce” who can “optimize the sales channels” who speaks the language of customer acquisition cost and conversion rate optimization.

Do not hire the former direct-to-consumer brand CEO who scaled quickly through growth hacking. Do not hire the ex-Amazon executive who optimized conversion funnels. Do not hire the digital marketing savant who mastered Meta ads. They will see Lululemon as a distribution problem requiring algorithmic solutions. It’s not.

What this CEO actually is: The Athlete-Architect. Someone who practices movement as identity, not hobby. Has built or led passionate communities, not just managed customers. Understands product development deeply: has invented, not just merchandised. Willing to sacrifice short-term Wall Street approval when it conflicts with cultural sovereignty.

The right candidate could come from performance outdoor brands like Arc’teryx or Patagonia’s technical divisions, from the early days of cult fitness brands before they became chains, or from athletes who became operators. The résumé matters less than one non-negotiable: they have to treat Lululemon as a nation to be governed, not a retailer to be optimized.

Must actually sweat: This CEO should do a public “Movement Audit”, show the practice, the discipline, the devotion. No bullshitting. Must understand materials science: can speak fluently about fabric engineering and proprioceptive optimization, not fashion trends. Must be willing to tell Wall Street no when “expand faster” conflicts with “deepen sovereignty.”

The constitutional principle: In a Cultural Nation, culture and product sit above retail efficiency in the hierarchy. The CEO enforces that constitution, even when Wall Street doesn’t understand it yet. Even when the quarter is soft. The nation comes first.

Subscribe now

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENT

When you fire the CEO who tripled your revenue, you’re not fixing execution. You’re admitting the constitution was wrong.

Calvin McDonald proved you can take a Cultural Nation and strip-mine it into a retail state. Revenue grows. Stores multiply. International booms. And the stock collapses anyway, because the market can feel when sovereignty and mythology gets converted into commerce. When the visceral becomes sterile. When a movement becomes a mall.

If McDonald is the Prince of Infrastructure, the next CEO’s job is simple and terrifying: give those roads somewhere sacred to lead.

Chip Wilson was right, but not for the reasons he thinks. The board doesn’t need to choose between a “product CEO” and a “finance CEO”. Those categories miss the point. They need a Cultural Architect who understands they’re not running a retailer. They’re finishing the construction of a Movement Nation that was abandoned halfway through – and who is brave enough to build the capital, the embassies, the cinema, and the laws of sweat equity that will govern it.

The question is whether the board will hire an architect of a nation – or another contractor who just knows how to pave more roads and call it growth?

Enjoyed this analysis? Consider subscribing and reading my other recent pieces:

In other words, he is no longer a TikTok curiosity but an emerging institution in luxury fashion: a parallel interface between fashion and its public, built on someone else’s infrastructure. This is not a criticism of Lyas (I actually think he’s brilliant); it is criticism for my friends, Maisons executives who are letting this happen under their watch. When distribution, narrative and community migrate to independent figures, these brands risk becoming suppliers to their own ecosystem.

I’m resurfacing the original piece below as a reminder that while Chanel stages ultra-VIC coronations in New York, Lyas quietly hijacks the cultural moment: hosting his own watch parties, turning the show into content for his kingdom. If luxury fashion doesn’t build its own stadiums, it will soon be paying rent to those who have: Lyas in this case.

Fashion’s Napster Moment: Lyas, the 26-Year-Old Who Hijacked Paris Fashion Week

He built a global movement on luxury’s IP while Maisons watched, proved fashion rivals the Super Bowl and became their biggest threat: exposing a distribution blind spot they didn’t know they had

On October 6, 2025, three thousand people packed into La Caserne, a converted fire station in Paris’s 10th arrondissement, to watch a fashion show. Hundreds more queued outside, unable to get in. Inside, the crowd pressed shoulder-to-shoulder, eyes fixed on a giant laptop-shaped screen displaying Matthieu Blazy’s debut collection for Chanel. The atmosphere was electric, more football match than fashion ceremony, complete with cheers, gasps, and the kind of communal energy typically reserved for World Cup finals.

This wasn’t an official Chanel event. The house had spent millions staging a sacred ritual inside the Grand Palais, complete with hand-picked guests and hushed reverence. But here, a 26-year-old Parisian content creator named Elias Medini, known online as Lyas, had created a parallel universe where the show became a spectacle of a different kind. Free entry. Free beer. No velvet ropes. Just thousands of fashion obsessives watching together, sharing a cultural moment that luxury brands spent decades insisting should remain exclusive.

The irony? Lyas himself wasn’t even there…

His newfound influence, built by organizing unauthorized watch parties, had earned him something he’d been denied just four months earlier: a coveted seat at the actual Chanel show, inside the Grand Palais and at Dior at Les Tuileries. While his movement reached its zenith, he sat front row, absorbed into the very establishment he’d positioned himself against.

Here’s the thesis that should unsettle every luxury executive:

Elias Medini didn’t democratize fashion: he hijacked it. And he’s the best thing that’s happened to luxury in years.

It all started last June, Lyas was rejected from Jonathan Anderson’s Dior debut. Devastated at missing “history in the making” he brought a television from home to a Paris bar and invited his followers to watch with him thinking a dozen people would show up. Instead, hundreds of people showed up. In my review about Dior’s June show, I commented about Lyas’ conquest, but also warned that this may matter as much as what happens on the runway:

By October, he’d built a global movement: three cities, Milan, London and Paris, partnerships with Meta and the British Fashion Council, thousands of attendees per event, and enough cultural capital to transform Fashion Week’s consumption model.

Subscribe now

Maisons spent millions creating the content. Lyas captured the community, the data, the narrative, and the first-party relationships with luxury’s most passionate future customers. He built his empire on intellectual property he didn’t create, distributing copyrighted content without authorization, and established himself as the new gatekeeper to an industry built on controlled access.

The uncomfortable truth? He’s not a revolutionary. He’s the new middleman and Maisons just handed him the keys to their Cultural Nation. In my analysis of Dior’s billion-view moment, I called out this exact risk: broadcast without distribution sovereignty, and someone else builds the theater:

This is fashion’s Napster moment.

And if Maisons don’t learn from the music industry’s mistakes, they’re about to watch a 26-year-old with a TV from home own the infrastructure they should build. But first, we need to understand exactly what they’re surrendering.

Share

The Hijacking: What Lyas Controls (And What Maisons Are Losing)

Lyas built his empire on intellectual property he didn’t create. Maisons spend millions producing shows; he brought a $500 television from home to a Parisian bar. Yet in doing so, he seized control of four pillars of cultural power that luxury Maisons are only now realizing they’d left unguarded.

1. Access & Distribution: The New Velvet Rope

Three thousand people experienced Matthieu Blazy’s Chanel debut at La Watch Party. Roughly one thousand sat inside the Grand Palais. Lyas’s audience was triple Chanel’s official one. Two thousand people came for Anderson with Lyas’ party, yet only 300 sat inside Les Tuileries with First Lady Macron and Anderson himself. You can do the math.

But this isn’t just about headcount. It’s about who controls the gateway. Inside the Grand Palais, Chanel decided who entered, where they sat, what they experienced. At La Watch Party, those decisions belonged to Lyas. He chose which shows to screen. He curated the environment. He determined capacity, vibe, and access rules.

He’s not eliminating gatekeeping: he’s becoming a new gatekeeper. The door simply moved.

This is a pattern luxury veterans should recognize. Department stores like Barneys and Bloomingdales once controlled access to designer brands. Net-a-Porter became the middleman for digital distribution. Farfetch built a platform on the backs of boutiques’ inventory. Now Lyas is doing the same thing for fashion’s most sacred ritual: the show itself. He’s the platform. Maisons are the content creators. And just like influencers who build audiences on rented land, luxury brands are discovering they don’t own the venue where their content is consumed.

The shows livestream on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok, platforms luxury doesn’t control. Lyas simply took that stream, put it on a bigger screen, and added the one thing algorithms can’t provide: physical community. He built distribution infrastructure while Maisons were still treating shows as one-off marketing events. Even Meta recognized the value immediately, sponsoring Lyas and proving that Big Tech understands the IRL community gap that luxury doesn’t. Good catch Zuk.

2. Narrative & Cultural Framing: Whose Story Is It?

Google “Chanel Matthieu Blazy debut” and notice what appears: articles about the collection, certainly. But just as many about Lyas’s Watch Party. Vogue, The New York Times, Dazed, all wrote about him. Carine Roitfeld, former Vogue Paris editor, praised him for “breaking a closed-door industry.” His Instagram video from the June Dior party garnered millions of views.

Subscribe now

The narrative shifted from “Chanel’s triumphant new era” to “Lyas’s movement democratizing fashion.” He didn’t just redistribute Chanel’s content, he reframed it. The shows became supporting characters in his story.

This should sound familiar. In my analysis of Dior’s billion-view moment with Jonathan Anderson, I asked: “Who owns this historic event: Dior or the algorithm?” The answer was uncomfortable then. It’s more uncomfortable now, because the algorithm has a name and a face. And he’s building a media empire on luxury’s creative labor.

When Lyas screens a show, he’s not just showing it, he’s curating it, contextualizing it, interpreting it. He’s the host, the commentator, the community leader. The Maison that spent months preparing the collection becomes the content. He becomes the author.

3. Community & First-Party Relationships: Who Owns the Audience?

Thousands of people gave their attention, their data, their emotional energy to an event organized by Lyas, not Chanel. They follow him on Instagram. They RSVP through his channels. They trust his taste, his curation, his point of view.

Share

These aren’t casual observers. They’re students who’ll become designers, executives, politicians, entrepreneurs. Industry workers from Jacquemus and smaller ateliers. Fashion obsessives who save for months to afford a single timeless piece. This is luxury’s future customer base, and Lyas is building the direct relationship with them, not the Maisons themselves.

This is top-of-funnel brand building at scale, and luxury brands aren’t capturing any of it. No email addresses. No purchase intent data. No ability to nurture these relationships toward conversion. Lyas owns the community. Maisons rent attention for 45 minutes.

The business parallel is obvious: this is exactly what happened when multi-brand retailers controlled customer relationships. Brands sold through them but never owned the customer data. It took decades and massive investment in direct-to-consumer strategies to win those relationships back. Now, in the digital realm, luxury is repeating the same mistake.

4. Data & Engagement Signals: The Invisible Gold Mine

Here’s what Lyas knows that Maisons don’t: which brands draw crowds. One thousand people showed up for Bottega Veneta in Milan. Three thousand for Chanel in Paris. That’s revealed preference data worth millions in market research.

He sees real-time reactions. Which looks get applause. Which fall flat. Who shows up: their age, style, social graphs, brand affinities. He understands engagement patterns: do people arrive early, stay late, rewatch on social? He’s conducting live focus groups for every major show and Maisons get none of those insights.

Meanwhile, they spent millions producing the shows that generate this data.

And here’s the kicker: technically, Lyas is distributing copyrighted content without authorization. Fashion shows are intellectual property. Public exhibition requires licensing. But maisons haven’t stopped him, because they’re terrified of looking anti-democratic, of being the luxury villain who shut down the “people’s party.”

Share

So they stay silent while someone else builds infrastructure on their IP, captures their audience and controls the narrative around their most important cultural moments.

Lyas didn’t create the value. He simply recognized that Maisons had left it lying on the table and picked it up.

The question is: how long before luxury realizes what it’s surrendered?

The Napster Paradox: When Democratization Destroys Desirability

We’ve seen this movie before. In 1999, Napster “democratized” music, making it free, accessible, peer-to-peer. The music industry’s response was predictable: lawsuits, resistance, denial. They fought to protect the old distribution model, convinced that exclusivity and control were non-negotiable.

They won the battle. Napster was shut down by 2001.

But they lost the war. Because instead of learning from Napster, instead of building legitimate digital alternatives themselves, the industry spent a decade fighting piracy while Apple built iTunes, then Spotify built streaming, then YouTube captured music video distribution. By the time labels realized they needed owned digital platforms, it was too late. They became tenants, not landlords. Spotify and Apple control discovery, playlists and customer relationships. Artists get fractions of pennies per stream.

The lesson was clear: when someone proves latent demand exists for a new consumption model, you have two choices. Fight the messenger, or learn the message.

Luxury is at that exact fork in the road right now.

Share

Lyas is fashion’s Napster: proof that the old distribution model is broken, that audiences crave communal, accessible, digital-first experiences. Maisons can issue cease-and-desist letters, shut down his watch parties, and “protect exclusivity.” But that won’t stop Instagram and TikTok from owning fashion’s distribution anyway. Or they can do what the music industry should have done in 2001: build the owned infrastructure before Big Tech does it for them.

In my analysis of Paris Fashion Week through the Formula One blueprint, I argued that Maisons must treat shows “not as a single spectacle, but as a serialized cultural property” with owned distribution. F1 didn’t let random sports bars become the official viewing experience. They built F1 TV, fan zones at every Grand Prix, partnerships with Netflix and Apple. They controlled both the content and the venue.

Lyas proves fashion hasn’t done this. Maisons own the content. He owns the infrastructure.

But Here’s the Deeper Problem

Even if Lyas is showing Maisons what to build, his mission is fundamentally incompatible with luxury’s core proposition.

Luxury is built on distance, scarcity, sovereignty. As I wrote in my analysis of Dior’s billion-view moment:

Desirability requires elevation, not democratization. The space between the ordinary and extraordinary is where desire lives.

Lyas’s philosophy is the opposite. His own words to The Times:

Free entry. Free beer. First-come, first-served. Anti-hierarchy. Anti-scarcity. He believes exclusivity is fashion’s bug. Yet luxury’s entire business model says it’s the main feature.

Is he helping or hurting? Some will argue his parties are pure upside: awareness, cultural heat, proof that Gen Z cares about fashion. But this misses the fundamental tension.

My take? He’s building desire among students who might become customers in a decade, that’s top-of-funnel marketing. But he’s also collapsing the scarcity that makes luxury worth wanting. How do you justify a €10,000 dress when the show revealing it is consumed in a bar with free cocktails, treated like a football match?

Subscribe now

In my Coronation Playbook, I argued that “luxury is built on hierarchy and tiered intimacy.” The model rewards loyalty through sequenced access: VVICs experience it first, VICs next, aspirants after. Lyas does the opposite, he collapses the tiers entirely. A Chanel client who’s spent €500,000 lifetime value watches on the same screen, at the same moment, as someone else with zero purchase history. This isn’t intimacy. It’s not verticality. It’s the algorithmic feed made physical.

Look at Loro Piana, LVMH’s fastest-growing Maison, as I detailed in “The Cultural Nation Strikes Back.” They reject algorithmic noise. They maintain scarcity. They would never allow a Lyas-style watch party, because they understand that some things should remain inaccessible. That’s not elitism, it’s the entire value proposition.

And here’s the class dynamic nobody’s discussing: Lyas claims “democratization” but his parties require being in Paris, London, or Milan during Fashion Week. The ability to queue for hours at La Caserne. This isn’t accessibility for a kid in Mumbai or Sacramento or Copenhagen. It’s democratization for the already-proximate: Parisians, fashion students, industry workers.

He didn’t eliminate the barrier to entry. He just lowered it from “front row at the Grand Palais” to “standing room at a bar in the 10th arrondissement.” It’s still exclusive. It’s still geography-locked.

If Maisons wanted true democratization, they’d build free global digital platforms accessible to anyone with internet.

Which brings us to the only question that matters: What should luxury actually do?

The Right Path for Luxury Fashion

Lyas exposed a gap maisons didn’t know they had: they own culture-shaping content but not the infrastructure where it’s consumed. The window to close this gap is narrowing. He went from zero to three-thousand-person events in four months. If he or others like him scale to fifty cities with ten thousand attendees per show, they become infrastructure luxury can no longer ignore.

Any of these three paths is better than the current strategy: doing nothing.

Option A: Acquire the Movement

LVMH or Chanel could hire Lyas to run official watch parties globally. LAWATCHPARTY becomes LVMH Live or Chanel Cinéma. He brings community trust, curatorial instinct, and the social capital he’s built. The Maisons provide venues, budget, official authorization and brand oversight.

This legitimizes the model while bringing the audience in-house. It neutralizes a potential threat, better to have him inside the tent than outside. The historical parallel is clear: luxury has done this before when it hired streetwear designers like Virgil Abloh after his model proved viable.

But the risks are real. Lyas’s power comes from being anti-establishment. The moment he’s on a corporate payroll, does the magic fade? Does the community see him as co-opted? And can the model scale beyond Lyas himself or is this entirely dependent on his personal brand?

I quoted Bernard Arnault in my analysis of the Cultural Nation:

“It’s not revenue I think about, but quality, image, and desirability of our brands.”

Acquiring Lyas isn’t about monetizing Watch Parties. It’s about owning the community and creating desirability before someone else does.

Option B: Build the Competitor

Instead of co-opting Lyas, maisons could make him irrelevant by building superior official alternatives. Launch Chanel or LVMH Fashion Nights, simultaneous watch parties in twenty-five cities globally, hosted in flagship stores and exquisite venues.

This executes Act IV of the Coronation Playbook I outlined: The Proclamation. Flagship stores become cultural embassies. Each hosts a curated screening experience with spatial design that echoes the show’s aesthetic, champagne service, and brand ambassadors greeting guests (and presumably taking orders).

But here’s the crucial difference from Lyas’s model: tiered access. VVICs get private viewing rooms with exclusive behind-the-scenes commentary. VICs receive priority seating in the main theater. General admission is standing room, limited capacity, RSVP required.

Share

This maintains hierarchy. It rewards loyalty. It preserves the vertical intimacy that makes luxury desirable while still creating communal experiences at scale.

The F1 parallel is exact. Formula One didn’t let random sports bars become the default viewing experience. They created official Fan Zones at every Grand Prix. They built owned digital infrastructure with F1 TV. As I wrote in the Paris Fashion Week analysis: “F1 turned the paddock into a stage... This is the blueprint for transforming a niche ritual into a global Cultural Nation.”

F1 controls both the content and the venues. The race and the infrastructure. Maisons need to do the same.

The advantage of this path: it uses existing infrastructure, flagship stores, and can launch tomorrow. It’s brand-controlled, globally scalable, and reinforces luxury’s core proposition. The official version doesn’t just compete with Lyas, it makes his model look like the inferior alternative it is.

Most importantly, it captures first-party data. Every RSVP goes through the Maison’s platform. Every attendee becomes part of the customer relationship ecosystem. The community isn’t Lyas’s: it’s Dior’s, Chanel’s, LVMH’s.

Option C: Disintermediate Entirely

The most radical path: build Maison-owned broadcasting platforms. A direct-to-consumer digital infrastructure for all shows, archives, and behind-the-scenes content.

Subscribe now

This is vertical integration of content, storytelling, client intimacy, loyalty and distribution. It says: “We don’t need Instagram, TikTok, or intermediaries like Lyas. We own the entire stack.”

The model F1 TV pioneered proves this works. Subscribers get live access to all races, multiple camera angles, driver onboard perspectives, team radio, and archives dating back decades. F1 controls discovery, recommendation, and narrative. No algorithm decides what fans see. The sport itself does:

As I wrote in a previous piece: “F1 built a moat around its craft... securing pricing power, mystique, and direct relationship with billions.”

For fashion, this means tiered access architecture. A free tier with basic viewing drives top-of-funnel awareness. A premium tier offers multiple camera angles, full show archives, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and early access to collection lookbooks. VIC-exclusive tiers include private digital salons with live commentary, the ability to submit questions to creative directors and frontline access to collections.

The investment is obviously significant: building custom platforms, content management systems, payment & customer infrastructure. But this is a sovereignty play, not a revenue play. The goal is control: over the customer relationship, the data, the narrative, and the entire consumption experience. This is ultimately an extension of the strategy Bernard Arnault implemented in the 1990s when he told department stores they will no longer be distributing its products and suddenly LVMH and its peers invested billions of dollars to create and open retail cathedrals in every corner of the earth, from high fashion streets, airports and even beachfronts.

Share

That genius, to take back full control of the customer experience, is the single reason that Arnault is the only non-tech billionaire in the top 5. I mean, look at these retail cathedrals:

This path takes twelve to eighteen months to execute. It requires vision and patience. But it’s the only option that achieves total disintermediation: no Big Tech platforms, no influencer middlemen, no algorithmic chaos. From raw materials to the collective imaginary, Maisons would be “Maitre Chez Nous” and finally create a cashmere moat Big Tech couldn’t infiltrate.

It’s the fullest expression of the Cultural Nation : owning not just the creative vision but the entire distribution architecture.

The Hybrid Approach

Maisons don’t have to choose just one path. The smartest strategy is sequential:

Today: Launch official “Flagship Watch Parties” (Option B). This is fast, uses existing infrastructure, and immediately neutralizes Lyas while announcing that an owned platform is in development. Or just hire Lyas to run the team with Maisons resources and let him innovate, but inside the Maisons.

January: Beta-launch the streaming platform for VICs only (Option C). Test, refine, build the content library, and prove the model works before going public.

Summer 2026: Public platform launch. Phase out reliance on Instagram-TikTok-YouTube livestreams. The Maison now owns both the physical infrastructure (Flagships) and the digital infrastructure (broadcasting platform) to speak directly to its customers, community and fans. True Cultural Sovereignty:

The urgency cannot be overstated. The music industry waited ten years to respond to Napster. By then, Apple and Spotify owned distribution. Labels became tenants forever.

As I wrote in The Cultural Nation Strikes Back:

Lyas is the visible symptom of an invisible problem: Maisons don’t own the venues, physical or digital, where their content is consumed. The solution isn’t to fight him. It’s to build the stadiums he proved were needed all along.

The Stadium Is Full: Who Will Own It?

Lyas is both luxury’s best case study and its biggest threat. He’s the proof of concept that Watch Parties work, that fashion can be consumed as live cultural ritual, that audiences crave participation beyond passive scrolling.

In my Dior billion-view cautionary tale I wrote:

Lyas went viral. He built horizontal reach: thousands of people in Paris, thousands more across eight cities, millions following online.

But he didn’t build verticality. No tiered intimacy. No hierarchical access. No sovereignty over the long-term relationship. He proved people will show up. He didn’t prove he can build something that lasts beyond the hype cycle.

That’s what Maisons must do: take his proof of concept and ELEVATE it. Build the official infrastructure, the Flagship watch parties, the Owned digital platforms, the global distribution networks. Not louder than Lyas, but infinitely higher. Not more democratic, but more sovereign.

Because here’s what the last four months revealed: Lyas is the best thing that’s happened to luxury in years. Not because of what he built, but because of what he exposed: the distribution gap Maisons didn’t think they had.

Subscribe now

The question is whether Maisons will build their own, or keep letting a twenty-six-year-old with a television from home own the stage.

In fashion’s Napster moment, the choice is binary: own the infrastructure or surrender to those who will. Because, Luxury was never about who gets in. It was always about who controls the door.

Share

A cupboard door opens. There it is, the red-and-white can, exactly where it’s always been.

It’s Thursday night. A single mother with two kids stands in her kitchen, paycheck stretched thin, groceries running low. She reaches for the Campbell’s because she knows: it will work. Her kids will eat it. The $2.50 won’t betray her. The soup will be warm, familiar, enough.

This is the same can that appears in a thousand quiet American moments: the end-of-month dinner when the fridge is bare. The snow day ritual, steam fogging the kitchen window, grilled cheese on the side. The first meal a child makes alone, proud, terrified, safe. The college dorm at 2 AM, last $20 in your account. The first apartment, uncertain and hopeful.

For 155 years, Campbell’s has occupied a particular place in American life. Not in the Instagram-worthy dinner photo. But in the pantry, always. A constant. A safety net. The thing that’s there when you need it to be.

The red-and-white can doesn’t promise luxury. It promises continuity. Permanence.

Then came the recording: “Shit for fucking poor people.”

Not a hot mic slip. Not a moment of frustration. A Vice President of Information Technology, someone entrusted with Campbell’s systems, its data, its future, (allegedly) describing the product, the customers, the entire mission with contempt. He wouldn’t eat it himself, he (allegedly) said, because of “what the fuck’s in it.” He called the chicken bioengineered, printed, fake.

He was talking about the soup that sits in that mother’s cupboard. The soup that has fed America through the Depression, WWI and WWII, recessions, inflations and ordinary Thursdays when the math just barely works.

The question isn’t just how one executive could say something so cruel.

The question is this: How does a brand that lives in our collective memory as continuity and comfort, a brand that has been there when people had nowhere else to turn, end up with leadership that seems ashamed of the very people it feeds?

This isn’t an HR problem. It’s a sovereignty crisis.

And it reveals a choice every mass brand now faces: serve the many with pride, or serve them with contempt disguised as strategy.

Campbell’s as Cultural Infrastructure: The People’s Pantry

Campbell’s isn’t just a CPG company. It’s part of the infrastructure of home for 150 million Americans.

Think of it this way: Campbell’s has been a constant through every version of your life. Childhood, when your grandmother opened the can with that particular metallic pop and the kitchen filled with steam. College, when you learned that $2.50 could be dinner. Your first apartment, when the pantry was bare but the red-and-white can was there, a small anchor of stability. Parenthood, when your own kids asked for “the soup that tastes like always.”

This isn’t nostalgia. It’s architecture. The kind of continuity that makes home feel like home, even when everything else is uncertain.

Campbell’s, like LVMH, Starbucks or Hermès, already operates as what I’ve called a Cultural Nation, a brand that transcends transaction and becomes part of the collective memory. It has every marker:

1. A devoted constituency: 150 million Americans carry Campbell’s in their memory banks, across generations, geographies and income levels.

2. Seasonal rituals: Snow day soup. Sunday dinners. The Thanksgiving green bean casserole that hasn’t changed in sixty years.

3. Symbols, not just products: Andy Warhol didn’t paint Campbell’s soup cans as irony. He painted them as American vernacular, the visual language of everyday abundance, democratic and ubiquitous. The can was already iconic because it was already collective memory.

4. Emotional infrastructure: The sound of the can opener. The first pour into the pot. The steam rising. These aren’t product features. They’re sensory shortcuts to safety.

5. Generational transmission: Grandmothers taught mothers who teach sons and daughters. Not recipes, exactly. Legacy.

But here’s what makes Campbell’s distinct from other Cultural Nations I’ve written about:

• Hermès builds desire through scarcity. The waitlist is the luxury.

• LVMH stages coronations where access itself becomes the product.

• Starbucks turned the $7 latte into a daily ritual of affordable indulgence.

Campbell’s does something else entirely: It builds trust through constancy.

• It doesn’t ask you to wait, or to pay more, or to perform aspiration.

• It asks you to open the cupboard on a hard Thursday and find it there, exactly where it’s always been, exactly what it’s always cost, exactly what it’s always tasted like.

For millions of Americans, Campbell’s isn’t aspirational. It’s foundational. It’s not a brand you dream about owning. It’s a brand you depend on being there.

And infrastructure, when stewarded with dignity, becomes its own form of power.

The tragedy is that Campbell’s leadership forgot this. They looked at the people depending on them and saw shame instead of stewardship. They forgot that they’d built something far more valuable: a comfort brand for the many.

The question is whether they can remember.

Share

The Two Tales of $1.50: When Leaders Defend Affordability vs. When They Despise It

The recording that exposed Campbell’s executive wasn’t just offensive. It was diagnostic. A Vice President (allegedly) calling the product “shit for f*** poor people,” claiming the chicken was bioengineered and 3D-printed, making racist remarks about his own colleagues, this wasn’t anger. It was disgust. Disgust at the product. Disgust at the customers. Disgust at the entire mission of making food affordable for people who count every dollar.

In her research on internalized classism, psychology scholar Johanna Collier (University of Missouri) confirms that “the poor and low status individuals are dehumanized when compared to higher SES individuals, which leads to contempt and social rejection”.

That is exactly what we heard on that tape: contempt disguised as quality control.

This is what we call internalized class shame, and it’s endemic across many mass brands. It serves as a psychological defense mechanism where, as Collier notes, individuals are motivated to judge the poor harshly specifically “to assert their difference” from them. Publicly, these companies talk about serving everyone. Inclusion. Access. Affordability as a virtue. But privately, they tolerate serving the many only because the business model requires it. They don’t honor it.

But it doesn’t have to be this way…

Exhibit A: Meet Jim Sinegal, co-founder of Costco, and the most important $1.50 in American retail: the hot dog and soda combo, unchanged in price since 1985.

In the 2000s, Costco’s CFO approached Sinegal with a reasonable concern: “We need to raise the hot dog price. We’re losing money on every sale.”

Sinegal’s response became legend: “If you raise the price of the hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.”

They figured it out. Costco built its own hot dog manufacturing plant. Vertical integration. Absorbed the costs internally rather than pass them to customers. The $1.50 hot dog remained!

Why? Because Sinegal understood something most executives miss: the hot dog isn’t a loss leader. It’s a social contract.

It signals to 129 million Costco members that they will defend affordability even when it’s hard. They are on your side. And customers respond, not just with loyalty, but with evangelism. Costco’s membership renewal rate exceeds 90%. Their word-of-mouth is stronger than any advertising campaign. And when Costco finally raised its membership fee for the first time in seven years, churn was minimal. Because the hot dog stayed $1.50.

This is the financial ROI of dignity:

• Loyalty compounds. When customers believe you’re fighting for them, they don’t just buy, they defend you.

• Word of mouth beats advertising. Trust is the most efficient marketing engine ever built.

• Pricing power emerges. When you’ve proven you’ll absorb costs to protect them, customers forgive the rare price increase.

• Talent gravitates. Mission-driven employees want to work for companies that serve, not exploit.

The contrast (although they both swear) between Costco and Campbell’s is fundamental:

• Costco’s founder threatened to k*** anyone who raised the price of a $1.50 hot dog.

• Campbell’s VP (allegedly) called a $2.50 soup “shit for f*** poor people.”

One company has sovereignty, the ability to define its own mission and defend it with conviction. The other surrendered to shame.

The question facing Campbell’s, and every mass brand: Which story do you want to tell?

IKEA’s Proof: Designing for the Many, Without Contempt

Exhibit B: IKEA and Campbell’s serve the same people.

The young couple furnishing their first apartment with $800 and a dream. The immigrant family building a new life, one flat-pack bookshelf at a time. The single parent stretching a paycheck across rent, groceries, and the basic dignity of a home that feels intentional, not accidental.

The difference is this: IKEA celebrates that mission. Campbell’s, until now, has merely tolerated it.

Start with the philosophy. Ingvar Kamprad, IKEA’s founder, once said: “To design a desk which may cost $1,000 is easy, but to design a functional and good desk for $50 can only be done by the very best.”

Notice the framing. He didn’t say “cheap desk.” He said “functional and good.” IKEA refuses to conflate affordability with inferiority. Low price isn’t a compromise. It’s the craft, their savoir-faire as we say in Paris.

This shows up everywhere:

• Pride in the model. IKEA isn’t embarrassed by flat-packs or self-assembly. Those aren’t cost-cutting shortcuts. They’re the reason a LACK side table costs $10 instead of $100. The brand makes customers complicit in the affordability: ”You assemble it, we keep the price low”, and somehow, that becomes a point of pride. Your first IKEA bookshelf isn’t a mark of poverty. It’s a rite of passage.

• Aesthetic dignity. Even IKEA’s least-expensive products feel designed. Scandinavian minimalism, thoughtful proportions, colors that don’t apologize. The message embedded in every product: “You deserve beauty, even on a budget.” This isn’t charity. It’s respect.

• Rituals of belonging. The IKEA store experience, the showrooms that let you imagine a different life, the Swedish meatballs, the warehouse treasure hunt, isn’t accidental. It’s engineered to make shopping feel like an event, not a transaction. Customers don’t just buy furniture. They participate in a ritual that says: I can build a home. I can do this myself.

• Operational sovereignty. IKEA owns its supply chain. Forestry, manufacturing, logistics. When costs rise, they don’t immediately pass them to customers. They absorb, optimize, innovate. They defend affordability from the inside, not by cutting quality or raising prices, but by re-engineering how things are made.

Subscribe now

The result? IKEA generates close to $50 billion in revenue and commands loyalty that rivals Hermès and Coca Cola. Customers are evangelists. Employees rightfully believe they’re democratizing design, not exploiting the poor.

Campbell’s has the exact same opportunity.

It plays the same role in food that IKEA plays in furniture: making home possible when budgets are tight. Providing continuity across life stages. Offering the dignity of a warm meal when everything else feels uncertain.

This scandal revealed that Campbell’s hasn’t fully owned this identity. Its leaders looked at their mission: feeding people who count every dollar, and perhaps felt shame instead of pride.

But the VP did them a favour. Because the infrastructure is already there. The red-and-white can in 150 million cupboards. The rituals passed down through generations. The trust built over 155 years.

The choice in front of Campbell’s isn’t between “cheap processed food” and “aspirational wellness brand.”

It’s between shame and sovereignty over its true role: comfort infrastructure for the many.

IKEA chose sovereignty. Costco chose sovereignty. Hermès chose sovereignty 187 years ago.

Now, it’s Campbell’s turn.

The Playbook: From Exposure to Sovereignty

Campbell’s doesn’t need better crisis communications. It needs a new social contract. What follows isn’t spin. It’s architecture: four pillars to rebuild trust from the inside out, transform customers into citizens and reclaim the sovereignty Campbell’s surrendered when it allowed shame to replace mission.

PILLAR 1: Reclaim Narrative Sovereignty - The Manifesto

From: Reactive apologies → To: Authored conviction

The first move must be bold and undefensive. Campbell’s CEO should publish a manifesto, not vetted to death by legal, not softened by PR, but written with the clarity of someone who actually believes in the mission.

Working title: “We Make Food for People Who Count Every Dollar, And We’re Proud Of It”

What it says:

Where it lives: Full-page ad in the New York Times and local newspapers in working-class communities. Permanent page on Campbell’s website. CEO delivers it direct-to-camera as a video, no teleprompter polish, just human accountability.

Then, Campbell’s launches an ongoing storytelling series (not unlike what Drive to Survive did for Formula 1, turning racing into cultural conversation), perhaps in collaboration with Plex (more accessible, no subscription fees) or Netflix, to bring us:

• “What’s in the Can”: Transparent ingredient sourcing, explain trade-offs in plain language

• “What’s Behind the Price”: How Campbell’s keeps soup at $2.50 when inflation rages

• “The Rituals”: Real families sharing their Campbell’s moments

This isn’t marketing. It’s reclaiming authorship. Campbell’s defines itself, not the Florida Attorney General, not the boycotters, not the algorithm.

PILLAR 2: Activate the Dormant Community - From Customers to Citizens

From: Passive buyers → To: Co-authors of the Campbell’s myth

Launch a simple invitation: “Share Your Campbell’s Ritual”

Create a social platform where anyone can submit stories:

• End-of-month recipes: “$15 in pantry staples + Campbell’s soup = family fed”

• First solo meal: “I was 8, made tomato soup, felt like a chef”

• Family traditions: “My grandmother’s green bean casserole, every Thanksgiving since 1952”

• Life raft moments: “Lost my job, Campbell’s got us through”

What Campbell’s does with it:

Use this new platform to curate the best rituals and stories, build anticipation to new themed products, invite celebrity chefs to cook with Campbell’s clients. Remind us how you’ve shaped American culture for over 150 years,

Why this works:

When customers become co-authors, they don’t just buy: they defend. This is first-party relationship building that no algorithm can hijack. These stories become cultural capital, myth retention that compounds over time.

And here’s the dignity parallel: Chanel invites VICs to private salons, remembers their birthdays, offers pre-access to collections. Campbell’s invites a single mother to share her Thursday night soup story, features it in a campaign, sends a thank-you note and a signed commemorative can.

Both are treating constituents with dignity appropriate to their relationship. VICs get exclusivity. Campbell’s families get recognition. Different tiers, same principle: respect.

Share

PILLAR 3: Design for the Many, Proudly, The IKEA Playbook

From: Tolerating affordability → To: Engineering it as innovation

Establish an internal design mandate: “Beautiful, Comforting, Affordable”, the non-negotiable triad.

Apply it to:

• Product development: Perfect taste at the $2.50 price point. Not racing to premium. Perfecting accessible. When costs rise, find internal efficiencies, vertical integration, supplier partnerships, manufacturing innovation, before raising prices. The Costco move: defend the price from the inside.

• Design language: Packaging should signal care, not cheapness. Warmer colors, softer fonts. Storytelling on the label: “Since 1869, in your family’s pantry.” The shelf presence should feel like a reassuring constant, not an apologetic commodity.

• Transparency as respect: Publish “How We Keep Soup at $2.50.” Show the engineering, the trade-offs, the commitments. Like IKEA’s flat-pack transparency: “We don’t hide how it’s made, it’s how we keep it affordable.”

• The learning ritual: Host quarterly “IKEA Study Sessions” with leadership. Invite IKEA executives to share their philosophy, business practices. Ask: What does “design for the many” look like in food? How do you maintain pride in affordability?

Why this works:

Employees believe they’re innovating for good, not cutting corners. Customers trust you’re fighting to keep prices low, so they forgive when you occasionally must raise them. Pricing power emerges from trust, not scarcity.

PILLAR 4: The Campbell’s Truth Council: Governance of Dignity

From: Defensive legal reviews → To: Structured external accountability

Create a permanent advisory council with a mandate to challenge Campbell’s on dignity.

Members (5-7 people):

• Public health nutritionist

• Community organizer working with food insecurity organizations

• Sociologist of food and class

• Low-income parent advocate

• Factory worker representative

• Ethics advisor

Their mandate:

Quarterly review: Are Campbell’s products as nourishing as they can be at this price point? Is marketing respectful of customers? Are internal practices, employee treatment, supplier ethics, aligned with the stated mission? Where are the gaps between rhetoric and reality?

The commitment:

Publish an annual Truth Council Report: summaries of critiques and Campbell’s responses. Concrete commitments: sodium reduction targets, sourcing transparency, pricing discipline. Make it public: website, stakeholder communications.

Why this works:

It prevents future toxic VPs. Leaders know there’s a permanent forum where contempt will be named and accountability demanded. It builds external trust, proof of seriousness beyond PR statements. And it becomes a talent magnet: mission-driven employees want to work for companies with structural integrity, not just marketing slogans.

The parallel: Hermès has quality councils ensuring every Birkin meets standards. Campbell’s has a Truth Council ensuring every product respects the customer. Different tiers, same principle of stewardship.

This isn’t damage control. It’s a redesign of Campbell’s operating system, from a company that tolerated its mission, to one that authors it with pride.

Why Campbell’s Matters Beyond Campbell’s

Campbell’s is not alone. It’s a test case.

Across the consumer landscape, brands that serve the many face the same choice: do you serve them with pride or with contempt disguised as strategy?

Fast food chains wondering why loyalty is eroding. Mass retailers watching customers defect to discount competitors and Amazon. Household staples losing pricing power to private label. They all share a common vulnerability: leadership that tolerates their customer base rather than honors it.

The real divide in modern commerce isn’t between luxury and mass. That’s just business model.

The divide is between brands that respect their constituency: Costco, IKEA, Hermès—and brands that don’t.

And here’s what the respectful brands have discovered: dignity is not just moral, it’s profitable.

The ROI is quantifiable:

• Loyalty compounds. Costco’s 90% membership renewal rate generates $4.6 billion in annual revenue before a single product is sold. That loyalty exists because Jim Sinegal defended the $1.50 hot dog when his CFO wanted to raise it.

• Word of mouth beats advertising. Trader Joe’s spends virtually nothing on advertising. Zero Super Bowl commercials. No influencer campaigns. Their customers are the marketing, because the company treats shopping like a treasure hunt, employees like humans, and affordability like a commitment, not a compromise.

• Pricing power emerges from trust. When Costco finally raised its membership fee after seven years, churn was negligible. Why? Because the hot dog stayed $1.50. Because customers believed Costco had earned it. Trust is the foundation of pricing power, not the enemy of it.

• Talent gravitates to mission. The best employees don’t want to work for companies that exploit. They want to work for companies that serve. IKEA commands one of the highest retention rates among frontline staff compared to any retailer globally. When your internal culture is built on respect for the customer, you attract people who believe in the work, not just the paycheck.

Campbell’s already has everything it needs.

It has the memories, 150 million Americans carry Campbell’s rituals in their minds, across generations and geographies. It has the infrastructure, 155 years of continuity, distribution, and trust. It has the place in the pantry, literal and metaphorical.

What it lacked was leadership willing to own the mission with pride.

That can change. Not through better PR, but through a fundamental recalibration of identity: from a company embarrassed by affordability to one that engineers it as innovation. From passive vendor to active steward. From tenant of shame to architect of sovereignty.

If Campbell’s can make that shift: manifesto, community, design principles, accountability, it won’t just survive this scandal. It will become the IKEA of comfort food: a company that designs a more dignified everyday life for the many, profitably, proudly, permanently.

This is how trust is reborn, Mr. Beekhuizen.

Checkout my latest articles:

At 3:00 AM on November 6, 2025, Shannon Delgado arrived at her Starbucks in Minnesota to open the store. Waiting for her, wrapped in blankets and camped on the pavement, were customers who’d been there for hours. They weren’t waiting for coffee. They were waiting for a $29.95 glass teddy bear cup, the Bearista.

By 5:01 AM, shouting matches had begun. By 5:15 AM, police were called to restore order in Houston. By 6:00 AM, nearly every one of the 1 to 4 Bearista Cold Cups allocated per store across North America had sold out. And by noon, those same cups were listed on eBay, not for $50, not for $500, but for as much as $50,000.

Starbucks, perhaps accidentally, just ran the most expensive retail psychology experiment of 2025.

The chaos wasn’t evidence that scarcity doesn’t work. Luxury has built trillion-dollar empires on intentional scarcity for centuries. The chaos was evidence that everyday brands have discovered what luxury perfected, but lack the infrastructure to steward it. And in that gap between desire created and desire honored, value doesn’t disappear. It leaks: to resellers, to platforms, to anyone except the brand that staged the moment.

This is not a story about failure. It’s a story about discovery. About a mass brand stumbling into the Operating System of Luxury (Cultural Nations, as I call them) and learning, through chaos, what Hermès, Chanel and Loro Piana have mastered through centuries of deliberate architecture.

The question is no longer whether scarcity works. November 6 settled that. The question is: Can mass brands learn to author it?

Share

What Starbucks Accidentally Proved

Let’s begin not with what went wrong, but with what went spectacularly right.

Because beneath the chaos, beneath the apologies and the police reports and the $50,000 eBay listings, Starbucks proved something profound: they are a Cultural Nation. They just forgot to act like one.

Exhibit A - Starbucks is a Cultural Nation

The evidence was there long before the Bearista launch. It’s been accumulating for decades, quiet but undeniable.

75 million Rewards members globally. That’s not a customer base. That’s a constituency. A devoted following that has chosen, repeatedly, to align their daily rituals with a brand that charges $7 for a latte in a world where coffee is abundant and cheap.

Seasonal Rituals that organize culture. Red Cup Day doesn’t just mark the arrival of holiday drinks, it marks the arrival of the holiday season itself. Pumpkin Spice Latte season isn’t a product launch, it’s a cultural timestamp. These aren’t marketing campaigns. They’re secular liturgies, annual ceremonies that millions participate in, not because they need caffeine, but because they crave belonging.

The “Third Place” promise. Howard Schultz didn’t build Starbucks to sell coffee. He built it to offer what he called the “Third Place”: not home, not work, but a sanctuary in between. That positioning was never transactional. It was emotional. And for millions, it worked. Starbucks became not just where you get coffee, but where you read, where you work, where you meet, where you exist between obligations.

Premium pricing power that defies logic. A $7 latte. A $30 glass cup that resells for $500. These numbers don’t compute in a world of rational markets and commodity pricing. They only make sense when you understand that Starbucks, like Hermès, isn’t selling objects. It’s selling symbols. And symbols, when authored well, command premiums that have nothing to do with cost and everything to do with meaning.

Heritage and nostalgia. The Bearista bear wasn’t a new mascot, it was a revival. A callback to the 1990s and early 2000s, when Starbucks’ plush Bearista toys and collectible mugs turned the brand into something more than coffee. It became culture. And the fact that people remembered, that they cared, that they camped in blankets to reclaim a piece of that memory, that’s proof. Not of clever marketing, but of deep, enduring emotional equity. The kind that creates memory banks.

And then there’s this: People willing to camp at 3:00 AM. This is not commodity behavior. No one wraps themselves in blankets in the predawn cold for something they can live without. That level of devotion: uncomfortable, voluntary, irrational, is what separates a vendor from a Cultural Nation.

This is what Howard Schultz means when he says: “We’re not a beverage company serving coffee. We are a coffee company serving people.”

Starbucks possesses every marker of a Cultural Nation: a devoted global following, seasonal rituals that shape aspiration, pricing power that defies commodity logic and collectible culture dating back decades. On paper, Starbucks should command the same cultural sovereignty as Hermès, Louis Vuitton or Formula 1.

The November 6 launch proved they have the raw material. What they lacked was the architecture.

Share

Exhibit B: Scarcity Works at Mass Scale

The second thing Starbucks proved, definitively and undeniably, is that scarcity is not a flaw. It’s a feature.

Voluntary devotion at 3:00 AM. Customers didn’t show up because they were tricked. They showed up because they wanted to be first. Because being first meant something. Because access to a scarce object confers status, identity and belonging in ways abundance never can.

Sold out in seconds. Across thousands of stores, the same story repeated: the Bearista cups vanished almost instantly. Not in hours. Not in minutes. In seconds. That’s not a supply chain error. That’s proof of demand so intense it overwhelms infrastructure.

A resale market that defied reason. By noon, cups were listed on eBay for $285. By evening, $500. By the weekend, outlier listings reached $10,000. One viral post showed a listing for $50,000. These aren’t typos or jokes. They’re signals. Signals that Starbucks had created something people were willing to pay extraordinary sums to possess, not because the cup holds liquid better than any other, but because it carries scarcity, memory and cultural weight.

Global media saturation. Fortune. The Wall Street Journal. Cosmopolitan. The Jerusalem Post. Instagram. Reddit. International outlets and social feeds covering a $30 glass bear as if it were a geopolitical event of global proportions. That level of attention doesn’t happen by accident. It happens when a brand taps into something deeper than product, when it touches culture itself.

For 72 hours, Starbucks wasn’t just trending, it was the conversation. The kind of organic, viral, unforced attention that brands spend billions trying to manufacture and rarely achieve.

Police intervention. Constable Alan Rosen of Harris County, Texas, confirmed that deputies were dispatched to a Houston-area Starbucks to “restore peace.” Let that sink in. Law enforcement was required not to stop a crime, but to manage the intensity of desire for a collectible cup.

The lesson isn’t that scarcity failed. It’s that scarcity succeeded, spectacularly.

Starbucks discovered what luxury has known for centuries: intentional scarcity is the most powerful desirability lever in commerce. A Birkin bag commands $10,000 to $500,000 (or even $10 million) on resale not because of leather quality alone, but because Hermès authors its scarcity with surgical precision. Rolex doesn’t apologize for waitlists, it architects them. Loro Piana doesn’t flood the market, it whispers to the few.

Starbucks proved the formula works. A $29.95 glass bear, treated with scarcity, generated the same behavioral patterns as a Hermès handbag: camping, resale markets, media saturation and devotion bordering on obsession.

Share

But here’s where the story splits.

That cultural moment could have been authored. It could have been a coronation: a deliberate, choreographed event that deepened Starbucks’ mythology and rewarded its most loyal community. It could have been staged with the same precision Anderson brought to Dior’s billion-view debut: cinematic, ritual, ceremony.

Instead, it became a cautionary tale.

Because the attention wasn’t controlled. The narrative wasn’t owned. The value wasn’t captured. And the sovereignty: the ability to say this is how our story will be told, was surrendered to Instagram’s algorithm, eBay’s marketplace and TikTok’s chaos.

The problem wasn’t the attention. It was that the attention wasn’t authored.

Instead of a ceremony, it became a meme. Instead of sovereignty, it became an apology. Instead of a cultural asset Starbucks could canonize, archive, celebrate, build upon, it became a moment they had to apologize for.

And that’s the tragedy. Not that Starbucks failed, but that they came so close to succeeding. They had the devotion. They had the scarcity. They had the moment.

What they didn’t have was the infrastructure to honor it.

What Starbucks Lacked (The Diagnostic)

Mass brands have discovered that scarcity creates desire, but they’re learning through chaos what luxury perfected through centuries of deliberate architecture. The solution isn’t less scarcity. It’s authored scarcity.

Starbucks’ Bearista launch exposed four critical infrastructure failures. Not creative failures. Not product failures. Sovereignty failures. The kind that transform a coronation into a riot and leak millions in value to intermediaries who didn’t create the desire but captured the profit.

Failure #1: No Choreographed Access

Everyone got access simultaneously. The result? Battlefield, not ceremony.

34 million Rewards members in the US, customers who’d spent thousands over years, received the same treatment as someone showing up at 3:00 AM for the first time. First-come-first-served chaos. No tiering. No sequencing. No recognition of loyalty.

Hermès doesn’t have “launch day.” They have curated access. VICs are notified privately. Relationship-based allocation. No camping, no police. Access is conferred through ritual, not scrambled for.

When everyone gets access simultaneously, you haven’t democratized desire, you’ve created a battlefield. Luxury knows: choreographed access isn’t gatekeeping, it’s mise-en-scène. It’s the difference between a coronation and a riot.

Subscribe now

Failure #2: A Resale Gold Rush They Didn’t Own

eBay and resellers captured millions in value that Starbucks created.

The math is brutal: Starbucks sold cups for $29.95. Those same cups resold for $285-$500 on average, with outliers reaching up to $50k. Presumably, Starbucks produced 50,000 Bearista cups, thus Starbucks captured roughly $1,5 million in revenue. Resellers, who likely got their hands on 20% of that stock, 10,000 units, captured at least $5 million. eBay took its commissions, of course,

Starbucks created the desire, the cultural moment, the scarcity. eBay just hosted the chaos and collected the fees.

Moreover, Starbucks has no control on the authenticity, quality and narrative in the Starbucks reseller market.

Failure #3: Narrative Surrendered to the Algorithm

The narrative was hijacked the moment it was released.

Instagram hype triggered FOMO. TikTok captured the chaos. The story Starbucks should have authored: heritage, craftsmanship, collectible culture, was replaced by memes, complaints and conspiracy theories about employees buying the stock.

Within 24 hours, Starbucks issued an apology: “demand exceeded even our biggest expectations.” That single sentence signaled accidental scarcity, not intentional curation. It read as incompetence, not exclusivity.

Compare this to Anderson’s Dior debut: 1 billion views and HSBC upgraded the stock. Starbucks’ launch: global attention and they apologized.

The difference? One authored the narrative. The other surrendered it to the algorithm. There was no cinematic storytelling. No behind-the-scenes craftsmanship film. No museum partnership. No canonization. Just chaos, followed by an apology, followed by silence.

Failure #4: No Memory of Who Wanted It Most

Starbucks doesn’t know who camped at 3:00 AM. They can’t thank them. Can’t offer them priority next time. Can’t build community among cup owners. The customers are anonymous, the loyalty unrewarded, the data uncaptured.

Hermès knows every Birkin customer by name. Relationship history is tracked: purchases, tenure, preferences. Every waitlist is a relationship inventory. Every disappointed customer becomes a priority customer for the next allocation.

First-party relationships aren’t just CRM, they’re the moat. When you lose the data on who wanted your product most, you lose the ability to steward future desire. You’re building on sand, not memory.

The Lesson for Starbucks: Scarcity Without Sovereignty Leaks Value

You’ve discovered scarcity works. What you haven’t built is the infrastructure to honor it. No choreographed access. No owned secondary market. No cultural sovereignty. No first-party relationships.

These aren’t operational details. They’re the architecture of desire. And without them, even a Cultural Nation as strong as Starbucks collapses into chaos.

The question now is: How do you build that architecture?

The Desirability Playbook for Starbucks

Over the past year, I’ve argued that we’re entering the Era of Cultural Nations: where brands with devoted followings must reclaim sovereignty from Big Tech and build owned infrastructure for desire. I’ve shown how LVMH and Chanel perfected this through coronations, not campaigns. How Formula 1 transformed by owning its narrative. How Hermès commands a 50% valuation premium through authored scarcity.

Starbucks’ Bearista “incident” proves this framework applies beyond luxury. And luxury’s centuries of practice offers Starbucks and mass brands a blueprint.

It’s The Desirability Playbook: five principles luxury has perfected, translated for mass brands ready to operate as Cultural Nations.

Share

Principle 1: Make Scarcity Explicit, Not Accidental

Transparent Authored Scarcity

Hermès makes exactly X Birkins per year. Rolex controls production deliberately. Loro Piana’s cashmere scarcity is authored through sourcing choices. Scarcity is brand positioning, not logistics failure.

When Starbucks said “demand exceeded expectations.” It signals poor planning, breeds cynicism and invites conspiracy theories. When customers hear “limited quantities” without context, they fill the gap with their worst assumptions: employees bought them all, artificial scarcity for hype, deliberate bait-and-switch.

The shift is transparency as strategy. Instead of vague “limited quantities,” author it:

Imagine if the launch began here, Pharrell signing 100 First Edition cups: “We intentionally produced 50,000 Bearista cups globally as a collectible limited edition. X are allocated to North America. We worked with Pharrell Williams to bring back our plush bear to life.”

Publish exact production numbers. Show allocation by region. Provide real-time waitlist position updates in-app. Turn scarcity into data, not mystery.

The Hermès Birkin waitlist isn’t a bug, it’s a relationship-based allocation system and it’s the brand’s most powerful marketing tool. Luxury brands don’t apologize for waitlists, they architect them.

What this creates: Anticipation instead of backlash. Trust instead of conspiracy theories. Collectible legitimacy instead of damage control.

Principle 2: Reward Loyalty, Not Luck

The Playbook: Choreographed Vesting (3-Tier Access)

At Chanel, VICs get first access to limited pieces. LVMH Maisons offer private events to top clients before the public ever sees them. Relationship-based hierarchy, tenure plus spending equals priority. Access is conferred through ceremony, not scrambled for.

Starbucks did the opposite. First-come-first-served meant 3:00 AM camping chaos. Gold Rewards members who’d spent thousands over years got the same access as a stranger showing up once. The message sent: loyalty doesn’t matter.

This is the Playbook for Starbucks to reward its most loyal:

What luxury knows and mass retail forgot: your best customers should feel chosen, not equal to strangers. When you give the same access to everyone, you haven’t democratized desire, you’ve devalued loyalty. That’s not just bad CRM. It’s value destruction.

What this creates:

• Loyalty rewarded

• Aspiration built (customers want Gold status for next launch)

• Chaos prevented (spread over days, online)

• Value captured (premium pricing for early tiers)

• Program equity (Rewards membership becomes a strategic asset)

Principle 3: Own the Aftermarket or Lose Your Throne

The Playbook: Owned Resale Platform

Kering invested in Vestiaire Collective, a second-hand luxury marketplace. Lululemon runs its own resale program called Like New. Even IKEA launched a Buyback & Resell Service in the US. Cultural Nations recapture secondary market value.

Starbucks, with this one cup, created $5M in resale value and only captured $1,5M. eBay and resellers profited from a cultural moment Starbucks authored. No authentication, no control, no community.

The sovereign solution: “Starbucks Collectibles” Marketplace.

Sellers list with original receipt/QR authentication. Starbucks authenticates (prevents fakes). Price caps set at max 3X retail ($90 for Bearista, prevents $50,000 absurdity). Starbucks takes 15-20% commission, industry standard.

Buyers get guaranteed authenticity, community platform to connect with other collectors and exclusive perks (show your collection in-store, unlock special menu items).

When a collectible cup sells for $500 on eBay, Starbucks made $29.95 and eBay made $64.50. That’s scandalous. Starbucks created the desire, the scarcity, the cultural moment. Why should eBay capture the value?

This reclaims what I’ve called sovereignty over distribution: controlling not just the first sale, but the cultural afterlife. The infrastructure exists. Lululemon and Vestiaire Collective proved it. Starbucks just needs to build it.

What this creates: Value recapture. Brand protection (authentication stops fakes). Community building (collectors platform). First-party data (who collects what). Relationship nurturing (offer priority on next release).

Principle 4: Storytelling Must Be Authored, Not Outsourced

It’s a Cultural Moment, Not a Product Drop

Anderson’s Dior debut included a 20-minute cinematic prelude before the runway. Hermès wraps every product launch in heritage storytelling. Formula 1’s Drive to Survive transformed the sport through authored narrative. They don’t post, they author.

Starbucks posted an Instagram teaser: “who’s getting a bearista cup on 11/6” No storytelling, just hype. No context, no Bearista history, no craftsmanship, no designer vision. The narrative was surrendered to the algorithm before the launch even began.

Starbucks needs to treat these “marketing events” into an intentional and highly orchestrated cultural moments, the kind that builds memory banks. Here’s how it translates for Starbucks:

1. The Summons (5 days before): 10-minute film, “The Return of Bearista” launched on Starbucks App only, watch the cup being sustainably produced in a workshop, video interview of Pharrell as designer, in LA, speaking candidly about his own nostalgia of 1990s Bearista moments and plush toys, craftsmanship focus showing the First Editions being signed by the artist. Then, Starbucks CEO goes on CNBC sharing insights about the moment and the logic around its “elevated distribution” strategy to help shareholders understand the Cultural Capital being created with one single cup.

2. The Proclamation (24 hours before): Gold members receive an invitation to watch/listen to Pharrell, live from Paris, draw us in the world of Bearista.

   

3. The Coronation (launch day): In-store experience at Reserve Roasteries with A-list celebrities and Starbucks’ most loyal customers & baristas, exclusive drink pairing (Bearista Latte), photo moment with photographer on the red carpet, gift packaging worthy of ceremony. Only for the selected few in select cities. This is Starbuck’s runway show.

   

4. The Canonization (post-launch): “2025 Bearista Release” archived on app as cultural timestamp, customer stories featured, museum partnership (first cup donated to MOMA’s permanent exhibit), creating a cultural asset immune to algorithmic decay.

This isn’t marketing. It’s mise-en-scène. The difference between a coronation and a riot is choreography. Starbucks has the cultural capital, they just need to author it.

What this creates:

1. Emotional connection (story, not just product)

2. Cultural legitimacy (museum-worthy collectible)

3. Lasting value (archive outlasts algorithmic trend cycles)

4. Owned narrative (not filtered through TikTok chaos or meme culture)

Subscribe now

Principle 5: Turn Baristas into Curators of Desire

The Playbook: Collectible Launch Protocol

Hermès sales associates train for years to steward waitlists, assess clients, manage scarcity with grace. Chanel staff understand how to present limited pieces as privilege, not transaction. They’re curators of desire.

Shannon Delgado arrived at 3:50 AM to find customers “wrapped in blankets, camped out.” She was trained to craft extraordinary latte, not manage a collectible launch. Baristas were accused of buying stock, overwhelmed by crowds, unprepared for the intensity. They became targets, not stewards.

Starbucks Collectibles Launch Playbook for Baristas:

• Pre-launch workshop (2 hours, one week before): Understanding scarcity as brand positioning (intentional, not accidental). Communication scripts: ”We produced 50,000 globally as a collectible. Would you like to join our waitlist for future releases?” Launch day procedures: Gold-member priority, offer one-per-customer, hand-to-hand delivery, stay positive under pressure, redirect disappointed customers to Starbucks Collectibles app for resale.

• Launch day execution: Clear signage (”Limited Edition - One Per Customer”), QR codes for waitlist signup, designated manager as “Launch Lead” to handle escalations.

• Staff recognition: Exclusive barista-only collectible pin (better than the cup itself, builds employee collectible culture), baristas featured on app (”Meet the team behind the launch”), creates sense of ceremony for staff.

These are your Diplomats as Brand Ambassadors: Baristas who carry the brand’s DNA and speak without distortion, maintaining sovereignty under pressure.

What this creates:

1. Staff confidence (prepared, not overwhelmed)

2. Consistent messaging (brand positioning maintained under pressure)

3. Improved customer experience (clear, calm communication)

4. Collectible culture among employees (they’re curators, not clerks).

My dear friends at STARBUCKS: The infrastructure exists. The principles are proven. What’s needed is conviction and the courage to operate like the Cultural Nation you are, not the algorithm-dependent brand you’ve become.

The Choice Every Cultural Nation Now Faces

This isn’t a Starbucks problem. It’s a Cultural Nation problem.

Any brand with a devoted following, mass or luxury, now faces the same choice: build sovereign infrastructure and honor your community with ceremony, or chase algorithmic virality and watch your value leak to intermediaries while your loyalty erodes.

• Nike faces this with every limited sneaker drop. The SNKRS app exists, but chaos persists. Resale markets thrive. StockX captures value Nike created. The same pattern: scarcity discovered, infrastructure missing.

• Trader Joe’s faces this with seasonal tote bags and mini collectibles that sell out instantly. No app. No loyalty program. No tiering. Just lines and disappointment.

• Target learned this the hard way with the 2023 Stanley cup partnership. The same chaos Starbucks just experienced: crowds, sellouts, resale markets, all because a mass brand discovered scarcity without building sovereignty.

  

  @victoria_robino_26#fyp #fypシ゚viral #target #targetfinds #stanleycup #stanley #stanleytarget #valentinesday #stanleyvalentinesday

  Tiktok failed to load.
  
  Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

• Supreme built an entire business model on drop culture, but the resale market dwarfs their direct revenue. They create the desire. Grailed, StockX and eBay capture the profit.

The universal truth: Authored scarcity scales. Accidental chaos doesn’t.

We’re entering an era where brands must reclaim sovereignty from Big Tech platforms. Where owned infrastructure beats borrowed attention. Where tiered intimacy beats simultaneous chaos. Where Cultural Nations, like Starbucks, author desirability instead of apologizing for it.

The Gift Starbucks Just Gave Every Brand

Starbucks didn’t mean to run a multi-million dollar retail psychology experiment. But they did. And in doing so, they’ve offered every consumer brand with a devoted following a gift: proof that scarcity works and a blueprint for how to author it.

The chaos of November 6 wasn’t evidence that limited editions don’t work, luxury has built trillion-dollar empires on scarcity for centuries. It was evidence that mass brands have discovered the formula but lack the infrastructure.

The good news? It’s fixable.

Starbucks has everything it needs: 75 million Rewards members, a popular App, Reserve Roasteries globally, seasonal rituals that millions participate in and decades of collectible culture. And, they re-discovered their cups are a modern holy grail.

Take this to the bank: the most enduring brands are not the ones that generate the most noise, but the ones that steward desire with the same precision as crafting the perfect espresso.

That is how desire is reborn, Mr. Niccol.

Share

Epilogue: The Dupe That Proved the Point

As I was finishing this article, Walmart launched their own Bearista cup. Not a collaboration. A dupe.

For $14, half Starbucks’ price, nearly identical bear cups with green lids and striped straws, available online, shipped directly. No 3 AM lines. No chaos. No scarcity.

The TikTok comments reveal everything:

• “Just ordered mine!! Now I don’t have to give Starbucks free advertising.”

• “The whole point is the logo of Starbucks.”

There it is. The entire thesis in two sentences.

Walmart captured the form. But they can’t capture 28 years of Bearista heritage. The problem? Starbucks didn’t protect it.

When you create desire but surrender sovereignty, the form gets commoditized and the soul gets diluted. Customers who wanted the symbol, the authenticated collectible, the cultural timestamp, are left choosing between a $50,000 eBay gamble and a $14 knockoff.

That $14 dupe? It’s the sovereignty tax, made visible.

Yesterday, that possibility took one step forward closer to reality. I argued that having conquered the infrastructure of commerce, he now sought the infrastructure of desire. He is proving that culture, like commerce, requires infrastructure.

For my new subscribers who missed the original analysis: here is the deep dive into why Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, wants Anna Wintour, Vogue & Condé Nast and what it means for the sovereignty of luxury.

After Anna: Bezos’ Quest to Redefine Taste, will Luxury Surrender or Rebel?

Amazon’s rumoured Condé Nast - Vogue acquisition isn’t about magazines, it’s about owning desire itself to take it away from luxury titans such as LVMH, Hermès, Kering and Chanel

The most consequential rumor in luxury is spreading fast: Jeff Bezos wants Condé Nast-Vogue. If true, this is not a media acquisition, it’s the biggest cultural power grab of the decade.

It’s a bid for the throne of taste, not for market share, it’s a takeover of the most coveted seat in culture. The Amazon founder has conquered commerce. Now, he wants the seat of cultural authority. But, why ?

For decades, Condé Nast and Vogue above all, have served as the quiet sculptors of desire, the unseen architects of what the world deems beautiful, relevant, and worth wanting. To own Vogue is to own the compass that orients aspiration and desirability itself.

There’s a precedent for this kind of move. In the mid-20th century, Sam Newhouse built a media empire by buying America’s most influential magazines. But where Newhouse acquired prestige, Bezos is pursuing power. This isn’t about controlling the newsstand, it’s about owning the digital loom where the fabric of global taste is woven, stitch by algorithmic stitch. The stakes are infinitely higher now because the battlefield isn’t paper, it’s the infrastructure of culture itself. Bezos understands this: control the instrument that defines taste and you can mint desirability on demand.

Bezos isn’t buying Vogue for its balance sheet. He’s buying a cultural sovereign. For more than a century, Vogue has crowned what elegance looks like, dictated the cadence of trends, and defined the symbols that signal status. It is not merely a publication; it is the Cultural Nation of style and taste, a sovereign power unto itself.

Amazon already commands the “last mile” of commerce, that decisive stretch between warehouse and front door. With Vogue, Bezos aims to command the “last mile” of culture: the channel through which meaning itself is delivered. From the same infrastructure that perfected one-click shopping, he could engineer one-click desirability and aspiration.

And in this possible future, Anna Wintour remains in place as Global Chief Content Officer. This is not nostalgia, it’s a signal. The rumored retention of Wintour is a strategic masterstroke. If Bezos becomes Caesar, Anna is his cultural general. Her continued presence signals continuity in authority, but now with a tech empire’s machinery at her disposal.

Bezos isn’t buying media. He’s buying the Cultural Nation of style. But if he claims this throne, will the cultural nations of LVMH, Kering, Chanel, and Hermès fight for their sovereignty or surrender it?

Share

Culture is the new infrastructure for Big Tech

This isn’t about selling handbags. It’s about controlling the infrastructure that decides which handbags the world wants.

Amazon already commands the last mile of commerce. Now, Bezos wants the last mile of culture: the decisive stretch between what the world sees and what the world desires. Having perfected the logistical infrastructure of retail, he now seeks to dominate the cultural infrastructure that drives aspiration itself.

Luxury fashion knows this terrain. Kering, LVMH and others once flirted with Amazon, and recoiled.

“We believe the business of Amazon does not fit with LVMH full stop and it does not fit with our brands,” LVMH CFO Jean-Jacques Guiony told investors in a conference call as early as 2016

The platform’s mass-market ethos flattened exclusivity, making a $5,000 handbag feel uncomfortably adjacent to bulk detergent and phone chargers. Bezos isn’t making that mistake again. This time, he isn’t asking for a seat at the table. He’s buying the table, the dining hall, and more importantly, the seating chart that Vogue and Anna Wintour command so well.

Amazon’s earlier failure to sell luxury goods revealed a truth: luxury is not just about the product. It’s about the aura that surrounds it: the narrative, the ritual, the carefully orchestrated context. Cultural sovereignty. Bezos now understands that while the objects of luxury can be elusive, the feeling of luxury is scalable. And Vogue is the most efficient machine ever built to manufacture that feeling and resonance.

Which is why Vogue cannot be treated as an editorial brand. It has been the most efficient taste-shaping engine on earth, the Ministry of Culture that codifies what is chic, relevant, aspirational. Give that engine to a platform that already moves everything else, and you fuse canon with carriage. Recommendation becomes decree.

This potential acquisition is the logical endgame of the Faustian Bargain luxury struck with Big Tech and that I wrote about. In their chase for reach, Maisons surrendered their narrative sovereignty to platforms designed for virality, not reverence.Now, Big Tech isn’t just hosting their stories: it’s poised to own the very institutions that decide which stories get told.

Under Bezos, Vogue could be reconfigured into a “Cultural AWS”, a cloud infrastructure for desire, taste on demand, provisioned at scale, available to rent by brands that want instant legitimacy.

In this model, Bezos doesn’t see Vogue as a magazine. He sees it as the final mile of cultural influence running through his servers. And at the helm of this system, Anna Wintour and Jeff Bezos would stand as its dual oracles: one with the authority to define taste, the other with the infrastructure to deploy it at planetary scale.

Anna Wintour is 75 today. Bezos’ most consequential task will be to prepare her succession over the next few years. This isn’t a staffing decision; it’s a cultural coronation. In my previous piece, I argued that Pharrell Williams may be the most compelling choice: a bridge between generations, genres, and geographies, fluent in the codes of luxury yet unafraid to rewrite them. No matter the choice, Bezos will have to ensure that under his stewardship, Vogue could radiate a new rhythm: one that unites joy, identity, and culture while safeguarding its crown.

And here’s the risk: luxury Maisons becoming a vendor inside someone else’s cultural nation of taste. Once Bezos takes control of the Ministry of Culture, the map of global luxury is redrawn overnight and the cultural nations of LVMH, Chanel, Hermès, and Kering will find themselves negotiating from occupied territory.

Share

The End of Neutral Narrators

For over a century, Condé Nast, and Vogue above all, has played Switzerland: covering every Maison and designer with a rare sovereignty that made its praise priceless and its criticism lethal. That neutrality was the source of its power. It understood luxury not just as an industry but as Cultural Nations, with its own laws, codes, and rituals. Under Bezos, this Switzerland is not just at risk, it becomes obsolete.

Because in 2025, cultural influence is no longer just commentary, it’s infrastructure.You don’t need to own the handbag, the watch or the dress if you own the authority to define what makes them desirable. And once you control that definition, you can bend the market at will.

Bezos doesn’t see Vogue as a magazine. He sees it as a cultural nation, his own Disney-for-adults: an empire with infinite cultural authority, capable of making a brand’s decade or ending it before the season is over. A cultural superpower that can turn trends into canon, and make desire itself, programmable.

As Harvard media historian Heidi Legg notes: “Magazines have historically been central institutions in the formation of taste and cultural authority, functioning as arbiters whose influence extends beyond their pages into the broader public imagination. The value of a magazine brand lies not only in its audience reach but in the legitimacy it confers, its ability to make a designer, a product, or even an idea matter.”

Under Bezos, Vogue shifts from arbiter to architect, from commentator to kingmaker.Fusing Vogue’s voice with Amazon’s global scale creates the most formidable cultural-making machine ever assembled. One where the Cultural Nation of Condé Nast has its own distribution fleet, data warehouse, intelligence system and algorithmic propaganda unit.

Bezos and Wintour together form a soft power axis: his infrastructure, her authority. One can build the machine; the other can anoint its chosen winners. And Bezos understands what Dior’s Jonathan Anderson proved in Paris last June, when over 1 billion people tuned in to watch his show: luxury fashion is at its most powerful when it’s not just a message, but a medium, a stage where culture itself is performed and reinforced.

If Bezos is building a cultural empire, the obvious question is: what will the existing sovereigns of taste and culture do ?

The stakes extend far beyond commerce. LVMH, Chanel, Hermès, Kering: these are not merely luxury Maisons. They are vessels of Europe’s soft power, sovereign actors in the projection of national influence. They export ritual, taste, and culture - not just products with price tags. And these Cultural Nations, should not negotiate their sovereignty with emperors of distribution.

Luxury’s choice is stark: act like a Cultural Nation and reclaim the ability to shape desire directly or remain a product conglomerate renting attention from Big Tech and maybe soon, Bezos’ Condé Nast. The first path is revival. The second is slow surrender.

Share

A New Cold War for Culture and Taste: Luxury needs to build their own Sovereign Stack

Under Bezos, Vogue won’t just cover culture, it will merge it with commerce until the two are indistinguishable. The editorial lens will no longer be purely aesthetic; it will be a targeting engine, where aspiration becomes a data point and taste is optimized for conversion. Once the compass of style is wired into Amazon’s infrastructure, the difference between editorial and advertising will dissolve.

Luxury cannot counter this with another seasonal campaign. It must rearm: not with ads, but with custodians of its cultural capital.

That means building a Sovereign Stack for Culture and Taste

1. Embassies as Owned Stage:

Narrative sanctuaries, physical and digital, fully under Maison control. High-fidelity spaces where story, culture, and commerce are composed as a single score. Loyal clients enter first; the public follows. Premiere here,syndicate later. Identity, data, and pricing remain sovereign.

2. Rituals as Sequencing:

Intentional moments that shape the cultural calendar, beginning with a Maison’s most devoted clients before the public ever sees them. Stop chasing virality. Stage meaning. Because the point isn’t a billion views, it’s authorship that makes a billion views matter. Read more about this in my article:

3. Sacred Texts & Archives as Canon:

Long-horizon investments that outlast any season. Foundations, salons, commissions, permanent collections: cultural assets immune to algorithmic decay. The canon is the moat. Build it with acts of nation-building: the Louis Vuitton Foundation’s millions of annual visitors, Chanel’s Arts & Culturemagazine, LVMH’s Osaka 2025 cultural showcase. These are not campaigns; they are monuments. Here’s what that looks like:

4. Diplomats as Ambassadors:

Authors, artists, archivists, designers, dressmakers who carry the Maison’s DNA and speak without distortion. Not hired influence, but sovereign voices that bypass algorithmic choke points to reach audiences directly and shape desire for the long term. Imagine Pharrell Williams, Louis Vuitton’s Men’s Creative Director, producing an exclusive documentary on his Met Gala exploration of Black Dandyism, available only to LV clients. That’s not content. That’s cultural authorship in its purest form, forging desire from the inside out:

This isn’t just branding, it’s what Legg (Harvard) calls: “the enduring worth of a.. brand… is in its archive, the accumulated capital of decades of taste-making, which continues to influence even when individual issues are forgotten.”

Share

If Vogue becomes Bezos’s cultural capital, LVMH, Hermès, and Chanel must decide: where will they build their embassies? This is the beginning of a new Cold War for taste, and it demands a Third Renaissance for luxury: a reawakening of in-house mythmaking, not just marketing teams.

In an age where AI can generate “taste” on demand, human-led mythmaking is the last true luxury. That’s the edge for the luxury industry (and many consumer brands, whether Nike, IKEA or LEGO.) What must be protected now isn’t distribution, it’s myth. Luxury has always shaped what the world dreams of. But if it doesn’t fight now, those dreams will be rendered in Bezos’s Cultural AWS.

Because in this possible future, Vogue won’t recommend, it will decide. An algorithmically timed feature could make or break a Maison’s quarter. The cover becomes currency. The editorial calendar syncs with Prime drops. Luxury, once sovereign, is now a tenant in Bezos’s empire of taste.

If Bezos rewrites the rules of taste, it won’t matter how beautiful your collection is. It will only matter if it’s part of his canon. Unless you build your own.

Epilogue: Shir Cofman, an AI leader, argues Bezos’ bid for Vogue is really a play for the emotional operating system of luxury. Her piece reframes Vogue as a cultural OS for desire itself.

October 2025, Paris Fashion Week.

LVMH & L’ORÉAL: Two visions of luxury’s future, separated by arrondissements and philosophy.

At the Tuileries Garden, Dior stages a coronation. Three hundred handpicked guests starting with Brigitte Macron, France’s first lady, in the front row, a constellation of A-listers behind her from Johnny Depp to Jimin (the popular South Korean singer) came to watch Jonathan Anderson’s latest collection unfold in reverent silence. Invitation-only. The ultimate expression of luxury as scarcity, mystique preserved through distance. The world watches via livestream, but only the anointed few breathe the same air as the clothes.

This is LVMH’s model perfected: the VATICAN OF DESIRE, where access itself is the luxury. A Cultural Nation as I’ve called it.

Across the city, something unprecedented unfolds.

L’Oréal Paris stages a fashion show in the shadow of Paris City Hall. Not three hundred guests. Three thousand. The doors are wide open. No invitation required. Students, influencers, tourists, dreamers: a sea of aspirants who would never make it past the velvet rope at Dior, but who are here, inside, witnessing runway spectacle unfold before them in real time (or IRL as we now call it).

The same Paris. The same Fashion Week. Two radically opposed models of what luxury fashion can be.

LVMH, Chanel and its peers see a beauty company playing dress-up. A charming sideshow. Harmless theatre from a brand better known for lipstick than lapels.

Because while Bernard Arnault, the Wertheimer brothers and Anna Wintour have spent three decades building Cathedrals of desire for their Cultural Nations: founded on elevation, coronation and cultural sovereignty, L’Oréal has been quietly assembling the blueprint for something equally powerful but fundamentally different: a COLOSSEUM. Not luxury as exclusion, but luxury as accessible aspiration at massive scale.

This ‘Colosseum’ model is already being validated by LVMH:

Even Louis Vuitton is exploring this “Colosseum” model of accessible aspiration; fellow Substack author Ali Samadpour rightfully argues LV’s $160 lipstick isn’t about outrageous pricing, but a strategic “little luxury” designed to keep aspirational consumers engaged when core products (i.e. handbags) feel out of reach during economic uncertainty. You can read his take here:

And now, with Giorgio Armani’s succession creating a rare opening in luxury’s fortress, L’Oréal isn’t just preparing to buy a brand.

They’re preparing to prove their Colosseum Model works.

And if they succeed with Armani, they won’t stop there. They’ll come for Yves Saint Laurent. For Valentino. For the weakened independents. And eventually, when the Wertheimer brothers’ inevitable succession arrives, L’Oréal will come for the one prize LVMH may never acquire: Chanel.

Share

The greatest threats don’t announce themselves. They collaborate. They smile. They carry your beauty licenses and distribute your fragrances worldwide.

And then, when you’re not looking, they build an empire.

This is that story.

ACT I: The Armani Succession Is a Trojan Horse

Giorgio Armani, at 91, has done what few founding designers ever manage: he orchestrated his own succession. In his will, carefully constructed over years of negotiation, he named his preferred acquirers for the €7 billion empire he built from a single blazer in 1975. Two names emerged from those deliberations, representing not just two companies, but two fundamentally different philosophies, two divergent visions for luxury’s future: LVMH or L’Oréal.

The industry consensus formed instantly, with the certainty of received wisdom: “LVMH will obviously win.” After all, they’re the luxury fashion empire without peer. They have the expertise, the infrastructure, the Arnault family’s alchemical ability to revive heritage brands and elevate them into Cultural Nations phenomenas.

They turned Dior into a billion-view spectacle, transformed Tiffany from stagnant legacy into pop-culture essential, tripled Loro Piana’s revenue by understanding that the quietest voice could become the most potent. Armani, with its impeccable bones but dormant cultural energy, seems precisely the kind of sleeping giant they know how to awaken. L’Oréal, meanwhile, makes lipstick and skincare. A formidable company in beauty, certainly, but fashion? That’s not their territory, not their expertise, not their game, right?

Except. What if L’Oréal winning the Armani succession would be the worst thing to happen to LVMH in thirty years? Not because Armani itself would materially weaken LVMH’s position, one brand, even at €7 billion valuation, doesn’t threaten a LVMH Cultural Nation generating €86 billion a year. But because Armani wouldn’t be the empire. It would be the beachhead, the proof of concept, the strategic foothold that validates an entirely different model for luxury fashion. And if that model proves viable, L’Oréal won’t stop at one Italian house. They’ll scale it.

Subscribe now

Why L’Oréal Makes Strategic Sense (And Why That’s a Threat for LVMH)

L’Oréal already own the Armani Beauty license. This is the detail that transforms this from corporate speculation into strategic inevitability. Since 1998, L’Oréal has held the license for Giorgio Armani fragrances, skin care and makeup and worked hand-in-hand with the Italian designer. This means they know Armani’s customers and ethos intimately, not theoretically, but empirically. They understand how these customers shop, what they value, which messages resonate, which markets drive growth. They’ve studied Armani’s brand equity across continents for decades: its quiet authority in Asia, its timeless appeal in the Middle East, its aspirational pull in the Americas. When LVMH acquires a brand, they’re learning the customer from scratch, building relationships, decoding cultural codes, investing years in understanding what makes a Maison tick. When L’Oréal acquires Armani fashion, they’re not learning: they’re reunifying a brand they’ve been stewarding for a generation. There’s no culture clash, no learning curve, no expensive period of discovery. Just immediate synergies across product development, retail distribution, supply chain optimization and marketing infrastructure. This isn’t a speculative acquisition; it’s the logical completion of a vertical integration that’s been decades in the making.

The €7-12 billion Armani valuation is strategic, not speculative. Armani isn’t Supreme. It’s not Off-White or some algorithmic hypebeast phenomenon that burns bright for three Instagram-fueled years before collapsing into irrelevance and outlet malls. Armani is embedded in the global imaginary in a way that transcends fashion cycles. The name carries weight across generations and geographies, it defined power dressing in the 1980s, suited Hollywood’s leading men in the 1990s, and still commands premium positioning in department stores and luxury retail worldwide. Yes, the brand has struggled for cultural relevance in recent years. Its fashion shows lack the electric voltage of a Dior coronation, its creative direction has felt more safe than sovereign, more conservative than compelling. But that’s dormancy, not death. The distinction matters enormously, because dormancy can be reversed with the right creative vision and strategic investment, while death is permanent.

The bones of Armani are extraordinary: the tailoring expertise, the manufacturing infrastructure, the global distribution network, the customer loyalty. The name itself represents permanence in an industry increasingly dominated by ephemeral trends. L’Oréal doesn’t need to invent Armani’s equity from scratch. They just need to reignite it: appoint a visionary creative director who understands both heritage and modernity, stage a public resurrection spectacle that announces Armani’s return to cultural relevance, integrate beauty and fashion under one unified authorial vision. If they can prove that accessible aspiration can scale without sacrificing desirability, that €7 billion isn’t a gamble, it’s a down payment on validating their entire strategic thesis.

Armani is the test case, not the endgame. This is what faces LVMH: if L’Oréal acquires Armani and fails to revive it, they retreat gracefully to beauty. It becomes an expensive but contained lesson learned, a portfolio rationalized, a strategic experiment concluded. LVMH remains untouchable, their dominance unchallenged, their Cultural Nation model validated as the only viable path to luxury fashion supremacy. But there’s a wildcard that may benefit L’Oréal’s ethos more than LVMH’s: Gen Z.

Share

Gen Z wants “authenticity and communal experiences,” not “exclusivity and velvet ropes”. The question isn’t whether LVMH’s model is wrong; it’s whether it speaks to a generation raised on TikTok and communal experiences. Because what L’Oréal is peddling is not just about “entertainment”; it’s a structural alignment. It has successfully aligned itself to Gen Z’s values: community, authenticity and a rejection of gatekeeping. This is the Colosseum model.

And if L’Oréal succeeds in winning the hearts of Gen Z, they prove that a beauty conglomerate CAN steward a fashion Maison with cultural credibility, that democratic aspiration can rival sovereign elevation in generating desire and that the Colosseum model creates pilgrimage-level loyalty at vastly greater scale than the LVMH model. Proof that their playbook doesn’t just work for Armani…

Subscribe now

It scales to every other opportunity in luxury fashion. And L’Oréal won’t stop. They’ll raid Kering’s struggling portfolio and see not competitors but opportunities: Yves Saint Laurent fashion, currently separated from its beauty sibling and underperforming, ripe for reunification under one roof. They’ll study the weakened independents: Ferragamo fighting for relevance, Missoni searching for scale, Valentino seeking stability and see brands with powerful global recognition but dormant energy, waiting for an operating system sophisticated enough to reignite them. Acquisition by acquisition, brand by brand, they’ll construct a luxury fashion empire that rivals LVMH not by copying its elevation model, but by inverting it entirely.

L’Oréal as the “Anti-LVMH”: A Different Cultural Nation

Make no mistake about L’Oréal’s strategy: they aren’t trying to imitate LVMH. They’re not going to stage invitation-only coronations at historic Parisian landmarks or obsess over the elevator music in their headquarters. They’re not going to treat fashion shows as sacred rituals attended by three hundred anointed guests while billions watch enviously from outside the Vatican walls. That’s LVMH’s game and LVMH has already won it. Instead, L’Oréal is building something fundamentally different: the anti-LVMH, a Cultural Nation based not on scarcity and mystique, but on scale and democratic aspiration. The philosophical difference isn’t subtle, it’s foundational.

LVMH’s model is elevation through exclusion: fewer, higher, sovereign. Take a brand with heritage, appoint an auteur creative director, stage cultural coronations that feel like state ceremonies, control every aspect of the narrative and let desirability compound over decades through the disciplined preservation of mystique. It’s the Vatican model: timeless, untouchable, powerful, built on the fundamental premise that distance creates desire and scarcity generates value. This model has proven devastatingly effective for three decades, turning LVMH into the world’s dominant luxury “Cultural Nation”.

L’Oréal’s emerging model is the Colosseum: broader, deeper, everywhere. Take a brand with recognition, fuse product excellence with experiential access, open the doors to thousands instead of hundreds and prove that aspiration scales not through exclusion but through what might be called “inclusive elevation” making people feel chosen rather than locked out. Both approaches create Cultural Nations. Both export soft power across borders. Both shape collective taste and memory. But they operate on fundamentally opposed principles about how desire is created and sustained.

Share

And here’s what should genuinely concern LVMH’s followers: in a world increasingly fatigued by algorithmic hype, influencer oversaturation and brands that scream for attention but deliver little substance - a world where consumers are simultaneously hungry for meaning and exhausted by gatekeeping: L’Oréal’s model might be more dangerous than LVMH realizes. Because while LVMH has spent three decades perfecting the art of the velvet rope, L’Oréal has spent three decades mastering something equally powerful and perhaps more scalable: making millions of people feel genuinely chosen, valued and included in something special.

That’s what their beauty empire has proven at global scale. And if they can translate that operating system from beauty to fashion and generate desirability while democratizing access: LVMH won’t just have a competitor in the traditional sense. They’ll have a rival Cultural Nation built on opposite philosophical foundations, one that doesn’t challenge LVMH’s dominance by playing their game better, but by rewriting the rules of the game entirely.

The Armani succession isn’t about acquiring one Italian fashion house. It’s about L’Oréal proving they can win a game LVMH thought only they could play. And if you were watching Paris Fashion Week closely this past October, you’d realize the opening move has already been made.

ACT II: The Operating System War

For the past decade, analysts have framed luxury’s competitive landscape as LVMH versus Kering, titan against challenger, the dominant Cultural Nation against the ambitious copy. But Kering was never building a different model; they were trying to execute LVMH’s playbook with different assets. They pursued the same elevation strategy, the same auteur creative directors, the same mystique-through-scarcity approach. When Kering struggled, it wasn’t because the model was wrong, it was because LVMH had already perfected it and running the same playbook against an entrenched master is a losing proposition.

Subscribe now

What’s emerging now is fundamentally different. L’Oréal isn’t trying to out-LVMH LVMH. They’re building the anti-thesis, a Cultural Nation constructed on opposing principles about how desire is created, sustained and scaled. This isn’t a competitive skirmish within agreed-upon rules. This is a civilizational clash between two visions of luxury’s future:

These aren’t tactical differences in marketing or distribution. They represent fundamentally divergent beliefs about the nature of luxury itself. LVMH’s model assumes that cultural sovereignty requires scarcity, that desire is generated through careful gatekeeping, through the understanding that not everyone can access the sacred ritual. It’s a model that has worked spectacularly for three decades, turning LVMH into a €400 billion Cultural Nation that shapes global taste.

L’Oréal is making a different bet: that in 2025, luxury fashion CAN scale. That you can create pilgrimage-level loyalty without the velvet rope. And here’s the irony: LVMH has already proven the Colosseum model works with their fastest growing Maison, SEPHORA, a beauty Colosseum that generates the kind of devotion luxury brands dream about: customers queuing for hours at openings, treating shopping as social ritual, engaging with fanatical intensity across its 2,700 stores and a beauty App. Sephora doesn’t have invitation-only experiences for three hundred VVICs. It welcomes hundreds of millions and somehow that accessibility hasn’t diminished desire, it’s amplified it.

The question that should concern LVMH: what if L’Oréal applied that playbook to luxury fashion?

The Evidence They’re Already Building It

L’Oréal isn’t theorizing about entering luxury fashion. They’re constructing the infrastructure, testing the model, signalling their intentions to anyone watching. The evidence is hiding in plain sight, dismissed by the luxury establishment as noise from a beauty company that doesn’t understand fashion. But what if L’Oréal isn’t misunderstanding the rules, what if they’re rewriting them?

Paris Fashion Week’s public show was a declaration. When L’Oréal staged that open-air spectacle for thousands in October 2025, we dismissed it as publicity, perhaps gauche, certainly “not luxury.” But that show was strategic signalling. L’Oréal was publicly staking out different territory.

Share

1. Beauty licenses are Trojan horses. L’Oréal holds beauty licenses for YSL, Prada, Valentino, Armani, Mugler: spending years learning these customers intimately. They know which products sell in which markets, which messages resonate, which price points drive volume versus prestige. In many markets, particularly Asia, L’Oréal understands these brands’ customers better than the fashion Maisons themselves. When they consider acquiring Armani fashion or YSL fashion, they’re not going in blind, they’re reunifying brands they already know how to operate, with customer relationships they’ve cultivated for decades.

2. L’Oréal’s balance sheet enables offence while LVMH and the rest of the luxury industry, plays defence. Luxury is softening globally. LVMH’s strategic response is fortification: protecting margins, investing in creativity, weathering the storm. But fortification means they’re not expanding. Meanwhile, L’Oréal sits on €15 billion deployable capital and diversified cash flow across economic cycles. While LVMH fortifies, L’Oréal can acquire struggling brands at depressed valuations. One Cultural Nation (LVMH) is defensive, the other (L’Oréal) is preparing to advance.

3. L’Oréal’s digital fluency rivals LVMH’s heritage. There’s an assumption that traditional fashion Maisons have inherent advantages in brand-building and cultural cachet. But L’Oréal has spent two decades mastering e-commerce conversion, authentic influencer ecosystems, social engagement, AI beauty-tech and predictive analytics. They’re not catching up in digital: they’re already fluent in the language the next generation speaks natively. While LVMH has mastered the coronation, L’Oréal has mastered omnichannel desire, being everywhere their customer is, without diluting the brand.

The Question LVMH Isn’t Asking

This isn’t luxury becoming mass. It’s a generation raised on the internet, where access to information is democratic but curation creates value. They don’t conflate scarcity with quality, they’ve seen too many hyped drops collapse. They want substance, story and inclusion in something meaningful.

Both could be right. These models can coexist, serving different psychologies, creating different but equally valid Cultural Nations.

But if L’Oréal is right, the luxury landscape in 2030 will look radically different than the one the Arnault family has dominated for three decades. The next luxury empire LVMH doesn’t see isn’t being built in Milan ateliers or London showrooms. It’s being constructed in Clichy, by executives who’ve spent decades proving that democratic aspiration can generate pilgrimage-level loyalty at global scale.

And the first battle in this war is about to begin, over the succession of a 91-year-old Italian designer who understood, perhaps better than anyone, that luxury can scale to the many, not just the few. The question is: which Cultural Nation will steward that ethos into the future?

ACT III: The 5-Year Scenario LVMH Isn’t Modelling

LVMH’s strategy teams are the best the world has ever seen. From former McKinsey partners to savvy entrepreneurs who invented Pokémon GO, they’ve got a deep bench. They model competitive threats, war-game scenarios, stress-test their portfolio against macro shocks and industry disruption. But there’s one scenario very few are modelling, because it requires believing that a beauty company COULD become a luxury fashion empire within a single business cycle. It requires taking seriously the possibility that L’Oréal isn’t just acquiring Armani, they’re initiating a systematic campaign to build a rival Cultural Nation. If you’re willing to entertain that possibility, even as an intellectual exercise, the playbook becomes disturbingly clear.

Here’s how it unfolds, year by year, acquisition by acquisition, until LVMH wakes up in 2030 facing something they never anticipated: a peer competitor built on opposite principles.

Share

2025: The Armani Acquisition as Proof of Concept

L’Oréal wins the Armani succession, not necessarily by outbidding LVMH in pure financial terms, but by out-narrating them on strategic logic. They make the case that unifying Armani fashion and beauty under one roof, after decades of successful beauty stewardship, represents the natural evolution of the brand. They argue that Armani’s future isn’t as “another” Maison in LVMH’s constellation of 75 brands, but as the cornerstone of something new: a luxury fashion group built for democratic aspiration at scale. The Armani family advisors, swayed by L’Oréal’s track record with the beauty business and their vision for making it the flagship, accept the offer. The transaction closes at €8 billion and L’Oréal immediately signals that this isn’t a passive portfolio addition.

Within months, they appoint a Creative Director who breaks the mold of traditional luxury: someone who is a household name, but not a traditional designer. Not another Anderson or Slimane, but a “Pharrell-level” cultural architect capable of staging a public spectacle - global icons like Zendaya or Lady Gaga reigniting her Italian roots. They clearly represent the next generation’s codes of aspiration.

Then comes the resurrection moment: a public spectacle staged not in some exclusive Parisian venue, but in a location designed for scale, perhaps Piazza Duomo in Milan, Armani’s spiritual home, transformed into an open-air Colosseum. Thousands attend in person. Millions watch globally. The show rivals Dior’s billion-view coronation in production value and cultural impact, but inverts its exclusivity. The message is unmistakable: Armani is back, and it’s for everyone who values the craft. And when the resurrection succeeds and the collection is praised, then sales respond and Armani regains cultural voltage. This is how L’Oréal validates its thesis. The playbook works. And they won’t stop at one brand.

2026-2027: The Kering Raid - Reunification as Strategy

We can seriously presume that Kering’s struggles, already evident in 2025, deepen. Gucci’s creative reset fails to reignite growth, Bottega Veneta plateaus after its initial buzz fades and Saint Laurent, while still profitable, remains vulnerable in a contracting market. François-Henri Pinault faces pressure from shareholders and debt holders to simplify the portfolio, shed underperforming assets and return cash. His bankers come in with a request to reduce their debt. Kering will be in an uncomfortable position looking for a saviour. L’Oréal sees the opening and makes an offer that’s strategically elegant: buy Yves Saint Laurent fashion from Kering, reuniting it with YSL Beauty, which L’Oréal has distributed since 2015. The industrial logic is irresistible: vertical integration, cost synergies, unified brand narrative across categories. For Kering, it’s a chance to raise capital, focus on remaining core brands and exit a Maison that is at its peak value. The deal closes at a valuation depressed by market conditions, perhaps €6-7 billion, and suddenly L’Oréal owns two pillar fashion brands with distinct but complementary positioning: Armani representing timeless, Roman elegance and Yves Saint Laurent embodying Parisian edge and youthful rebellion. And both reunited with their beauty twin.

This is the moment the industry will start paying attention, because two acquisitions begin to look like a pattern. But luxury observers, still viewing L’Oréal through the lens of “beauty company playing in fashion,” may dismiss it as opportunistic rather than systematic. They’d be making the same mistake strategists always make when confronting paradigm shifts: assuming past behaviour predicts future intent.

Share

2028-2029: The Independent Sweep: Building the Constellation

The luxury market downturn that began in 2025 has created a landscape of distressed assets. Independent fashion houses that thrived during the post-COVID boom are now struggling with overcapacity, declining demand, and balance sheets strained by expansion. Ferragamo, Missoni, Tod’s, Roberto Cavalli, even Valentino if its ownership decides to exit, these are brands with genuine global recognition, decades of heritage and dormant cultural energy waiting for the right operating system to reignite them. L’Oréal doesn’t need to acquire all of them. They’re not building LVMH’s model of 75 Maisons across every luxury category. They need eight to ten fashion Maisons that represent fashion luxury at scale, each with distinct positioning, each capable of generating €2-5 billion in revenue under proper stewardship.

They cherry-pick strategically: Ferragamo for its leather goods heritage and opportunity in accessories, Missoni for its distinctive codes and home category potential, perhaps one wildcard brand that’s fallen from relevance but has name recognition in key growth markets. Each acquisition follows the same playbook: reunify with existing beauty licenses where they exist, appoint culturally fluent creative leadership, integrate into L’Oréal’s digital and retail infrastructure and stage public resurrection moments that announce the brand’s return. The acquisitions happen at depressed valuations, because L’Oréal is buying during market weakness while LVMH, Kering and Richemont are in defensive posture. By 2029, L’Oréal Luxe Fashion Group is no longer a speculative venture: it’s a portfolio of six to eight brands generating combined revenues approaching €25-30 billion, with a proven operating model and aggressive growth trajectory. Hundreds of millions of consumers.

And then comes the acquisition that changes everything…

2029-2030 - The Chanel Endgame: Checkmate

Alain Wertheimer is 77 years old. Gérard Wertheimer is 74. The brothers have stewarded Chanel with fierce independence for decades, resisting every advance from LVMH, maintaining private ownership, building the brand into arguably the most desired luxury name on earth. But time is undefeated and even the Wertheimers must plan for succession. When the moment comes, whether through the brothers’ passing or simply their decision to secure the family’s financial future, Chanel will be available for acquisition for the first time in generations. The valuation will be staggering, over €50 billion, making it one of the largest luxury transactions in history.

LVMH will bid. It’s no secret for us Parisians that LVMH has wanted Chanel for thirty years, viewing it as the one major prize that has eluded them, the final jewel needed to make the Cultural Nation complete. But here’s where decades of competitive tension, media skirmishes and distance become a liability. The Wertheimer family have always protected their singularity, likely viewing LVMH as a corporate machine that would subsume Chanel’s independence into its vast portfolio. When the family advisors and heirs evaluate bids, they’re not just evaluating price, they’re evaluating stewardship, legacy, and trust.

Share

L’Oréal makes its case. They’re not a fashion conglomerate trying to add another trophy asset. They’re a beauty company that has successfully stewarded Armani from dormant prince to a cultural revival and phenomena. They argue that Chanel would become the crown jewel of their fashion group, the flagship that defines their entire Cultural Nation, rather than Maison #76 in someone else’s empire. They emphasize their track record of respecting brand independence while providing operational excellence. And critically, they have no competitive baggage, no history of retail warfare, no decades of mistrust to overcome. The Wertheimer heirs, persuaded that L’Oréal represents the safer custodian of Gabrielle Chanel’s legacy, accept the offer.

The transaction closes in 2030. L’Oréal Luxe Fashion Group now comprises Chanel, Yves Saint Laurent, Armani, and four to six other luxury fashion brands. Combined revenue: €40-50 billion, rivalling LVMH’s Fashion & Leather Goods division of €40ish billion. More importantly, L’Oréal owns Chanel, arguably the most desirable luxury Maison on earth, the one asset LVMH could not acquire, the symbolic and commercial centrepiece that legitimizes their entire Cultural Nation.

Two Cultural Nations, One Industry

By 2030, the luxury landscape has fundamentally transformed. LVMH remains dominant, still the Vatican of luxury, still commanding cultural sovereignty through elevation and mystique. But they’re no longer alone at the summit. L’Oréal has constructed a rival luxury empire, not a copy, but an alternative Cultural Nation built on democratic aspiration, omnichannel scale and the integration of pop culture with mythology. Both models coexist. Both export soft power globally. Both shape how billions of people understand desire. The question is no longer whether L’Oréal can compete in luxury fashion. The question is whether LVMH’s elevation model or L’Oréal’s democratization model better captures the next generation’s definition of luxury.

Bernard Arnault spent thirty years building a Vatican, assembling the world’s finest cathedrals of luxury through patient acquisition, creative genius and ruthless cultural curation and elevation. In five years, L’Oréal could build their own Roman Empire. And the Romans didn’t rule through theology. They won through territory expansion and appealing to millions of new followers.

Subscribe now

Why LVMH Sees an Ally, Not a Rival

The most dangerous aspect of L’Oréal’s potential strategy is how invisible it remains to LVMH and the entire luxury fashion industry. This isn’t willful blindness, it’s category bias so deeply embedded that it functions as strategic camouflage. LVMH doesn’t see L’Oréal as a threat for reasons that seem entirely rational: they’re a beauty company, we’re a luxury empire spanning fashion, watches, beauty, hospitality, champagne and holding the most prized real estate in 50 global cities: different games entirely. Sephora even carries L’Oréal brands in its stores: they’re allies, not competitors. There’s no overlap yet, no fashion Maisons in L’Oréal’s portfolio, nothing to trigger competitive alarm bells. And perhaps most powerfully, there’s operational confidence born from thirty years of untouchable dominance. Why would a company known for lipstick and skincare suddenly threaten an empire built on leather goods and haute couture?

But here’s what that confidence is missing: L’Oréal has already built the Operating System. They have global distribution infrastructure spanning 150 countries, digital fluency that rivals any luxury player, proven brand stewardship across luxury, prestige and mass categories. They’ve demonstrated that democratic aspiration works at massive scale, creating a Cultural Nation without velvet ropes. They hold a €200 billion market cap with diversified revenue streams and over €15 billion in deployable capital, precisely when luxury assets are trading at distressed valuations. And critically, they’re testing the fashion model in public: that Paris Fashion Week show wasn’t a random marketing stunt, it was reconnaissance, a live experiment in whether public spectacle can rival the velvet rope in generating desire.

The “Barbarians” at the Gates

The greatest strategic failures in history share a common pattern: the incumbent dismisses the insurgent until it’s too late to respond. LVMH sees a friendly beauty company. They should be seeing a mirror image, a different Cultural Nation built on opposite principles, but equally sovereign, equally ambitious and possibly, equally formidable.

This isn’t a prediction. It is the logical endpoint of a pattern already in motion. L’Oréal is preparing to enter luxury fashion, not by copying LVMH, but by building its inverse - the Colosseum. A Cultural Nation based on democratic aspiration, omnichannel scale and the fusion of populism in luxury mythology.

And LVMH may be watching it happen, perhaps still believing L’Oréal is an ally in beauty, not a rival for luxury’s future.

So, how’s it going? Right now, LVMH is staring at L’Oréal, seeing a partner and it’s going well. A beauty company that distributes its products and collaborates with LVMH’s Sephora.

The fall of history’s greatest empires was rarely a story of frontal assault. It was a story of complacency, of overlooking the fundamental shifts happening at the periphery until the new reality was already inside the gates.

The question is whether LVMH, so focused on its own cathedrals of desire, will notice the rival empire rising until they’re already inside the gates of luxury, drinking their champagne?

The Armani succession will provide the answer. And luxury’s future will never be quite the same. But foresight is at the heart of Monsieur Arnault’s legacy; it is his greatest asset. Perhaps that very foresight will lead him to see this path and enshrine Armani in his own Pantheon.

Share

On October 6, 2025, three thousand people packed into La Caserne, a converted fire station in Paris’s 10th arrondissement, to watch a fashion show. Hundreds more queued outside, unable to get in. Inside, the crowd pressed shoulder-to-shoulder, eyes fixed on a giant laptop-shaped screen displaying Matthieu Blazy’s debut collection for Chanel. The atmosphere was electric, more football match than fashion ceremony, complete with cheers, gasps, and the kind of communal energy typically reserved for World Cup finals.

This wasn’t an official Chanel event. The house had spent millions staging a sacred ritual inside the Grand Palais, complete with hand-picked guests and hushed reverence. But here, a 26-year-old Parisian content creator named Elias Medini, known online as Lyas, had created a parallel universe where the show became a spectacle of a different kind. Free entry. Free beer. No velvet ropes. Just thousands of fashion obsessives watching together, sharing a cultural moment that luxury brands spent decades insisting should remain exclusive.

The irony? Lyas himself wasn’t even there…

His newfound influence, built by organizing unauthorized watch parties, had earned him something he’d been denied just four months earlier: a coveted seat at the actual Chanel show, inside the Grand Palais and at Dior at Les Tuileries. While his movement reached its zenith, he sat front row, absorbed into the very establishment he’d positioned himself against.

Here’s the thesis that should unsettle every luxury executive:

Elias Medini didn’t democratize fashion: he hijacked it. And he’s the best thing that’s happened to luxury in years.

It all started last June, Lyas was rejected from Jonathan Anderson’s Dior debut. Devastated at missing “history in the making” he brought a television from home to a Paris bar and invited his followers to watch with him thinking a dozen people would show up. Instead, hundreds of people showed up. In my review about Dior’s June show, I commented about Lyas’ conquest, but also warned that this may matter as much as what happens on the runway:

By October, he’d built a global movement: three cities, Milan, London and Paris, partnerships with Meta and the British Fashion Council, thousands of attendees per event, and enough cultural capital to transform Fashion Week’s consumption model.

Subscribe now

Maisons spent millions creating the content. Lyas captured the community, the data, the narrative, and the first-party relationships with luxury’s most passionate future customers. He built his empire on intellectual property he didn’t create, distributing copyrighted content without authorization, and established himself as the new gatekeeper to an industry built on controlled access.

The uncomfortable truth? He’s not a revolutionary. He’s the new middleman and Maisons just handed him the keys to their Cultural Nation. In my analysis of Dior’s billion-view moment, I called out this exact risk: broadcast without distribution sovereignty, and someone else builds the theater:

This is fashion’s Napster moment.

And if Maisons don’t learn from the music industry’s mistakes, they’re about to watch a 26-year-old with a TV from home own the infrastructure they should build. But first, we need to understand exactly what they’re surrendering.

Share

The Hijacking: What Lyas Controls (And What Maisons Are Losing)

Lyas built his empire on intellectual property he didn’t create. Maisons spend millions producing shows; he brought a $500 television from home to a Parisian bar. Yet in doing so, he seized control of four pillars of cultural power that luxury Maisons are only now realizing they’d left unguarded.

1. Access & Distribution: The New Velvet Rope

Three thousand people experienced Matthieu Blazy’s Chanel debut at La Watch Party. Roughly one thousand sat inside the Grand Palais. Lyas’s audience was triple Chanel’s official one. Two thousand people came for Anderson with Lyas’ party, yet only 300 sat inside Les Tuileries with First Lady Macron and Anderson himself. You can do the math.

But this isn’t just about headcount. It’s about who controls the gateway. Inside the Grand Palais, Chanel decided who entered, where they sat, what they experienced. At La Watch Party, those decisions belonged to Lyas. He chose which shows to screen. He curated the environment. He determined capacity, vibe, and access rules.

He’s not eliminating gatekeeping: he’s becoming a new gatekeeper. The door simply moved.

This is a pattern luxury veterans should recognize. Department stores like Barneys and Bloomingdales once controlled access to designer brands. Net-a-Porter became the middleman for digital distribution. Farfetch built a platform on the backs of boutiques’ inventory. Now Lyas is doing the same thing for fashion’s most sacred ritual: the show itself. He’s the platform. Maisons are the content creators. And just like influencers who build audiences on rented land, luxury brands are discovering they don’t own the venue where their content is consumed.

The shows livestream on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok, platforms luxury doesn’t control. Lyas simply took that stream, put it on a bigger screen, and added the one thing algorithms can’t provide: physical community. He built distribution infrastructure while Maisons were still treating shows as one-off marketing events. Even Meta recognized the value immediately, sponsoring Lyas and proving that Big Tech understands the IRL community gap that luxury doesn’t. Good catch Zuk.

2. Narrative & Cultural Framing: Whose Story Is It?

Google “Chanel Matthieu Blazy debut” and notice what appears: articles about the collection, certainly. But just as many about Lyas’s Watch Party. Vogue, The New York Times, Dazed, all wrote about him. Carine Roitfeld, former Vogue Paris editor, praised him for “breaking a closed-door industry.” His Instagram video from the June Dior party garnered millions of views.

Subscribe now

The narrative shifted from “Chanel’s triumphant new era” to “Lyas’s movement democratizing fashion.” He didn’t just redistribute Chanel’s content, he reframed it. The shows became supporting characters in his story.

This should sound familiar. In my analysis of Dior’s billion-view moment with Jonathan Anderson, I asked: “Who owns this historic event: Dior or the algorithm?” The answer was uncomfortable then. It’s more uncomfortable now, because the algorithm has a name and a face. And he’s building a media empire on luxury’s creative labor.

When Lyas screens a show, he’s not just showing it, he’s curating it, contextualizing it, interpreting it. He’s the host, the commentator, the community leader. The Maison that spent months preparing the collection becomes the content. He becomes the author.

3. Community & First-Party Relationships: Who Owns the Audience?

Thousands of people gave their attention, their data, their emotional energy to an event organized by Lyas, not Chanel. They follow him on Instagram. They RSVP through his channels. They trust his taste, his curation, his point of view.

Share

These aren’t casual observers. They’re students who’ll become designers, executives, politicians, entrepreneurs. Industry workers from Jacquemus and smaller ateliers. Fashion obsessives who save for months to afford a single timeless piece. This is luxury’s future customer base, and Lyas is building the direct relationship with them, not the Maisons themselves.

This is top-of-funnel brand building at scale, and luxury brands aren’t capturing any of it. No email addresses. No purchase intent data. No ability to nurture these relationships toward conversion. Lyas owns the community. Maisons rent attention for 45 minutes.

The business parallel is obvious: this is exactly what happened when multi-brand retailers controlled customer relationships. Brands sold through them but never owned the customer data. It took decades and massive investment in direct-to-consumer strategies to win those relationships back. Now, in the digital realm, luxury is repeating the same mistake.

4. Data & Engagement Signals: The Invisible Gold Mine

Here’s what Lyas knows that Maisons don’t: which brands draw crowds. One thousand people showed up for Bottega Veneta in Milan. Three thousand for Chanel in Paris. That’s revealed preference data worth millions in market research.

He sees real-time reactions. Which looks get applause. Which fall flat. Who shows up: their age, style, social graphs, brand affinities. He understands engagement patterns: do people arrive early, stay late, rewatch on social? He’s conducting live focus groups for every major show and Maisons get none of those insights.

Meanwhile, they spent millions producing the shows that generate this data.

And here’s the kicker: technically, Lyas is distributing copyrighted content without authorization. Fashion shows are intellectual property. Public exhibition requires licensing. But maisons haven’t stopped him, because they’re terrified of looking anti-democratic, of being the luxury villain who shut down the “people’s party.”

Share

So they stay silent while someone else builds infrastructure on their IP, captures their audience and controls the narrative around their most important cultural moments.

Lyas didn’t create the value. He simply recognized that Maisons had left it lying on the table and picked it up.

The question is: how long before luxury realizes what it’s surrendered?

The Napster Paradox: When Democratization Destroys Desirability

We’ve seen this movie before. In 1999, Napster “democratized” music, making it free, accessible, peer-to-peer. The music industry’s response was predictable: lawsuits, resistance, denial. They fought to protect the old distribution model, convinced that exclusivity and control were non-negotiable.

They won the battle. Napster was shut down by 2001.

But they lost the war. Because instead of learning from Napster, instead of building legitimate digital alternatives themselves, the industry spent a decade fighting piracy while Apple built iTunes, then Spotify built streaming, then YouTube captured music video distribution. By the time labels realized they needed owned digital platforms, it was too late. They became tenants, not landlords. Spotify and Apple control discovery, playlists and customer relationships. Artists get fractions of pennies per stream.

The lesson was clear: when someone proves latent demand exists for a new consumption model, you have two choices. Fight the messenger, or learn the message.

Luxury is at that exact fork in the road right now.

Share

Lyas is fashion’s Napster: proof that the old distribution model is broken, that audiences crave communal, accessible, digital-first experiences. Maisons can issue cease-and-desist letters, shut down his watch parties, and “protect exclusivity.” But that won’t stop Instagram and TikTok from owning fashion’s distribution anyway. Or they can do what the music industry should have done in 2001: build the owned infrastructure before Big Tech does it for them.

In my analysis of Paris Fashion Week through the Formula One blueprint, I argued that Maisons must treat shows “not as a single spectacle, but as a serialized cultural property” with owned distribution. F1 didn’t let random sports bars become the official viewing experience. They built F1 TV, fan zones at every Grand Prix, partnerships with Netflix and Apple. They controlled both the content and the venue.

Lyas proves fashion hasn’t done this. Maisons own the content. He owns the infrastructure.

But Here’s the Deeper Problem

Even if Lyas is showing Maisons what to build, his mission is fundamentally incompatible with luxury’s core proposition.

Luxury is built on distance, scarcity, sovereignty. As I wrote in my analysis of Dior’s billion-view moment:

Desirability requires elevation, not democratization. The space between the ordinary and extraordinary is where desire lives.

Lyas’s philosophy is the opposite. His own words to The Times:

Free entry. Free beer. First-come, first-served. Anti-hierarchy. Anti-scarcity. He believes exclusivity is fashion’s bug. Yet luxury’s entire business model says it’s the main feature.

Is he helping or hurting? Some will argue his parties are pure upside: awareness, cultural heat, proof that Gen Z cares about fashion. But this misses the fundamental tension.

My take? He’s building desire among students who might become customers in a decade, that’s top-of-funnel marketing. But he’s also collapsing the scarcity that makes luxury worth wanting. How do you justify a €10,000 dress when the show revealing it is consumed in a bar with free cocktails, treated like a football match?

Subscribe now

In my Coronation Playbook, I argued that “luxury is built on hierarchy and tiered intimacy.” The model rewards loyalty through sequenced access: VVICs experience it first, VICs next, aspirants after. Lyas does the opposite, he collapses the tiers entirely. A Chanel client who’s spent €500,000 lifetime value watches on the same screen, at the same moment, as someone else with zero purchase history. This isn’t intimacy. It’s not verticality. It’s the algorithmic feed made physical.

Look at Loro Piana, LVMH’s fastest-growing Maison, as I detailed in “The Cultural Nation Strikes Back.” They reject algorithmic noise. They maintain scarcity. They would never allow a Lyas-style watch party, because they understand that some things should remain inaccessible. That’s not elitism, it’s the entire value proposition.

And here’s the class dynamic nobody’s discussing: Lyas claims “democratization” but his parties require being in Paris, London, or Milan during Fashion Week. The ability to queue for hours at La Caserne. This isn’t accessibility for a kid in Mumbai or Sacramento or Copenhagen. It’s democratization for the already-proximate: Parisians, fashion students, industry workers.

He didn’t eliminate the barrier to entry. He just lowered it from “front row at the Grand Palais” to “standing room at a bar in the 10th arrondissement.” It’s still exclusive. It’s still geography-locked.

If Maisons wanted true democratization, they’d build free global digital platforms accessible to anyone with internet.

Which brings us to the only question that matters: What should luxury actually do?

The Right Path for Luxury Fashion

Lyas exposed a gap maisons didn’t know they had: they own culture-shaping content but not the infrastructure where it’s consumed. The window to close this gap is narrowing. He went from zero to three-thousand-person events in four months. If he or others like him scale to fifty cities with ten thousand attendees per show, they become infrastructure luxury can no longer ignore.

Any of these three paths is better than the current strategy: doing nothing.

Option A: Acquire the Movement

LVMH or Chanel could hire Lyas to run official watch parties globally. LAWATCHPARTY becomes LVMH Live or Chanel Cinéma. He brings community trust, curatorial instinct, and the social capital he’s built. The Maisons provide venues, budget, official authorization and brand oversight.

This legitimizes the model while bringing the audience in-house. It neutralizes a potential threat, better to have him inside the tent than outside. The historical parallel is clear: luxury has done this before when it hired streetwear designers like Virgil Abloh after his model proved viable.

But the risks are real. Lyas’s power comes from being anti-establishment. The moment he’s on a corporate payroll, does the magic fade? Does the community see him as co-opted? And can the model scale beyond Lyas himself or is this entirely dependent on his personal brand?

I quoted Bernard Arnault in my analysis of the Cultural Nation:

“It’s not revenue I think about, but quality, image, and desirability of our brands.”

Acquiring Lyas isn’t about monetizing Watch Parties. It’s about owning the community and creating desirability before someone else does.

Option B: Build the Competitor

Instead of co-opting Lyas, maisons could make him irrelevant by building superior official alternatives. Launch Chanel or LVMH Fashion Nights, simultaneous watch parties in twenty-five cities globally, hosted in flagship stores and exquisite venues.

This executes Act IV of the Coronation Playbook I outlined: The Proclamation. Flagship stores become cultural embassies. Each hosts a curated screening experience with spatial design that echoes the show’s aesthetic, champagne service, and brand ambassadors greeting guests (and presumably taking orders).

But here’s the crucial difference from Lyas’s model: tiered access. VVICs get private viewing rooms with exclusive behind-the-scenes commentary. VICs receive priority seating in the main theater. General admission is standing room, limited capacity, RSVP required.

Share

This maintains hierarchy. It rewards loyalty. It preserves the vertical intimacy that makes luxury desirable while still creating communal experiences at scale.

The F1 parallel is exact. Formula One didn’t let random sports bars become the default viewing experience. They created official Fan Zones at every Grand Prix. They built owned digital infrastructure with F1 TV. As I wrote in the Paris Fashion Week analysis: “F1 turned the paddock into a stage... This is the blueprint for transforming a niche ritual into a global Cultural Nation.”

F1 controls both the content and the venues. The race and the infrastructure. Maisons need to do the same.

The advantage of this path: it uses existing infrastructure, flagship stores, and can launch tomorrow. It’s brand-controlled, globally scalable, and reinforces luxury’s core proposition. The official version doesn’t just compete with Lyas, it makes his model look like the inferior alternative it is.

Most importantly, it captures first-party data. Every RSVP goes through the Maison’s platform. Every attendee becomes part of the customer relationship ecosystem. The community isn’t Lyas’s: it’s Dior’s, Chanel’s, LVMH’s.

Option C: Disintermediate Entirely

The most radical path: build Maison-owned broadcasting platforms. A direct-to-consumer digital infrastructure for all shows, archives, and behind-the-scenes content.

Subscribe now

This is vertical integration of content, storytelling, client intimacy, loyalty and distribution. It says: “We don’t need Instagram, TikTok, or intermediaries like Lyas. We own the entire stack.”

The model F1 TV pioneered proves this works. Subscribers get live access to all races, multiple camera angles, driver onboard perspectives, team radio, and archives dating back decades. F1 controls discovery, recommendation, and narrative. No algorithm decides what fans see. The sport itself does:

As I wrote in a previous piece: “F1 built a moat around its craft... securing pricing power, mystique, and direct relationship with billions.”

For fashion, this means tiered access architecture. A free tier with basic viewing drives top-of-funnel awareness. A premium tier offers multiple camera angles, full show archives, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and early access to collection lookbooks. VIC-exclusive tiers include private digital salons with live commentary, the ability to submit questions to creative directors and frontline access to collections.

The investment is obviously significant: building custom platforms, content management systems, payment & customer infrastructure. But this is a sovereignty play, not a revenue play. The goal is control: over the customer relationship, the data, the narrative, and the entire consumption experience. This is ultimately an extension of the strategy Bernard Arnault implemented in the 1990s when he told department stores they will no longer be distributing its products and suddenly LVMH and its peers invested billions of dollars to create and open retail cathedrals in every corner of the earth, from high fashion streets, airports and even beachfronts.

Share

That genius, to take back full control of the customer experience, is the single reason that Arnault is the only non-tech billionaire in the top 5. I mean, look at these retail cathedrals:

This path takes twelve to eighteen months to execute. It requires vision and patience. But it’s the only option that achieves total disintermediation: no Big Tech platforms, no influencer middlemen, no algorithmic chaos. From raw materials to the collective imaginary, Maisons would be “Maitre Chez Nous” and finally create a cashmere moat Big Tech couldn’t infiltrate.

It’s the fullest expression of the Cultural Nation : owning not just the creative vision but the entire distribution architecture.

The Hybrid Approach

Maisons don’t have to choose just one path. The smartest strategy is sequential:

Today: Launch official “Flagship Watch Parties” (Option B). This is fast, uses existing infrastructure, and immediately neutralizes Lyas while announcing that an owned platform is in development. Or just hire Lyas to run the team with Maisons resources and let him innovate, but inside the Maisons.

January: Beta-launch the streaming platform for VICs only (Option C). Test, refine, build the content library, and prove the model works before going public.

Summer 2026: Public platform launch. Phase out reliance on Instagram-TikTok-YouTube livestreams. The Maison now owns both the physical infrastructure (Flagships) and the digital infrastructure (broadcasting platform) to speak directly to its customers, community and fans. True Cultural Sovereignty:

The urgency cannot be overstated. The music industry waited ten years to respond to Napster. By then, Apple and Spotify owned distribution. Labels became tenants forever.

As I wrote in The Cultural Nation Strikes Back:

Lyas is the visible symptom of an invisible problem: Maisons don’t own the venues, physical or digital, where their content is consumed. The solution isn’t to fight him. It’s to build the stadiums he proved were needed all along.

The Stadium Is Full: Who Will Own It?

Lyas is both luxury’s best case study and its biggest threat. He’s the proof of concept that Watch Parties work, that fashion can be consumed as live cultural ritual, that audiences crave participation beyond passive scrolling.

In my Dior billion-view cautionary tale I wrote:

Lyas went viral. He built horizontal reach: thousands of people in Paris, thousands more across eight cities, millions following online.

But he didn’t build verticality. No tiered intimacy. No hierarchical access. No sovereignty over the long-term relationship. He proved people will show up. He didn’t prove he can build something that lasts beyond the hype cycle.

That’s what Maisons must do: take his proof of concept and ELEVATE it. Build the official infrastructure, the Flagship watch parties, the Owned digital platforms, the global distribution networks. Not louder than Lyas, but infinitely higher. Not more democratic, but more sovereign.

Because here’s what the last four months revealed: Lyas is the best thing that’s happened to luxury in years. Not because of what he built, but because of what he exposed: the distribution gap Maisons didn’t think they had.

Subscribe now

The question is whether Maisons will build their own, or keep letting a twenty-six-year-old with a television from home own the stage.

In fashion’s Napster moment, the choice is binary: own the infrastructure or surrender to those who will. Because, Luxury was never about who gets in. It was always about who controls the door.

Share

The recent billion-view debut from Dior Men proved that a luxury fashion Maison can command global attention, but also that its authorship can dissolve the moment the final look leaves the runway. Even though Paris Fashion Week is a cultural coronation, for too long, luxury Maisons have treated it like a marketing beat. They spend millions to stage a sacred ritual, only to surrender the narrative to the chaos of algorithmic feeds, allowing their mystique to be flattened into memes and trending clips.

This is the central paradox facing luxury, and a new playbook is desperately needed. To find it, we must look at another world of elite performance that has already mastered this transformation: Formula 1.

Subscribe now

For decades, F1 was an exclusive insider's club, much like luxury fashion is today. Under former owner Bernie Ecclestone, the sport was managed with a strict philosophy: keep it exclusive, ban social media, and ignore young fans because they couldn't afford the sponsors' products anyway. This was a sport for avid viewers, but it lacked broad appeal and media savvy.

Then came a strategic intervention. When Liberty Media acquired F1 for $4.4 billion in 2017, they initiated a cultural revolution. They lifted the social media ban, began telling the human stories of the drivers, and most famously, partnered with Netflix for the docu-series Drive to Survive and made a movie with Apple that’s on its way to shatter the $1 billion mark and already is the most successful sports film in history. Liberty Media intuitively understood the need for narrative sovereignty and built a sovereign cultural stack to reclaim it.

The result was a dramatic shift in how the world consumed F1. It transformed from a niche sport into a global cultural phenomenon, with its audience growing younger, more diverse, and more engaged than ever before. F1's fanbase has surged to 827 million, with 43% of fans under 35 and 42% female representation in 2025. The sport has attracted major partnerships with global brands like Disney, LEGO and LVMH, with the latter signing a historic 10-year global partnership in 2025.

The lesson for luxury is clear: this isn't about selling out; it's about scaling sovereignty. F1's transformation proves that by owning the narrative and creating a compelling cultural infrastructure, an elite entity can turn a niche passion into a global obsession.

Share Marc Abergel - Cultural OS

The Billion-View Paradox: When Coronation Becomes Content

This past June, Jonathan Anderson, the newly appointed Dior Creative Director didn’t just make fashion history. He redefined the scale of cultural broadcast with a seismic number: One Billion. Anderson’s 75-minute cinematic spectacle during Paris Fashion Week drew more than a billion views, more than the Super Bowl, more than a World Cup Final. For a moment, the entire world stopped scrolling and looked towards Paris. It was a cultural and financial thunderclap: proof that luxury Fashion could rival the world’s most valuable cultural events.

And yet, this victory also exposed a fundamental weakness that should unsettle every leader, not only in the luxury fashion industry - but consumer brands at large. Allow me to explain:

Inside the show space, Dior meticulously staged a state ceremony, complete with hushed reverence, a hand-picked guest list, and a palpable aura of occasion. But, the moment this ritual was simultaneously broadcast to the world, it was stripped of all its context and sacredness, flattened into just another piece of content. The coronation quickly became a meme, with the billion-view event chopped, captioned, and fed into an algorithm that prioritizes speed over soul.

This is the "Billion-View Paradox" in action: Anderson's debut proved a Maison can command global attention, but it also revealed how quickly authorship dissolves. The story no longer belonged to Dior; it was handed over to TikTok aggregators and anonymous clip-makers, surrendered to the chaos of the feed:

By treating Paris Fashion Week as a marketing event: unveil, post, archive - Maisons are committing an act of abdication. They are not just missing an opportunity; they are actively surrendering their stage and their most potent weapon: cultural sovereignty. They spend millions to stage a coronation, only to broadcast it on enemy territory, paying Big Tech platforms billions for the privilege of having their mystique eroded. This is the Faustian Bargain I wrote about playing out in real-time, season after season:

When a luxury Fashion Maison allows its most sacred ritual to be defined by others, it isn't just losing control and ROI of its marketing. It is losing sovereignty over the very meaning that makes luxury desirable.

Paris Fashion Week is not just a seasonal event; it is the ultimate soft power asset. It's time for Maisons to stop merely staging runway shows and start building empires.

Enter, The F1 Playbook, Reimagined for Luxury as Coronation

Share

The Coronation Playbook: A Five-Act Strategy to reclaim cultural sovereignty

Think of Paris Fashion Week as Formula 1. The race itself, the runway show, is just one act. The real power comes from what surrounds it: the training, the rivalries, the behind-the-scenes access, the global broadcasts, the partnerships. F1 turned a two-hour race into a year-round cultural drama, woven into Netflix seasons, blockbuster cinema and Disney tie-ins. Luxury Maisons must treat Paris Fashion Week (and every other Fashion Week in the world) with the same sequencing: not as a single spectacle, but as a serialized cultural property that extends culture, intimacy, and authorship far beyond the catwalk.

Fashion Week organizers and luxury Maisons must stop thinking in terms of marketing campaigns and start thinking in terms of coronations. A coronation is a multi-act ceremony of power, meticulously sequenced to build aura, reward loyalty, and assert sovereignty. This is about authorship at every stage, leaving no room for the algorithm to seize the crown.

Act I: The Summons

Every coronation begins with a call to command attention. Days before the show, the Maison must issue its "summons". This is not a teaser dropped onto Instagram to chase clicks, but a piece of cinematic mythmaking released exclusively on the Maison’s owned channels. Not marketing, it’s prophecy. Like a movie trailer that builds anticipation for an event of cultural significance, the summons is an artifact of culture designed to set the narrative on sovereign ground. Prada has masterfully executed this in the past, collaborating with directors like Wes Anderson to create short films that were not ads for products but invitations into a universe. This primes the world to listen, not just to watch…

Act II: The Vesting

Luxury is built on a hierarchy and tiered intimacy. The next act must honor this. Just as F1 offered a "fan-first premiere" for its movie starring Brad Pitt, giving fans exclusive early access, luxury Maisons can provide a similar experience for their most loyal patrons. Before the global broadcast of Fashion Week, a private, encrypted livestream is provided exclusively to the inner circle: the VVICs, top VICs, and key cultural allies, the likes of Anna Wintour. This is the ritual of vesting: rewarding loyalty by transforming spectators into participants in the ceremony. They are not just watching the coronation; they are in the court. This sequenced access (VVIC → VIC → aspirants) reinforces the very architecture of desire: the most loyal feel it first, the aspirational witness it next. It is the digital equivalent of being led from the antechamber into the throne room. Because in luxury, access is not democratic, it is conferred. This is not exclusion; it is elevation.

Act III – The Coronation

The show itself is the state ceremony where myth is staged as reality. It must be treated as a cultural moment, owned and distributed first by the Maison, not parceled out to Big Tech platforms that dilute its authorship. The goal is no longer just to be seen, but to be felt with the full, unmediated weight of the authored vision. Jonathan Anderson's debut for Dior is the new benchmark, a 75-minute spectacle paced like a cultural film rather than a catwalk sprint. It proved that authored intimacy, not algorithmic noise, can stop the scroll and create a gravitational pull of a billion viewers. F1's success with Drive to Survive and its Brad Pitt film shows the power of treating a seasonal event as a cinematic narrative. The F1 film was shot during actual Grand Prix weekends, blurring the lines between sport and entertainment and turning the season into a story that captivated audiences worldwide and became the largest-grossing sports film of all time. Luxury Maisons, by treating their runway shows with the same cinematic rigor, can make their audience dream, creating an event as big as any F1 race. LVMH remains the best candidate to step forward and bring their motto to life: Savoir-faire rêver.

Act IV: The Proclamation

A coronation's power must radiate beyond Paris. This is where flagship stores, much like the physical race locations in F1, are transformed into cultural embassies. They do not simply host watch parties but stage intimate, localized coronations through curated events, private screenings, and exclusive installations. This is the throne room abroad, yielding soft power by reinforcing that the Maison’s dominion extends across the grand boulevards and cultural capitals of the world. F1 also understands this, with events like the world premiere of its movie in Times Square and the European premiere in London's Leicester Square, which attracted Hollywood icons and F1 superstars. Retail becomes ritual; flagships become embassies; geography becomes soft power.

Act V: The Canonization

In the algorithmic age, impermanence is luxury’s enemy. The final act, therefore, is to ensure the moment and its meaning be canonized, not vanish. To continue crafting culture well after the show. This is achieved by creating a rich afterlife for the moment: behind-the-scenes documentaries, digital archives, podcasts with the creative director dissecting the cultural references. Crucially, the Maison should partner with museums and cultural institutions to enshrine itself into the fabric of civilization. Louis Vuitton’s collaboration with the Musée d’Orsay hinted at what’s possible, but the potential remains under-leveraged. By transforming a fleeting show into a permanent cultural asset, the Maison ensures its story is immune to "algorithmic decay” and not reduced to a trending clip. This is how a Maison can move beyond a seasonal calendar to own a piece of culture itself.

Together, these five acts form a Coronation Playbook. Not louder campaigns. But more intimacy, more resonance and more desirability. A choreography of cultural sovereignty: ensuring that what begins in Paris does not end on TikTok, but endures as authored myth.

Share

From Cultural Capital to Market Capitalization

Coronation is not a branding exercise or cultural poetry, it is hard strategy, with business consequences that every CEO should understand. The return on investment is no longer measured in fleeting impressions, but in what should be luxury's most coveted metric, Cultural ROI:

• Defensive Moat: Insulation from Hype Cycles & Algorithmic Risk

• The Sovereignty Premium: Restoring Pricing Power

• Building a First-Party Empire: Owning the Audience, unfiltered with no reliance to Big Tech

The ROI is real. Formula 1’s reinvention has more than doubled revenues since 2017, with record sponsorships from luxury players (including LVMH’s historic 10-year partnership) and fan bases that now span continents and demographics.

F1 didn’t sell out; it scaled sovereignty by owning its stage and sequencing its story into cinema, streaming, and stadium. The playbook is there; luxury just needs to run it. Just as F1 built a moat around its craft, Maisons that treat Fashion Week as a coronation rather than a marketing event will secure their pricing power, their mystique and their direct relationship with billions.

Building a defensive moat: In an age of algorithmic warfare, luxury Maisons must build a moat that competitors cannot cross and AI cannot replicate. This moat is built on aura, ritual, and cultural sovereignty, creating a cathedral of desire. F1 provides a stark lesson here: before Liberty Media's content revolution, brands like Haas were underdogs with a loyal but small fan base. Post-Drive to Survive, they became global icons, attracting major sponsorships and investment by leveraging their human story. In a similar vein, Kering provides a cautionary tale with Gucci's sales and aura collapsing under the weight of an algorithm-fueled hype machine. Meanwhile, Loro Piana's sustained growth, one of the fastest-growing Maisons at LVMH, is a testament to the power of sovereignty and quiet confidence in its legacy. One is a tenant of the algorithm; the other is a Cultural Nation.

Restoring Pricing Power: By restoring myth and cultural weight through a coronation, a Maison re-justifies its price premium on fundamental terms. When a handbag is no longer just a product seen everywhere, but an artifact from a cultural event, its value is imbued with the moment, the ritual, and the memory of the ceremony - not just the cost of materials or craft. This is how luxury defends its margins and insulates its value from the commodifying pressures of the digital age. Every coronation reinforces this premium.

Owning the audience: The coronation reclaims what luxury surrendered in the algorithmic era: its direct, unfiltered relationship with its audience. Instead of renting attention from platforms like Instagram or TikTok, the Maison cultivates a bond that no third-party platform can offer. Every encrypted stream, every embassy event, and every canonized archive generates first-party relationships rooted not in clicks but in emotional fidelity. These are not just metrics; they are memory banks that build lasting desirability.

Share

The Ultimate payoff: Lasting Desirability

The goal is not to win a single Fashion Week. It is to win the decade. Maisons that embrace the coronation model transcend the seasonal calendar; they move into the realm of authored culture and sovereign taste. They cease to be brands and become what I have previously called Cultural Nations: entities that export mythology, memory, and soft power on a civilizational scale. By staging sovereignty, they are not simply showing collections; they are constructing cathedrals of desire.

The choice before luxury is stark. Surrender sovereignty to algorithms, or rebel by becoming their own media powerhouses: authors of culture, not tenants of the feed. Formula 1 already proved the path. Under Liberty Media, it transformed from an elite sport into a global cultural juggernaut, expanding audiences and embedding itself into popular consciousness.

Subscribe now

LVMH’s recent 10-year partnership with F1 is no coincidence. It is a signal that the starting lights are out: the world’s leading Cultural Nation recognizes the value of sovereign storytelling, authorship, coronation and is positioning itself at the crossroads of adrenaline and art-de-vivre.

The lesson is clear. Maisons that master the coronation playbook will not just own the season. They will own a piece of culture itself.

The most consequential rumor in luxury is spreading fast: Jeff Bezos wants Condé Nast-Vogue. If true, this is not a media acquisition, it’s the biggest cultural power grab of the decade.

It’s a bid for the throne of taste, not for market share, it’s a takeover of the most coveted seat in culture. The Amazon founder has conquered commerce. Now, he wants the seat of cultural authority. But, why ?

For decades, Condé Nast and Vogue above all, have served as the quiet sculptors of desire, the unseen architects of what the world deems beautiful, relevant, and worth wanting. To own Vogue is to own the compass that orients aspiration and desirability itself.

There’s a precedent for this kind of move. In the mid-20th century, Sam Newhouse built a media empire by buying America’s most influential magazines. But where Newhouse acquired prestige, Bezos is pursuing power. This isn’t about controlling the newsstand, it’s about owning the digital loom where the fabric of global taste is woven, stitch by algorithmic stitch. The stakes are infinitely higher now because the battlefield isn’t paper, it’s the infrastructure of culture itself. Bezos understands this: control the instrument that defines taste and you can mint desirability on demand.

Bezos isn’t buying Vogue for its balance sheet. He’s buying a cultural sovereign. For more than a century, Vogue has crowned what elegance looks like, dictated the cadence of trends, and defined the symbols that signal status. It is not merely a publication; it is the Cultural Nation of style and taste, a sovereign power unto itself.

Subscribe now

Amazon already commands the “last mile” of commerce, that decisive stretch between warehouse and front door. With Vogue, Bezos aims to command the “last mile” of culture: the channel through which meaning itself is delivered. From the same infrastructure that perfected one-click shopping, he could engineer one-click desirability and aspiration.

And in this possible future, Anna Wintour remains in place as Global Chief Content Officer. This is not nostalgia, it’s a signal. The rumored retention of Wintour is a strategic masterstroke. If Bezos becomes Caesar, Anna is his cultural general. Her continued presence signals continuity in authority, but now with a tech empire’s machinery at her disposal.

Bezos isn’t buying media. He’s buying the Cultural Nation of style. But if he claims this throne, will the cultural nations of LVMH, Kering, Chanel, and Hermès fight for their sovereignty or surrender it?

Share

Culture is the new infrastructure for Big Tech

This isn’t about selling handbags. It’s about controlling the infrastructure that decides which handbags the world wants.

Amazon already commands the last mile of commerce. Now, Bezos wants the last mile of culture: the decisive stretch between what the world sees and what the world desires. Having perfected the logistical infrastructure of retail, he now seeks to dominate the cultural infrastructure that drives aspiration itself.

Luxury fashion knows this terrain. Kering, LVMH and others once flirted with Amazon, and recoiled.

“We believe the business of Amazon does not fit with LVMH full stop and it does not fit with our brands,” LVMH CFO Jean-Jacques Guiony told investors in a conference call as early as 2016

The platform’s mass-market ethos flattened exclusivity, making a $5,000 handbag feel uncomfortably adjacent to bulk detergent and phone chargers. Bezos isn’t making that mistake again. This time, he isn’t asking for a seat at the table. He’s buying the table, the dining hall, and more importantly, the seating chart that Vogue and Anna Wintour command so well.

Amazon’s earlier failure to sell luxury goods revealed a truth: luxury is not just about the product. It’s about the aura that surrounds it: the narrative, the ritual, the carefully orchestrated context. Cultural sovereignty. Bezos now understands that while the objects of luxury can be elusive, the feeling of luxury is scalable. And Vogue is the most efficient machine ever built to manufacture that feeling and resonance.

Subscribe now

Which is why Vogue cannot be treated as an editorial brand. It has been the most efficient taste-shaping engine on earth, the Ministry of Culture that codifies what is chic, relevant, aspirational. Give that engine to a platform that already moves everything else, and you fuse canon with carriage. Recommendation becomes decree.

This potential acquisition is the logical endgame of the Faustian Bargain luxury struck with Big Tech and that I wrote about. In their chase for reach, Maisons surrendered their narrative sovereignty to platforms designed for virality, not reverence. Now, Big Tech isn’t just hosting their stories: it’s poised to own the very institutions that decide which stories get told.

Under Bezos, Vogue could be reconfigured into a “Cultural AWS”, a cloud infrastructure for desire, taste on demand, provisioned at scale, available to rent by brands that want instant legitimacy.

In this model, Bezos doesn’t see Vogue as a magazine. He sees it as the final mile of cultural influence running through his servers. And at the helm of this system, Anna Wintour and Jeff Bezos would stand as its dual oracles: one with the authority to define taste, the other with the infrastructure to deploy it at planetary scale.

Anna Wintour is 75 today. Bezos’ most consequential task will be to prepare her succession over the next few years. This isn’t a staffing decision; it’s a cultural coronation. In my previous piece, I argued that Pharrell Williams may be the most compelling choice: a bridge between generations, genres, and geographies, fluent in the codes of luxury yet unafraid to rewrite them. No matter the choice, Bezos will have to ensure that under his stewardship, Vogue could radiate a new rhythm: one that unites joy, identity, and culture while safeguarding its crown.

And here’s the risk: luxury Maisons becoming a vendor inside someone else’s cultural nation of taste. Once Bezos takes control of the Ministry of Culture, the map of global luxury is redrawn overnight and the cultural nations of LVMH, Chanel, Hermès, and Kering will find themselves negotiating from occupied territory.

Share

The End of Neutral Narrators

For over a century, Condé Nast, and Vogue above all, has played Switzerland: covering every Maison and designer with a rare sovereignty that made its praise priceless and its criticism lethal. That neutrality was the source of its power. It understood luxury not just as an industry but as Cultural Nations, with its own laws, codes, and rituals. Under Bezos, this Switzerland is not just at risk, it becomes obsolete.

Because in 2025, cultural influence is no longer just commentary, it’s infrastructure. You don’t need to own the handbag, the watch or the dress if you own the authority to define what makes them desirable. And once you control that definition, you can bend the market at will.

Bezos doesn’t see Vogue as a magazine. He sees it as a cultural nation, his own Disney-for-adults: an empire with infinite cultural authority, capable of making a brand’s decade or ending it before the season is over. A cultural superpower that can turn trends into canon, and make desire itself, programmable.

As Harvard media historian Heidi Legg notes: “Magazines have historically been central institutions in the formation of taste and cultural authority, functioning as arbiters whose influence extends beyond their pages into the broader public imagination. The value of a magazine brand lies not only in its audience reach but in the legitimacy it confers, its ability to make a designer, a product, or even an idea matter.”

Under Bezos, Vogue shifts from arbiter to architect, from commentator to kingmaker. Fusing Vogue’s voice with Amazon’s global scale creates the most formidable cultural-making machine ever assembled. One where the Cultural Nation of Condé Nast has its own distribution fleet, data warehouse, intelligence system and algorithmic propaganda unit.

Bezos and Wintour together form a soft power axis: his infrastructure, her authority. One can build the machine; the other can anoint its chosen winners. And Bezos understands what Dior’s Jonathan Anderson proved in Paris last June, when over 1 billion people tuned in to watch his show: luxury fashion is at its most powerful when it’s not just a message, but a medium, a stage where culture itself is performed and reinforced.

If Bezos is building a cultural empire, the obvious question is: what will the existing sovereigns of taste and culture do ?

The stakes extend far beyond commerce. LVMH, Chanel, Hermès, Kering: these are not merely luxury Maisons. They are vessels of Europe’s soft power, sovereign actors in the projection of national influence. They export ritual, taste, and culture - not just products with price tags. And these Cultural Nations, should not negotiate their sovereignty with emperors of distribution.

Luxury’s choice is stark: act like a Cultural Nation and reclaim the ability to shape desire directly or remain a product conglomerate renting attention from Big Tech and maybe soon, Bezos’ Condé Nast. The first path is revival. The second is slow surrender.

Share

A New Cold War for Culture and Taste: Luxury needs to build their own Sovereign Stack

Under Bezos, Vogue won’t just cover culture, it will merge it with commerce until the two are indistinguishable. The editorial lens will no longer be purely aesthetic; it will be a targeting engine, where aspiration becomes a data point and taste is optimized for conversion. Once the compass of style is wired into Amazon’s infrastructure, the difference between editorial and advertising will dissolve.

Luxury cannot counter this with another seasonal campaign. It must rearm: not with ads, but with custodians of its cultural capital.

That means building a Sovereign Stack for Culture and Taste:

Embassies as Owned Stage: Narrative sanctuaries, physical and digital, fully under Maison control. High-fidelity spaces where story, culture, and commerce are composed as a single score. Loyal clients enter first; the public follows. Premiere here, syndicate later. Identity, data, and pricing remain sovereign.

Rituals as Sequencing: Intentional moments that shape the cultural calendar, beginning with a Maison’s most devoted clients before the public ever sees them. Stop chasing virality. Stage meaning. Because the point isn’t a billion views, it’s authorship that makes a billion views matter. Read more about this in my article:

Sacred Texts & Archives as Canon: Long-horizon investments that outlast any season. Foundations, salons, commissions, permanent collections: cultural assets immune to algorithmic decay. The canon is the moat. Build it with acts of nation-building: the Louis Vuitton Foundation’s millions of annual visitors, Chanel’s Arts & Culture magazine, LVMH’s Osaka 2025 cultural showcase. These are not campaigns; they are monuments. Here’s what that looks like:

Diplomats as Ambassadors: Authors, artists, archivists, designers, dressmakers who carry the Maison’s DNA and speak without distortion. Not hired influence, but sovereign voices that bypass algorithmic choke points to reach audiences directly and shape desire for the long term. Imagine Pharrell Williams, Louis Vuitton’s Men’s Creative Director, producing an exclusive documentary on his Met Gala exploration of Black Dandyism, available only to LV clients. That’s not content. That’s cultural authorship in its purest form, forging desire from the inside out:

This isn’t just branding, it’s what Legg (Harvard) calls: “the enduring worth of a.. brand… is in its archive, the accumulated capital of decades of taste-making, which continues to influence even when individual issues are forgotten.”

Share

If Vogue becomes Bezos’s cultural capital, LVMH, Hermès, and Chanel must decide: where will they build their embassies? This is the beginning of a new Cold War for taste, and it demands a Third Renaissance for luxury: a reawakening of in-house mythmaking, not just marketing teams.

In an age where AI can generate “taste” on demand, human-led mythmaking is the last true luxury. That’s the edge for the luxury industry (and many consumer brands, whether Nike, IKEA or LEGO.) What must be protected now isn’t distribution, it’s myth. Luxury has always shaped what the world dreams of. But if it doesn’t fight now, those dreams will be rendered in Bezos’s Cultural AWS.

Because in this possible future, Vogue won’t recommend, it will decide. An algorithmically timed feature could make or break a Maison’s quarter. The cover becomes currency. The editorial calendar syncs with Prime drops. Luxury, once sovereign, is now a tenant in Bezos’s empire of taste.

If Bezos rewrites the rules of taste, it won’t matter how beautiful your collection is. It will only matter if it’s part of his canon. Unless you build your own.

Epilogue: Shir Cofman, an AI leader, argues Bezos’ bid for Vogue is really a play for the emotional operating system of luxury. Her piece reframes Vogue as a cultural OS for desire itself.

Share

LVMH’s half-year results were, by most financial standards, soft. Revenue slipped 4%, profits down 15-22% across key segments, with flagship Fashion & Leather Goods shrinking amid global demand slowdowns. Yet the stock surged 5-7% post-earnings. Why?

Because this wasn’t a quarter of financial dominance. It was a revelation of cultural power and the market finally pricing in LVMH’s true moat.

As I wrote two days ago in LVMH was never a conglomerate. It is a Cultural Nation: a sovereign entity that exports desire, mythology, memory and soft power at global scale. The market finally priced in LVMH’s civilizational endurance, turning financial headwinds into a demonstration of national resilience. It wasn’t earnings beat. It was a flex of cultural statecraft, proving that in the Era of Cultural Nations, sovereignty is the new margin. This quarter didn’t undermine that premise. It proved it.

In a rare interview published Friday in Le Figaro, LVMH CEO, Bernard Arnault said it plainly: "Je suis très optimiste à moyen terme. Nous sommes toujours sortis renforcés de ces périodes, car nous en profitons pour conforter nos capacités créatives, notre outil de production"

Translation: This wasn’t a setback. It was a stress test and the Cultural Nation passed with elegance.

Share

A Market Reaction That Tells a Different Story

On Friday, July 25^th, the day after Cécile Cabanis, LVMH’s CFO, unveiled the H1 results, eyes were fixed on the ticker, with many foreseeing a rout. Yet the stock opened at €464, surged to €494 before the French paused for déjeuner, and closed the day at €489.25, a defiant ascent. « Pas Mal » as one would say at 22 Montaigne… Historically, since 2015 (barring the 2020 COVID anomaly), this has been the ritual: a 5-10% post-H1 rally, as if the market senses deeper currents. Investors aren't merely chasing earnings; they're wagering on meaning and the Cultural Nation’s unyielding sovereignty and soft power.

LVMH is like a modern Versailles commanding global desire through cultural statecraft. And the markets now behave as if it finally understood LVMH’s real moat: not scale, but sovereignty over trends, taste, culture and memory.

This isn’t about beating estimates; it’s a paradigm shift in valuation. LVMH isn’t scaling via volume or discounts. It’s deepening symbolism amid contractions, much like a nation fortifying its borders during economic turmoil, proving the Cultural Nation model’s resilience where conglomerates crumble. The stock pop signals the dawn of pricing "cultural nation” as a premium, even when tourism slows in Japan and China cools. Amid global slowdowns, LVMH fortified its borders: renewing creativity, expanding legacy, and preserving its myth.

Arnault himself confirmed it in Le Figaro: "Quand je parle à mes équipes, ce n’est pas le chiffre d’affaires que j’ai en tête mais la qualité, l’image et la désirabilité de nos marques. Nous poursuivons toujours le même objectif de long terme : proposer à nos clients des produits de plus en plus désirables"

This is the essence of the Cultural Nation that is LVMH: a long-term economy of meaning, not a quarterly chase for margin. And Wall Street finally seems ready to price that in.

A New Market Era is emerging: The rise of Cultural Nations

We’re leaving the 2010s behind. The age of algorithm-chasing, influencer fatigue, infinite product drops, and marketing that screamed louder than it resonated is fading. In its place emerges a new global paradigm: the Era of Cultural Nations. Meet the contenders of this title, from LVMH to Disney, Apple, Patagonia, Chanel, IKEA and LEGO. Watch the video to reveal why I picked these, a few surprises:

In this new era, brands are no longer judged solely by margin expansion or quarterly growth. They’re evaluated by their ability to shape collective memory, to architect meaning, to embed themselves into the cultural subconscious. Soft power: once the bedrock of geopolitics, is now luxury’s most precious KPI. And as argued in LVMH was never a conglomerate, LVMH is not merely playing in this new world, it is defining it. A blueprint Cultural Nation, exporting sovereignty through symbolism, craftsmanship, and mythology.

This is why brands that rode the algorithmic wave are now sputtering. Gucci, once the darling of Anna Wintour, now relies on clicks and hype. It’s faltering in slowdowns. Coach, Burberry, and others that handed over their cultural sovereignty to virality, namely Instagram and TikTok, now find themselves misaligned, reliant on engagement metrics rather than enduring meaning. In slowdowns, these houses shrink. Because they never built anything to last.

Subscribe now

LVMH, by contrast, endures and operates like a sovereign state, owning narratives and creating desire. It doesn’t chase relevance. It creates it.

Just as the British Monarchy has outlasted empires not through commerce, but through coronations at Buckingham Palace, Or how the Vatican has ruled imaginations for millennia, not with products, but with Papal rituals and Renaissance mythmaking like the Sistine Chapel. They preserved unwavering cultural dominance across millennia not by resisting evolution. They adapted while preserving their mythic core: whether Pope Francis blessing same-sex couples, or Queen Elizabeth bowing before Diana’s casket. Soft power endures because it adapts without yielding.

LVMH is doing the same.

This quarter, Perfumes & Cosmetics revenue was flat as was Watches & Jewelry. But these weren’t signs of retreat, they were the costs of fortification, trading short-term profits for long-term sovereignty. LVMH isn’t pulling back. It’s expanding its cultural borders. Allow me to elaborate:

Exhibit A: The Louis Vuitton cruise-ship boutique in Shanghai isn’t retail innovation, it’s a territorial expansion of French mythology, docked in China’s imagination.

Exhibit B: The Tiffany flagship renovation that some say cost a fortune, The Landmark isn’t real estate. It’s a restoration of national heritage in the heart of America.

Exhibit C: As I wrote in the previous piece, Frédéric Arnault’s stewardship of Loro Piana signals a deeper play: turning “quiet luxury” into cultural permanence, not just trend capture.

These aren’t marketing plays. They’re sovereignty moves.

Arnault elaborated on this shift in Le Figaro: "Le goût de nos clients est moins orienté vers le « show-off », ce qui fait souffrir certains de nos concurrents, mais il est plus favorable au « quiet luxury ». Dans cette catégorie, la marque qui connaît la plus forte croissance du marché est l’une de nos maisons : Loro Piana."

Translation: While others chase noise, the Cultural Nation scales elegance. And Frédéric’s mission is stated.

Share

For those tracking luxury’s future, the lesson is clear: the most valuable metrics are no longer ROAS or influencer reach. They’re soft power signals: cultural resilience, narrative control, legacy amplification, myth retention. This is the market’s new vocabulary. And LVMH is the dictionary.

Welcome to the era of Cultural Nations.

The Quiet Half-Year That Was Actually a Cultural Triumph

On the surface, this was a quiet six months for LVMH. Fashion was down 8%. Margins thinned across the board. But beneath the financial softness, a different story was being written, one of cultural expansion, not commercial contraction. While other brands reacted to macro headwinds by pulling back, LVMH advanced. It didn’t chase sales. It claimed territory.

So what did the Cultural Nation actually do while earnings dropped? It expanded.

Below, four cultural dispatches from the frontlines of soft power; proof points that, for LVMH, this wasn’t a bad half. It was a cultural triumph:

1. Dior’s Jonathan Anderson debut (1 Billion+ views): Dior staged a coronation. Jonathan Anderson’s debut wasn’t a collection, it was a civilization statement. One billion views across platforms, redefining global desirability by blending heritage with storytelling and narrative power. While others scramble for relevance, Delphine Arnault ensured Dior reasserted cultural supremacy. And it’s working.

2. Moët Hennessy Private, led by Alexandre Arnault: Wines & Spirits profits may have fell 33%, but this wasn’t a collapse. It was a pivot. Alexandre’s quiet takeover of Moët Hennessy Private (the division that serves $5k Cognac) was not about short-term cases shipped, it was about fortifying LVMH’s hold on elite aspiration and the world’s finest palates. A statecraft move, trading volume for sovereignty.

3. LVMH’s Olympic Gold: Rather than advertise around the Olympics, LVMH Maisons became part of them. Positioned not as sponsor, but as symbol, the Maisons embedded themselves into the world’s collective imagination, beyond billboards, beyond borders. It was a diplomatic coup by Antoine Arnault, proof that the Cultural Nation doesn’t wait for demand. It creates the mythology themselves.

4. Sephora’s Dominance: As margins contracted elsewhere, Sephora continued its retail reign, consistently growing double-digits since the end of Covid. In a world obsessed with Amazon convenience and viral beaty trends, Sephora’s strategy: curated, sensorial, founder-friendly, exclusive yet human, proved that true desire scales best when rooted in meaning. Sephora is a Cultural Nation in its own right, designing environments that turn purchase into pilgrimage. This wasn’t mere resilience. It was a masterclass in myth-making led by their astute team.