Question 2 Part 1: Can a luxury brand have a marker in a relatively low-income economy? Positive
* Answer to the question with arguments
* A lot of quotes from the case and use exhibits
* Good to take another example to support their answer (Mexico) How to improve?
* We would have add the historical reason of the choice of India * LVMH wanted to enter new markets and developed a long term strategy which was to “tap into the growing market of China, India and central Europe”, which is a natural growth platform. * Since the late 19th century, Louis Vuitton had a strong relationship with maharajas (among the wealthiest people in the country). Their order helped LV survive during the Great Depression of the 1920’s. * In general, rich Indian people were flying to European capital such as Paris and London, but also New York and Dubai, to buy LV products, because there were no LV’s stores in India. * About the research that did LV on Indian market: we would have explained it further * They were first targeting High-Net-Worth consumers, which mean consumers with a million dollar or more in liquid financial assets. They represent the easiest target, because they already must have a luxurious way of life, and so they are familiar with that market. * Then, they planned to target the “cocooners”, who are a part of the burgeoning mid-segment of the Indian consumer market. They have the potential to develop a taste for luxury and become loyal consumers. * In addition:
* They were convinced that their entrance on the Indian market would have provided structure and stability to the domestic leather trade that was unorganized at that time. India could have become a manufacturing hub for the leather luxury industry. * Conclusion:
* We disagree with that statement: “The reason being the only need a low percentage of the population to afford their products”. It is one of the reasons why luxury...