The Debrief

Luxury entered 2026 with hopes that new creative directors and signs of stabilisation would finally help the sector turn a corner. Instead, the latest round of earnings has raised bigger questions about what growth now looks like for the industry. While brands including Dior, Gucci and Chanel are generating renewed interest, that excitement has not yet translated into a meaningful sales rebound. From the slowing Chinese market to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, luxury conglomerates are facing a complex web of challenges that creative hype alone cannot solve.On the episode, BoF luxury editors Mimosa Spencer and Robert Williams explain why China remains such a critical missing piece, why Louis Vuitton is under closer scrutiny than usual, and why jewellery continues to outperform the rest of luxury.Key Insights:One of the clearest messages from this earnings season is that new designers can lift mood and momentum internally, but that alone is not enough to restart the industry. Williams says the latest results confirmed that the impact of all these creative resets is “pretty limited, especially in isolation”. As he puts it, “the result of that is more like treading water or stabilising versus actually reigniting growth.” Spencer adds that the disappointment was sharper because there had been so much excitement around these debuts that “a lot of investors were expecting some earlier results.”Both Spencer and Williams point to China as the market hanging over the entire sector. Even where sentiment improved at the end of last year, investors were still looking for signs that Chinese demand might return in a meaningful way. Spencer says the bigger issue now is not just timing but structure: “The question is whether the kind of growth we saw in the past will actually come back.” She adds: “It seems like it takes a lot more work for a luxury brand to actually get good results in China.”LVMH still wants the market to see Dior as the manageable turnaround story, but Williams suggests the real anxiety now sits around Louis Vuitton. The brand has held up better than many peers, but investors are increasingly asking where its next phase of growth will come from. Williams points out that the bigger concern is not short-term performance, but what comes next. “No one can really see where the growth is going to come from,” he says. “Is this still a growth industry? What will the industry look like and how will it operate if it's not growing anymore?” If the industry’s strongest player cannot clearly define its next phase of growth, it raises deeper questions about the trajectory of luxury as a whole.Despite the broader slowdown across luxury, Spencer argues that jewellery’s outperformance is not just about demand for hard luxury, but about how consumers now judge value. Handbag prices have climbed so sharply that jewellery, by comparison, can feel like a more rational indulgence. “Jewellery prices haven’t gone up in the same way that handbag prices have gone up,” she says. At the same time, jewellery still carries a perception of durability and investment value, whether or not that always holds in practice.Luxury brands may be making more progress with their established high-spending clients than with the broader aspirational base they once relied on for volume. Williams notes that some houses are succeeding in pulling core customers back into stores, even if that is not yet translating into a wider recovery. At Chanel, for example, he points to renewed momentum among “well-to-do women with big executive jobs in their late 30s, 40s, and 50s,” while Louis Vuitton’s monogram anniversary campaign has helped refocus attention on its most iconic products.Additional Resources:The Luxury Rebound Gets a Reality Check | BoF Kering’s Strategy Reveal, Examined | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In March, H&M released financial results alongside its annual sustainability report, presenting two seemingly contrasting narratives. The company reported a 34.6 percent reduction in emissions from 2019 levels and also noted that 91 percent of its materials are now sustainably sourced. However, this environmental progress occurred alongside a 1 percent dip in sales, raising questions about the commercial viability of its green strategy.While many industry peers are backing away from environmental messaging to focus on the bottom line, H&M is arguing that sustainability is not in tension with profit, but is rather a "core driver of future growth". On The Debrief, we examine whether this decoupling of growth from environmental impact can truly resonate with consumers, or if it remains a purely internal metric.Key Insights: As a fast fashion brand, H&M understands that sustainability alone is not going to win back shoppers. Instead, Walid says the company is trying to translate its recent efforts into something more tangible at the point of purchase. The pitch is not that consumers care about emissions reporting in itself, but that sustainability can function as a marker of quality. As Leyla Ertur, H&M’s Head of Sustainability, told Walid during their conversation, “Our customers don’t care about our Scope 3 emissions going down. What they care about is what they’re buying.”Walid suggests that one of H&M’s biggest challenges is the disconnect between how the company sees itself and how customers perceive it. “When we say H&M, I think people are thinking of H&M, the brand … But when H&M talks about itself, they’re talking [about] the whole conglomerate,” she says, pointing to brands like COS and Weekday, which occupy a more elevated position. While those labels may successfully compete with higher-end high street players, that distinction is largely invisible to consumers, who still associate H&M with “fast fashion … something cheap for an occasion.” As a result, while the group may understand how to build more premium propositions across its portfolio, Walid argues that the core H&M brand itself has not yet meaningfully shifted perception.  For all the company’s investments and emissions reductions, the core contradiction remains that H&M is still producing and selling huge volumes of clothing. Waleed is explicit about that limitation: “They’re not addressing the overconsumption and overproduction problem in fashion.” At the same time, she notes that H&M is one of the few large players still investing at scale in decarbonisation, water reduction and supply chain upgrades.H&M is investing across sustainability, brand elevation and new channels like resale, but Waleed cautions that it is still too early to judge whether these efforts are working. “They use all these different levers that don’t come into one … There needs to be a way to bring that together,” she says. Initiatives like fashion week shows, collaborations and younger-facing campaigns are designed to re-engage consumers, but “I don’t think people have caught traction … just yet.” For now, the strategy remains a long-term bet rather than a proven turnaround.Additional Resources:Exclusive: H&M Says Sustainability Is Good for Business. Can It Get Shoppers to Care?BoF Analysis: The Rise of Ultra-Fast Fashion PlayersThe Game of ‘Selling’ Sustainability Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For years, European luxury brands set the pace in fashion, while American labels were often dismissed as overly commercial and too broadly distributed to compete at the highest end of the market. But that balance is shifting. As many European luxury houses struggle with slowing demand, price resistance and creative inconsistency, a group of American brands is seeing renewed momentum. On the episode, Diana Pearl joins Sheena Butler-Young and Brian Baskin to unpack what those brands are getting right, and why their recent success may offer a useful playbook for the rest of the industry.Key Insights:Pearl argues that part of the shift comes down to timing. American brands like Coach, Ralph Lauren and Tory Burch went through their overexposure phase years ago and were forced to correct course, while European luxury brands are only now grappling with the consequences of aggressive growth. “European brands maybe got a little cocky,” she says. “They raised prices too much and maybe let the creative slide a little. I think as those businesses have grown, it just became more about sales and less about focusing on the core of the business.” By contrast, American brands “really had to recalibrate, pull back, think about who is our core customer and laser in on that message.”Pearl presents Coach as the clearest example of how this American reset has worked. Instead of chasing quick expansion, the brand spent years refining its identity, sharpening its offer and building around a defined consumer. “They want to be that first luxury bag purchase that someone makes when they’re in high school, when they get their first job and save up to buy a nice bag,” she says. That focus shapes everything from product to casting to marketing tone. Just as importantly, Coach stopped cycling through products too quickly. Rather than dropping a hit bag and moving on, “when they see these silhouettes start to pop off, they find ways to iterate them,” Pearl says, pointing to the Tabby and the Brooklyn as examples.Pearl says European luxury’s current problems are not just about price, but about value and treatment. Consumers have become more sensitive to whether products feel worth the money and whether the shopping experience feels inviting. “People don’t want to spend their money at a place where they feel like they’re being mistreated,” she says, referring to growing frustration with intimidating store environments, long queues and rigid service hierarchies. She also argues that “cachet can only get you so far,” especially when shoppers no longer feel that the biggest European brands are producing the most desirable or practical items.Another theme in Pearl’s reporting is consistency. Several American brands now doing well are still shaped by founder-led or founder-adjacent creative visions, and she suggests that stability matters. “Even if consumers don’t necessarily know that creative directors are changing, they see it in how a brand feels inconsistent from season to season,” she says. With Tory Burch, Ralph Lauren and Khaite, the creative point of view feels legible and sustained. That makes it easier to build a coherent world around the brand and evolve it gradually, rather than asking consumers to reset every few years with a new designer era.Additional Resources:What European Luxury Can Learn From American Fashion | BoF The Great Fashion Reset | How to Fix Luxury’s Trust Issues | BoF The Great Fashion Reset: Can Designer Debuts Revive Luxury? | The Debrief | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As conflict between the US, Israel and Iran escalates, the threat to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has pushed energy prices sharply higher. That matters to fashion far beyond the pump: oil and natural gas helps power factories, move goods and produce synthetic fabrics used across the industry. Shayeza Walid and Cathaleen Chen join hosts Sheena Butler-Young and Brian Baskin to explain how the immediate pressure of spiraling oil prices is showing up differently across the supply chain and in consumer markets, and why even a short-lived shock can deepen existing strains on manufacturers, retailers and shoppers.Key Insights:The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has immediate and severe consequences for Asian manufacturing hubs, which rely on the Gulf for approximately 60 per cent of their crude oil. Walid notes that for many producers, “it’s a supply issue and a logistics issue before it’s a cost issue right now.” She continues: “Every single person is dealing with the fact that oil and gas supplies are not coming through to their countries.” In that sense, the first pressure point is not simply higher prices, but whether manufacturers can secure the energy needed to keep production moving at all. Beyond the physical scarcity of fuel, the lack of insurance for shipping companies has created a logistical bottleneck that prevents essential energy supplies from reaching factories in China, India, and Bangladesh. As polyester and other man-made fibres are intrinsically tied to oil, manufacturers focused on synthetics are feeling the pressure quickly. Walid says the impact is already visible in India and China, where producers are seeing both reduced supply and rising prices. “Man-made fibre prices were already going up,” she says. In some Indian manufacturing clusters, she adds, “those areas could very well be crippled if the crisis continues because they only use that type of fabric.”Chen argues that the more immediate consumer effect is not necessarily higher apparel prices, but weaker confidence. She points out that many retailers are still working through existing inventory, so any inflationary effect on clothing would likely come later. “The more immediate effect on the consumer economy is simply psychological,” she says. Even before prices move materially, “consumer anxiety around inflation, even if inflation isn’t here yet, that’s going to affect how much they’re willing, how much they’re happy to spend on things like a pair of jeans.”Both reporters suggest fashion is more used to volatility than it was before the pandemic, but this kind of disruption still reveals how exposed supply chains remain. Chen says many companies have become “very nimble in the situation of crisis”, while Walid points to the need for more durable supplier relationships and stronger local support. “It’s increasingly important to consider local dynamics for their suppliers and where their clothes are being manufactured,” she says.Additional Resources:Oil Shock: What Fashion Needs to Know | BoF War in the Gulf Tests Resilience of a Rare Bright Patch for Luxury | BoF When War and Luxury Collide | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nearly a year after President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs sent shockwaves through the fashion industry, the Supreme Court ruled he did not have authority to impose the sweeping levies. For an industry that imports billions of dollars in clothing, footwear and accessories into the US each year, the decision initially felt like relief. But that optimism narrowed almost immediately as new tariffs were introduced at 10 percent, with Trump indicating they could be raised to 15 percent over the weekend.Key Insights:While a drop to a 15 percent tariff technically represents a rate reduction, the sudden policy reversal has plunged the industry back into a state of operational paralysis. Executives are struggling to form long-term strategies when the foundational rules of global trade shift from week to week. “The problem isn’t even the difference in the rate of tariffs,” Chen explains. “It’s that the uncertainty makes decisions so much harder than if we knew exactly what that rate was going to be, even if it was higher than before.” This volatility forces companies to make reactive, shipment-by-shipment choices rather than fortifying their businesses for the future.The sheer scale of the disruption means that import duties can no longer be managed as a siloed logistical issue. Navigating the changing rules requires constant, cross-departmental negotiation to align product adjustments with consumer messaging. As Bain notes, “In the past, with something like this you would talk to your supply chain manager and come up with a plan with them. Now, you get everyone in the C-suite together into a war room … it’s just constant negotiation within your company and with your consumers.”  Despite social media chatter suggesting that brands and consumers are owed money for the now-illegal tariffs, the reality of recouping those funds involves a looming legal nightmare. The government is expected to aggressively fight payback efforts by demanding extensive paperwork or proof that costs were not passed onto shoppers. “Refunds are a possibility, but it's not going to be a simple process,” Bain says. “It's not like returning your e-commerce order online where you fill out a form and you get a bunch of money back.”Fashion has experienced significant sticker shock over the past few years, but brands that successfully raised prices without losing consumer demand are unlikely to surrender those gains now. If the cost of production decreases under the new tariff structure, powerful labels will likely absorb the difference to improve their margins. “I think it's a possibility that some brands and retailers will lower their prices, likely in the form of discounting, rather than lowering retail prices,” Chen says.Additional Resources:The Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling: What Fashion Needs to Know | BoF US Supreme Court Overturns Trump’s Emergency Tariffs | BoF Will Prices Come Down With Trump’s Tariffs? It’s Complicated | BoF Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

While the Olympics remain one of the world’s biggest sporting stages, they are also one of the most tightly controlled marketing environments. Rules limit how sponsors can interact with athletes and advertise during the Games. As a result, fashion and sportswear brands are finding alternative ways to capitalise on the moment, from outfitting national teams and launching capsule collections to sending squads of influencers to experience the Games.BoF correspondents Haley Crawford and Mike Sykes join Sheena Butler-Young and Brian Baskin on The Debrief to unpack how the winterwear boom is reshaping the Olympic marketing playbook. Key Insights:Musician Bad Bunny’s choice of Zara for his Super Bowl halftime show outfit crystallises a broader tension in fashion marketing: the balance between cultural relevance and commercial perception. Whilst Sykes acknowledged the pushback from critics who found the use of a fast-fashion Spanish brand on such a global platform surprising, he also notes the strategic logic. “This performance is supposed to be about inclusivity, and part of that is accessibility and affordable products. And plus, Zara is also a Spanish brand... It makes more sense considering the cultural magnitude of the performance,” Sykes says.Crawford argues the Games are no longer just about logo placement on performance gear, but a broader spotlight on winter fashion as a growing category. “We've seen that consumers are interested, not only from a performance perspective, but also from a fashion-forward perspective, in having gear that's equally stylish as it is performance driven on the slopes,” she says. But Olympic marketing comes with strict limitations. As Crawford explains, official sponsors can use Olympic branding, but others must tread carefully. For non-sponsors like Canadian label Roots, that means linguistic gymnastics: using phrases like “rooting for Canada” without explicitly referencing the Games.With broadcast advertising and official branding tightly controlled, being visibly present at the Games can be the most direct route to global reach. Sykes points to Adidas’ scale: “We’ve seen a bunch of brands like Adidas…that launched this 700-piece collection.” Even if it is not a traditional campaign, the visibility is enormous. “Just to have your logos on some of these athletes as they perform, while millions of people are watching across the globe, that is the sort of marquee way we’re seeing brands participate,” he says.As leagues and federations try to expand their audiences, fashion-forward fan wear has become a strategic priority. Crawford says Off Season’s approach to Team USA illustrates the shift: rather than just jerseys, brands are creating “wearable jackets and sweaters and things that fans can actually wear in their day-to-day.” Sykes sees the trend as part of a wider evolution across sport. Off Season’s product “reminds me of what the Starter jackets used to be in the 90s,” he says, predicting that more brands will build momentum by “taking team logos and putting them on unique products that aren't just a jersey.”While the Olympic window is tightly controlled, brands often see their biggest opportunities once the closing ceremony ends. Crawford points to the Paris Olympics breakout star Ilona Maher, who “popped off for creating all this viral behind-the-scenes content in the Olympic village,” then landed deals with Maybelline and Paula’s Choice. For fashion, Suni Lee is a recent template. After Paris, she started campaigns for LoveShackFancy and Victoria’s Secret Pink and attended the CFDA Awards with a designer partner. “She really built this whole other part of her public persona,” Crawford says – showing how medals and momentum can translate into longer-term brand equity.Additional Resources:How the Winterwear Boom Reshaped Fashion’s Olympic Playbook | BoF Which Winter Olympians Will Score Beauty Deals? | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Across fashion, companies that once embraced remote or hybrid work are increasingly pushing employees back into the office, with some moving towards four or even five days a week. At the same time, competition for jobs, particularly at entry level, is intensifying amid layoffs, slower industry growth and the rise of AI. On this episode of The Debrief, senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young and executive editor Brian Baskin are joined by BoF Careers’ Sophie Soar to unpack why the power balance has shifted back to employers, how different generations feel about being in the office, and what practical routes still exist for early-career talent trying to get a foot in the door. Key Insights:During COVID, companies found people could be “just as, and in some cases, more productive” at home – but that was when productivity meant output. Now, Butler-Young argues that employers are widening the definition: “Productivity should also include collaboration, morale, people being together… face time with leaders.” And with the labour market tightening following economic pressure, layoffs and AI taking some jobs, leaders have more leverage to enforce it. “In 2025 and now into 2026, it’s looking more like an employer’s market,” Butler-Young says.While some executives argue that in-person work improves collaboration and reduces errors, Butler-Young warns that motivations are not always benign. She points to a growing sense that mandates can act as a quiet form of workforce reduction. “One way you can get people to effectively fire themselves is to make them come to the office,” she says, noting that some companies may prefer attrition to public layoffs. She also cautions against copy-and-paste policies. “If you’re seeing productivity high and morale high at one to two days a week, you need to ask yourself, what am I hoping to accomplish if I move it to four or five?” Despite a difficult labour market, Soar stresses that fashion companies have not stopped hiring altogether. Instead, they are being more selective, particularly when it comes to junior roles that can be automated. "There definitely is a squeeze on the ones that are considered more rote work,” she says. “Those are the roles you could potentially automate or replace with AI.” However, some employers are still investing in early-career talent. “Those who are still hiring for entry-level roles recognise the benefit that that talent can bring,” Soar explains, pointing to diversity, long-term retention and fresh perspectives.Additional Resources:Fashion Is Done With Remote Work | BoF How to Get Ahead in Fashion’s Stagnant Job Market | BoFHow Fashion Brands Are Making Remote Work Permanent | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Saks’ bankruptcy was widely expected, yet still felt like a shock to the fashion system. The department store giant’s Chapter 11 filing outlines $1.75 billion in restructuring finance and $3.4 billion owed to as many as 25,000 creditors – including $136 million to Chanel alone. Who will get paid, and what Saks looks like at the other end of the bankruptcy process, is an open question. Former Neiman Marcus chief Geoffroy van Raemdonck will lead the reset. As BoF’s retail editor Cat Chen puts it, Saks will need to “shrink in order to grow,” curb discounting, and rebuild trust through clienteling and service.Key Insights:Missed vendor payments undermined confidence in Saks Global soon after it acquired Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman. “Even after Saks created these new payment terms, they weren’t able to stick to their instalments,” Chen says. Labels “stopped shipping to Saks entirely,” creating “a death spiral where Saks wasn’t getting good inventory, and this hurt their ability to attract customers,” and sales slid further.When Saks Global acquired Neiman Marcus, both companies were extremely levered going in, with savings being swallowed by interest. The plan pitched $500 million in cost savings, but Saks Global took on more debt — $2.2 billion in bonds. As Chen explains, with margins in multi-brand retail already slim, “they were ill-fated because… a chunk of whatever sales or savings they were able to generate would be going toward interest payments.” As Saks has 10,000 to 25,000 creditors, owed $3.4 billion, bankruptcy court will approve a list of critical vendors that are essential to Saks’s business. While conglomerates will cope, “it's really the smaller independent brands that might be owed less money, but the amount that they're owed are just so much more critical to their business operations. These are the players that are the most vulnerable right now,” Chen warns — and it’s not just brands. A model shared she’s “owed $46,000...and can’t pay rent now.”Now, Saks must reset its business. Van Raemdonck “took Neiman Marcus in and out of bankruptcy,” yet Chen is blunt about the reality of the situation: “Saks Global will have to shrink in order to grow.” That means closing stores, stabilising cash flow and getting ruthless about discounting. From there, Chen says Saks has to compete on experience, delivering the best customer service and catering to their VICs. Additional Resources:Saks Global Files for Bankruptcy After Monthslong Hunt for Cash | BoF Chanel, Gucci and Capri Holdings: The Brands Topping Saks’ Creditor List | BoF Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

BoF and McKinsey’s annual State of Fashion report finds the industry entering 2026 with caution: 46 percent of executives expect conditions to worsen, citing geopolitics, macro volatility and the risk of shoppers pulling back. Yet there is also a pulse of optimism around AI-driven efficiency, luxury’s creative recalibration and fresh consumer interest in categories from smart glasses to fine jewellery.Tariffs remain the dominant near-term swing factor. Brands mitigated pain in 2025 by pulling forward inventory, but as that cushion runs out, the full impact shows up in 2026 in costs and pricing. More broadly, luxury’s era of price-led growth has run its course; as BoF correspondent Marc Bain puts it, if you ask customers to pay more, you have to “actually offer the value for the price.”Key Insights:The mood has shifted from “uncertain” in 2025 to “challenging” in 2026. Companies feel better equipped but are bracing for a tougher year. “Uncertainty was ‘we don’t know what’s going to happen’. The challenge is, we know what is going to happen and it’s going to be tough,” says Bain.Tariffs will continue to bite in 2026, and price hikes will be part of the playbook. Brands used a mix of mitigation tactics in 2025, but many still expect to pass on costs. “The strategy that the highest number of executives said was their way of mitigating the tariff impact was raising prices,” Bain notes. “To some degree, there's just no way around that. You can do it strategically, but at some point you're probably going to have to raise prices.”Jewellery is the consumer bright spot for the year ahead, as the category has steadily outperformed thanks to steadier, more gradual price rises, exciting design and a strong perception of value retention. “It’s hard luxury… you can wear it a lot and it can still be in good shape,” Bain says, adding that more women self-purchasing are reinforcing demand, with maximal accessories over minimal wardrobes adding another tailwind. He adds, “It sounds almost silly in 2026, but a big shift has been that more women are actually buying jewellery for themselves.According to Bain, 2026 is the year AI gets embedded into the fashion ecosystem. Expect a ‘two steps forward, one step back’ year where efficiency wins drive adoption even as mishaps make headlines. “Companies don’t feel like they can sit out AI,” Bain says. “It’s not like everyone by the end of next year is going to be using ChatGPT instead of Google, but the expectation is it'll be a significantly higher number than [2025]. And at a certain point, even if it's 5 percent of shoppers … it's still enough that you as a business have to start accounting for it.   Additional Resources:The 10 Themes That Will Define the Fashion Agenda in the Year Ahead | BoF The Perfect Package: What It Takes to Be a Fashion Leader in 2026 | BoFThe Top Trends That Will Define Beauty in 2026 | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Collectively, Clare Waight Keller and Maria Cornejo have over two decades of experience in the fashion industry. Waight Keller’s impressive career includes roles at Givenchy, Chloé and Gucci — and today, she serves as creative director at Uniqlo. Cornejo’s New York–based label, founded nearly three decades ago, counts Michelle Obama and Christy Turlington Burns among its most devoted fans.From deeply entrenched gender biases to the fear of returning to work after giving birth, women face a number of systemic barriers to reaching senior leadership positions in the fashion industry, insiders say. Today, some women designers have found success launching their own labels — and when they do land leadership roles at major houses, often make it a priority to create opportunities for other women, which remain few and far between.At the VOICES 10th anniversary, Waight Keller and Cornejo speak with senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young about what it’s like to work in an industry where women are the muses and chief customers, but the top commercial and creative roles are dominated by men. Key Insights: Clare Waight Keller says that the inequalities between men and women in fashion are driven in part by the narrative that “men are often seen as the implementers of big change, and women of stability, and so with stability we’re often also cornered into a commercial sense of aesthetic.” Both Waight Keller and Cornejo push back against this notion, saying that women aren’t less creative but simply more considerate of how real women want to dress.Maria Cornejo feels that “there’s a big disconnect in fashion… from what's instagrammable and what is actual reality … all the women I know who have independent businesses… we’re making clothes that women wear.” Both designers say they have encountered inequities as women in fashion, prompting Waight Keller to intentionally assemble an all-women team at Uniqlo. “Women add so much richness into the conversation of clothing, we offer a completely different perspective which is equally powerful and equally relevant,” she says.Additional Resources:BoF VOICES 2025: Finding Connection in Turbulent TimesClare Waight Keller | BoF 500Maria Cornejo | BoF 500 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the holiday shopping season approaches, consumer sentiment is slumping, yet spending is bifurcated – the top end keeps buying while the bottom 80 percent is more cautious. With Black Friday looming, brands are recalibrating promotions around value, desirability and hero products rather than blanket discounts. In luxury, upheaval at several department stores has created white space for rivals to woo high-spending clients through aggressive clienteling and tighter, faster vendor partnerships. In this episode of The Debrief, hosts Brian Baskin and Sheena Butler-Young speak with BoF reporters Cat Chen and Malique Morris about how brands are planning the season.Key Insights: Consumer spending hasn’t vanished, but it’s shifted toward shoppers who still feel flush. As Chen notes, “people are not really feeling rosy about the state of the economy, but the irony is that they’re still spending money.” Since Covid, “spending has been driven by the wealthier segment,” and it’s clear that “what consumers want is value… they want to get a good deal, but they don’t want to buy a cheap product.” For retailers, that means “more sophistication around price architecture” and using AI “to price products perfectly.”“Black Friday–Cyber Monday is not a fix for a mediocre year,” says Morris. Instead, winners are “prioritising desirability over discounts,” introducing “new products specifically for this time” and pushing “hero best-selling product.” The old playbook is out, and “slapping a 50% off everything discount on Instagram is not gonna cut it,” says Morris. In the “age of curation,” even deal-hunters expect editing, storytelling and reasons to stop scrolling.Morris argues that even in a discount-driven moment like Black Friday, shoppers still want offers to feel edited and intentional, and brands are responding with more curated tactics rather than blanket markdowns. “We’re in the age of curation and so even when people are expecting deals, they don’t want to feel like they’re just getting slopped,” says Morris. Tariffs and margin pressure mean many brands cannot afford a race to the bottom, pushing them to plan inventory more carefully, introduce new products specifically for this period and reserve discounts for hero items.Chen explains that this holiday season is especially high stakes for luxury multi-brand retailers because a few big players are stumbling – and everyone else is trying to capitalise. “Saks and SSENSE and Luisa Via Roma are three players that have faced pretty bad challenges this year,” she says. “They have opened up white space for their competitors on healthier financial footing to come in and basically eat their lunch and acquire their customers, acquire their sales.” The response is an aggressive push on clienteling and talent: retailers are not just targeting wealthy individuals, but also the salespeople and stylists who already manage those relationships.Additional Resources:Brands Try to Get the Tone Right for Holiday 2025 | BoF Inside Luxury Retailers’ Bare-Knuckle Fight to Win the Holidays | BoF Black Friday Beauty Goes Beyond the Discount | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Colourful charms, Labubu-laden handbags and a ring on every finger – accessories sales are booming. A surge of necklace stacks, playful rings and quirky charms is being driven by Gen Z’s push for personal style, using add-ons to customise minimalist wardrobes on a budget. With apparel prices up, accessories act as “little luxuries” and entry points into brands. Retail is responding, with buyers widening small-leather-goods assortments and e-commerce shoots now styling bags with charms to encourage add-on purchases. BoF reporter Diana Pearl joins The Debrief to unpack what’s fuelling the accessory pile-on, how labels are capitalising on it, and how far the trend can go before the cycle turns.  Key Insights: According to Pearl, Gen Z is reaching for accessories as a way to personalise their minimalist wardrobes. “Gen Z, which is really looking to define their sense of personal style, is leaning on accessories to do so, especially because minimalism in clothing is still very popular… but they also wanna have a little more fun and accessories are a way to do that,” she says. Regarding the longevity of this trend, Pearl adds, “I think we'll see a consumer that is primed to think of accessories as a more important part of their wardrobe – not just like a finishing touch, but a core element of it.”The Labubu craze captures the mood of the accessories trend – playful, collective and endlessly customisable. “There’s so many different Labubus. There’s a bit of that thrill of the hunt to try to find the right one. You can add it to an Hermès bag or a $100 leather tote from J. Crew,” says Pearl. For many shoppers, she says, “it really speaks to that desire for fun and adding a personal touch. People want things that make them feel good.”While luxury houses profit from entry-level add-ons, Pearl sees independent makers riding the wave. “I think it probably is helping luxury brands but I think even more than that, it’s helping small brands that really can make these cute accessories that feel distinct and different from what everyone else has, because I think a huge part of this is that quest for personal style, wanting something unique,” says Pearl. Pearl frames the moment as a behavioural shift rather than a transient trend. She argues, “trends go away, but they never fully go away. I think every trend leaves a lasting impact or impression on us.  Maybe Labubus, toe rings, and bag charms won’t be quite as popular, but maybe they’ll evolve.” Crucially, “I think that this has unlocked something in people… it will have a lasting after effects of this trend, even if not everybody is wearing five necklaces at once in a year from now.”Additional Resources:How Far Can Fashion’s Accessory Obsession Go? | BoF Why Jewellery Feels Like a Better Deal Than a Handbag | BoFLuxury’s Untapped Opportunity in Men’s Jewellery | BoF  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.