The other day, I was reading a forum where visitors were discussing luxury shopping. A few Russians shared their experiences - some are still unable to buy anything with a Russian passport or bank card, while in certain boutiques, they can now shop with ease.
- They’ve finally figured out who’s footing the bill, - one forum participant gleefully remarked.
Russia’s role as luxury consumers might seem more significant than it actually is - just take a look at the geographic distribution of revenue in brand and group financial reports. Yet, in the current environment and amidst a crisis where blame is cast on everyone and everything - global conditions, shifting consumer preferences - but rarely on the policies of brands and companies that thought they were riding the wave, only to be swept under it - every consumer counts.
When I read such news, two thoughts come to mind:
I understand that restrictions can almost always be bypassed if someone is determined enough. All you need is a resourceful lawyer. But in doing so, people and companies forget the purpose of sanctions - they are a form of diplomatic defense, intended to prevent the need for physical defense. As a Ukrainian, I can say it for sure.
The lightning-fast response from LVMH and Moët Hennessy stands out to me (I couldn’t find any official press release on their websites). Take note of the tone in their response - the issue was acknowledged immediately, even though the comment came on the same day that LA LETTRE published its investigation.
This swift response reveals that:
The chain of events was already well-known, even without the investigation
The comment (and as we know, LVMH rarely comments on incidents, especially negative ones) was also intended to protect the company in case regulatory bodies scrutinize any violations
As a one working with PR, I see this as another example of poorly handled crisis communication. Once again.
How could the response be improved? The pattern is the same like in any crisis communication: