85cornelia/Depositphotos.com
September 18, 2025
Should Luxury Brands Walk Away from Aspirational Customers?
Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) 11th edition of its “True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights” study argues that although aspirational consumers fueled luxury’s growth for decades, they’re showing a new “fragility” amid macroeconomic pressures — and suggested luxury brands should refocus around their historic core high-net-worth-individual (HNWI) customer.
The study, done in collaboration with Altagamma, the trade association of Italian luxury goods manufacturers, found that from the 1800s through most of the first half of the 20th century, luxury was a “privilege, reserved for the wealthiest and truly affluent.”
“Democratization” started arriving in the post-World War II era, when ready-to-wear and newer categories such as eyewear and cosmetics became accessible to aspirational customers. That ramped up at the start of the 21st century, fed by China’s expanding middle class and luxury labels going mainstream as status symbols. As a result, aspirational consumers — those spending less than €5,000 ($5,900) annually on personal and experiential luxury — eventually peaked at 74% of luxury spend by 2013.
However, the share of luxury spending by aspirational customers has since retreated to 60% due to macroeconomic concerns. Said customers also say they see inflation-driven price increases as unjustified, and now have a lower value perception of luxury, according to BCG.
Data Indicates That Value Perception, Legacy Notion May Influence Luxury Consumer Buying Patterns
BCG survey data shows half of aspirational customers report a preference for purchasing iconic or timeless pieces, while three-out-of-four have abandoned a purchase due to a negative perception of value for money. BCG states, “This behavior reflects not only economic caution, but likely a deeper redefinition of what luxury means for this segment.”
Given the structural pressures with aspirational spending, BCG said luxury brands “must refocus” on top-tier or “Beyond Money” clients, or those comprising less than 1% of the market while generating 23% of the value.
“Luxury was once the realm of the few,” said Filippo Bianchi, managing director and senior partner, Global Head of Luxury at BCG. “But in the race for scale, much of the industry lost its soul and traded exclusivity for reach, stability for volatility.”
With average annual luxury expenditures of approximately €360,000 ($425,000), top-tier clients tend to spend “counter-cyclically,” boosted by stock market performance and immune to broader volatility, according to BCG. BCG cited data showed that luxury brands with high exposure to top-tier clients significantly outperformed those with high exposure to aspirational consumers over the last 12 months.
To better reach top-tier clients, BCG advises luxury brands to focus on delivering a more personalized, intimate and exclusive experience with a greater focus on quality goods.
BCG states, “Brands must recalibrate—not through scale, but precision; not through ubiquity, but intimacy. In doing so, they’ll take a crucial step toward building a stronger luxury industry by returning to what made it exceptional in the first place.”
Discussion Questions
Should luxury brands be doubling down on high-net-worth individuals instead of seeking to recapture aspirational consumers?
Do you agree that in pursuing aspirational consumers, many luxury brands “traded exclusivity for reach, stability for volatility”?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Tom Ryan
Managing Editor, RetailWire
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Has Maverik Made a Mistake on its Kum & Go Rebrand?
Maverik has completed its rebranding of Kum & Go, folding the stores into its own banner…Is Guilt Messaging the Path To Influencing Consumer Behavior?
A university study has found that telling consumers their returned items will be “kept out of…How Great of an Advantage Do Low-Price Leaders Like Walmart and Aldi Have?
Low-price leaders like Aldi and Walmart, among others, are vying for an increasingly savvy consumer. How…
“ Think of your energy as if it’s expensive. As if it’s a luxury item. Not everyone can afford it. Not everyone has invested in you, in order to be able to have the capital for you to care about this.“
i have been saying for a long time that luxury and ubiquity are oxymoronic. Taylor has it right. My energy, my money and my time are expensive. And if you want to attract me, prove that youre worthy of me. The “aspirational” shopper wants you to prove she can afford you. That’s backwards.
The aspirational shopper is buying “Wirkins” on Instagram.
If I see a “luxury brand” regularly walking down the street, it is probably no longer a luxury brand.
I think we need a little better defintion of “luxury brand” here: correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a – say – $50K pair of sunglasses, so I don’t think “eyewear” really belongs in this category (and it’s not some trivial matter, because the advice is going to vary a lot based on pricepoint) But really this just seems to be the old issue of brand dilution: why it’s not a good thing…and why most thoughtful luxury sellers have added lesser-priced nameplates to their portfolios to keep things pure(r).
Actually, Craig, a few brands of bejeweled spectacle frames can command such price points. In the late 1980’s,Cartier offered diamond-crusted frames with its Panthère motif and Rodenstock offered models in platinum studded with precious gems. Price points then were in the tens of thousands Today, Oliver People’s advertises a solid gold frame for $5,500.
But your larger point is correct, I think. “Luxury” is often about managing perception on the part of the brand. If only a very few elite can afford your signature product that’s a narrow market indeed. Those items can create a halo for the brand that helps move merchandise in larger quantity. Hence, $400 Versace t-shirts.
“Brands must recalibrate – not through scale, but precision; not through ubiquity, but intimacy.”
Intimacy happens through human contact, and through the little things; the creature comforts every customer craves. The HNWI customer has it made, the rest of us will ultimately have to deal with whatever AI has to offer.
Aspirational customers did walk away because of financial pressures, but they also walked away as price hikes in luxury brands were extreme and well above inflation. Brands priced people out of the market. That may have been deliberate or accidental, but it has slowed growth. The question, however, is what does it do to the economics and to brand equity? In many cases, the impact may not be negative because the whole purpose of luxury centered on exclusivity and scarcity.
The brand equity of a luxury brand is “I can’t afford it.”
Unlike technology platforms that gain value as more people join, luxury goods lose their primary function—status signaling—when adoption spreads. The BCG data reveals something provocative: aspirational customers were never really luxury customers—they were anxiety customers, buying to signal membership in a club that excludes people like them.
The “fragility” of aspirational customers isn’t economic—it’s existential. When everyone can afford entry-level luxury, the psychological premium evaporates. Aspirational customers didn’t walk away because of price increases; they walked away because luxury stopped delivering on its core promise: making them feel special. Aspirational luxury died when it stopped being aspirational. Brands flattened the scarcity gradient by making entry-level luxury too accessible for too long. When most people in your social circle own the same ‘luxury’ items, those items lose their ability to signal status or success.
BCG’s recommendation to focus on HNWIs isn’t about serving customers who can afford luxury—it’s about serving customers for whom luxury still functions as intended. The economic pressure narrative conveniently obscures luxury’s fundamental failure: the gradient collapsed first; the economy simply provided customers with an acceptable reason to acknowledge it.
The strategic question: Can luxury brands engineer new scarcity gradients in a digitally transparent world? Can they create exclusivity that becomes more valuable when exposed to transparency?
“aspirational customers were never really luxury customers”
That is why they will buy dupes (previously “knock offs”)… the aspiration.
The lux audience isn’t interested in the faux look or the bad quality or the bad resale value.
In the United States, consumers mistake luxury for expensive. They are two differnet animals. The reality of true luxury is that it is beyond expensive.
Scarcity and ubiquity don’t operate like an on/off switch. Luxury and ubiquity clearly don’t belong together in the same strategy or thought process. Scarcity is one of the keys, but creating scarcity doens’t just mean make it expensive and limit the number of people who can even think about a purchase. It’s easy to manage scarcity through supply. I see no problem with a luxury brand occasonally offering a more accessible product drop that is a combination of scarce and brief and unpredictable in nature. Slightly more affordable and randomly available for short time periods in limited supply. Access. Affordability (not inexpensive). It’s creating an on ramp for the aspirational customer. Handled correctly it’s brand building, not brand dilutive. It’s not about growth at the aspirational level. It’s about keeping the aspiration alive.
Luxury customers want to feel appreciated and valued more than the customers of a traditional “mass market” product. The two words that belong in the luxury experience are “individualized” (making the customer feel like they are most important at that moment) and “exclusive” (making the customer feel like the product is just for very few). Can you scale those experiences to the mass market or aspirational consumers? Probably not.
Bespoke product does not scale. Bespoke services won’t either- as there are not enough skilled trades people spread evenly across the world.
Premium brands should absolutely consider leaning more into their high-net-worth individual (HNWI) customers—especially in the near-to-mid term. The data shows that aspirational consumers are increasingly fragile: rising inflation, price hikes, and a sense that value isn’t there anymore are pushing them away. In contrast, the top tier clients—though fewer in number—provide disproportionate value (both in revenue and in brand prestige) and tend to be more resilient through economic downturns. So doubling down on the HNWI base could help stabilize luxury brands in volatile times.
On the question of whether brands “traded exclusivity for reach, stability for volatility,” I think there is merit to that criticism. By expanding rapidly into entry-luxury, diffusion lines, more accessible categories, and broad marketing to the growing middle class (especially in emerging markets), many luxury brands gained scale but diluted some of the traits—scarcity, mystique, premium service—that made them special. That in turn eroded some of the aspirational consumers’ perception of value: when “everyone” can buy “luxury lite,” the status premium drops.
That said, pursuing aspirational consumers isn’t without merit—it can be a growth engine, help with brand awareness, introduce future wealth cohorts to the brand. But it needs to be a carefully calibrated strategy so that brand equity—exclusivity, heritage, premium experience—isn’t lost. Brands that straddle both worlds successfully tend to segment clearly: reserving highest craftsmanship, limited editions, superior service for HNWIs, while allowing more accessible lines to introduce the brand but without undermining what makes it premium.
“So doubling down on the HNWI base could help stabilize luxury brands in volatile times.”
The (U)HNWI is the lux audience.
Corporate’s “growth at any cost/maximization/optimization/socially viral” is not lasting strategy. Those are in tactics for Aspirational targets.
Luckily the (U)HNWI group is growing… but so is brand vs brand competition, at global level. This cohort has the world open to them, but still only 24hrs in a day. Once their 10 houses are filled with stuff, discernment & CX & gifting are the ultimate perceived value. The lux multinationals thrive by refining the shifts in geo-based wealth.
To me, true luxury has always been about the brand and the emotion it evokes. People don’t just buy a product they buy into how it makes them feel, the experience surrounding it, and the values it represents. Price, product, and customer experience are the levers that shape this emotional connection. That’s what creates luxury.
I don’t believe there’s a one-size-fits-all strategy when it comes to aspiration. Luxury endures when brands protect their DNA and let customers decide its relevance.
Today’s aspirational consumer has more options for finding luxury brands at resale, The RealReal for example demonstrates this cohort is shopping for fashion with badge appeal. In contrast, as the high net worth group gets larger and wealthier, they want exclusive access, personalization and experience that extends well beyond their wardrobe.
Recent research suggests that the top 10% of HHI accounts for nearly 50% of all GMV in the USA. That trend is unlikely to deviate. Sell things to people with money in a category that is persistently growing and you’ll grow (profitably) too.