A move like this comes with risk. Tiffany’s move to expand its market is laudable, however dramatic shifts come with risk of alienating your existing customers and so the backlash shouldn’t be too surprising if not predictable. Tiffany’s needs to continue to carefully monitor their customer feedback, but to do so in light of the results the new offerings are delivering. The fact that their early collaboration produced interesting results supports the idea that this category may very well be worth the risk.

This kind of partnership gave Target a boost over competitors in the early days. Whether temporary or permanent, pacts like these bring fresh energy and interest. Imagine a partnership with Adele, or Drake. The sky’s the limit.

I think a company always needs to try new innovations to broaden their business and this includes collaborations.
Tiffany will see pretty quickly whether this will work or not.

I suppose Tiffany has forgotten how “Not your Father’s Oldsmobile” failed badly? Or how La-Z-Boy’s nearly identical effort to Tiffany’s effort today failed to deliver significant change. I’m saddened that they are following the lead of such craziness. Customer minds change slowly – attempting to force it all at once is unlikely to be a good idea.

This relationship? I can’t get past the poor fundamental idea – and the relationship is just part of that.

Limited-edition + a cool streetwear brand that can spark the younger buyer sounds like a great idea. But the brand has to be relevant. I am just not sure Supreme is as relevant as it was and the Shrek references + Skittles + Hype Williams collab + showcasing upcoming artists — some things work and some just don’t.

Tiffany and Supreme could hit the mark with the boxed logo on a return to Tiffany’s trinket but it could alienate the customer that is inspired by Jay Z and Queen Bey.

I am just not convinced…

There were collaborative partners they could have chosen that would have been disruptive, yet aligned with both past and future branding strategy. This choice feels like too much of a risk considering that in order to retain the new consumer base they may have won, they’ll have to keep up the association with streetwear. Streetwear is cool and relevant to young, trendy consumers, but now Tiffany has to continue to pursue edgy partners to maintain respect with this target audience.

This is one of the more interesting combos I’ve ever seen. Somehow, with two different customer bases and product that is worlds apart, the brand combo makes sense: both very exclusive and both on the high end of “cool.” I can see the customers’ acceptance of the other brand and the connection it brings. I get it, and think it’ll work and, at the very least, it is one of the best brand combo tests ever.

I like the collaboration, but I hate the tagline. My bet is the average Supreme customer is likely at least one generation removed from the traditional “Blue Box” consumer. I’d lead with power, not an apology. As to audiences, I’d say focus on the younger one. Tiffany already has enough older loyal customers and they aren’t likely to go away before they die off.

Collaborating like this makes sense to get to a younger audience – and by combining the names the risk of upsetting existing customers is small. Long established brands like Tiffany must be prepared to try new things to get to new customer groups – it may well be a springboard bringing customers into the fold of pure Tiffany.

The Tiffany/Supreme collaboration, celebrity partnerships, and “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” tagline are most definitely not the proper steps for the original storied jewelry brand. However within the LVMH umbrella and under the tutelage and leadership of Alexandre Arnault, it is abundantly clear that a new Tiffany is emerging with a view to growth and expanding the customer base over maintenance of the status quo.

This bold strategy shift for the storied jewelry brand will reinvigorate the brand and ignite new growth. Some old money will object, but Tiffany’s updated strategy will deliver growth while projecting exclusivity wrapped in a unique brand proposition.

In this case, Tiffany’s succeeded with the Supreme collab on the power of the Supreme brand. Wonder how many of the buyers would convert to Tiffanys buyers in the long run? The key to Tiffany’s is to find its spot in the youth buyers market to sell in between the string of collaborations. Status quo of traditional Tiffany’s buyers is disappearing as their tastes change, you have to reinvent yourself before your customers go away. Lessons from Harley Davidson is definitely applicable here.

Many of us remember Gloria Vanderbilt jeans. Some may even remember Gloria Vanderbilt perfume. If Tiffany wants to be known and not remembered, then they had better become relevant to younger generations and fast.

It is hard to shed the perception of being “your mother’s brand,” just ask Diet Coke. Tiffany is at a place in brand maturity where they can still divert this label; they are smart to go for it while they can.

As with all collaborations, Tiffany has to be vigilant about protecting it”s brand equity. Creating new/different product lines rather than using legacy jewelry for the collaboration helps. If older consumers are ruffled just a bit, then Tiffany is probably doing it right.

Tiffany has a very specific and loyal consumer base that will continue to shop with them despite any failed marketing initiatives or collaborations.

As the saying goes, “no publicity is bad publicity.” Tiffany, in my opinion, did not lose anything here. Instead, they captured the attention of a younger audience — an audience that will have the capacity and power to determine a brand’s future in the coming years.