Luxury has always been a mirror held up to society’s confidence. But in the next phase of consumer spending, the mirror may be warped by something less visible than fashion cycles: AI-driven changes to how wealth is created, distributed, and protected. As artificial intelligence reshapes productivity and job structures, investors are increasingly asking a sharper question than “Will luxury grow?” They are asking “Which luxury grows, for whom, and at what price points?”
A recent Financial Times discussion frames the issue through a “K-shaped economy” lens—an environment where growth concentrates at the top while the middle becomes more uneven, with demand diverging across income groups. In that world, luxury brands do not simply compete on desirability. They compete on resilience: how well their customer base holds up when the distribution of purchasing power becomes more polarized.
Within that debate, Richemont is often positioned as better placed than LVMH, not because one company is inherently superior, but because their exposure to different segments of luxury may map more cleanly onto a K-shaped consumer landscape. The difference can be summarized in a deceptively simple cultural phrase: bags versus baubles. Yet behind the metaphor sits a more technical question about product mix, pricing psychology, and the way consumers trade down—or double down—when their economic outlook becomes uncertain.
To understand why this matters, it helps to unpack what a K-shaped economy does to luxury demand. In a typical expansion, luxury consumption tends to broaden gradually: premium buyers remain loyal, while aspirational customers move up from entry-level goods. In a K-shaped scenario, that ladder becomes harder to climb. The top segment—those whose incomes rise faster due to AI-enabled productivity gains, capital ownership, or high-skill roles—may keep spending with less hesitation. Meanwhile, the middle segment faces either slower wage growth, higher volatility, or a greater need to prioritize essentials. That doesn’t necessarily kill luxury. It changes the shape of luxury.
The result is not a single “luxury boom” or “luxury bust.” It is a split market. Premium purchases may remain robust, but the broader categories that rely on steady trickle-up demand could become more price-conscious. Consumers may still buy luxury, but they may buy differently: fewer items, more deliberate choices, and a stronger preference for products that feel like durable statements rather than discretionary indulgences.
This is where the “bags vs baubles” framing becomes more than a catchy contrast. Bags—especially iconic leather goods—often behave like semi-investment purchases in the consumer mind. They are tangible, repeatable, and strongly associated with identity. A bag can be carried daily, displayed socially, and used across seasons. It also tends to have a clearer “ownership logic”: you buy one (or a few) and keep them. Baubles—jewellery and smaller accessories—can be equally desirable, but they may be more sensitive to timing and mood. Jewellery can be tied to events, gifting cycles, and personal milestones; it can also be purchased as a treat when budgets allow. In a K-shaped economy, those discretionary moments may become less frequent for the middle segment, even if the top segment continues to spend.
Richemont’s positioning is frequently interpreted as an advantage in that environment because its portfolio is heavily weighted toward categories that can align with the “durable statement” behavior. LVMH, by contrast, spans a wider range of luxury activities, including segments that may be more exposed to the ebb and flow of aspirational demand. That does not mean LVMH is vulnerable across the board. It means the path of demand could diverge more sharply between its segments, depending on how AI-driven wealth affects different consumer groups.
Consider the mechanics of consumer choice under uncertainty. When households feel economically squeezed, they often reduce the number of purchases rather than eliminating spending entirely. They also shift toward items that offer perceived value stability—products that look good over time, retain brand meaning, and avoid the feeling of “wasting money.” In a K-shaped world, the middle may still want luxury, but it may become more selective. That selectivity tends to favor products with strong brand equity and clear utility.
Bags fit that pattern particularly well. They are highly visible, easy to evaluate, and strongly linked to brand heritage. They also tend to have a more consistent demand profile because they are not purely event-driven. Even when discretionary budgets tighten, consumers can rationalize a bag purchase as a long-term addition to their wardrobe rather than a short-lived indulgence.
Baubles, while often timeless, can be more psychologically tied to “occasion” and “treat.” That makes them potentially more exposed to the middle’s reduced willingness to spend freely. If the middle segment becomes more cautious, jewellery purchases may still occur—but the frequency and variety could soften. The top segment may continue buying at full pace, but the overall category growth could become less broad-based.
This is the heart of the investor debate: in a K-shaped economy, the winners are not necessarily the brands with the most hype or the widest appeal. The winners are the brands whose customer base and product mix are most insulated from the middle’s retrenchment—and whose premium demand is least likely to be offset by weaker aspirational volumes.
But there is another layer: AI doesn’t only change incomes; it changes attention. Luxury marketing has always relied on scarcity, storytelling, and social signaling. AI accelerates personalization and targeting, which can intensify the feedback loop between brand messaging and consumer desire. For the top segment, AI-driven personalization may deepen loyalty by making luxury feel even more tailored and exclusive. For the middle segment, however, the same personalization can increase comparison shopping and price sensitivity. When consumers see more options, more offers, and more “alternatives,” they may become more likely to delay purchases or trade down within the luxury ecosystem.
In that context, brand positioning becomes a kind of economic firewall. Brands that can maintain a sense of status and distinctiveness may preserve demand even when consumers become more selective. Brands that rely more heavily on aspirational momentum—where consumers buy because they want to “keep up”—may face a tougher environment if the middle segment’s confidence weakens.
Richemont’s advantage in this narrative is often described as exposure to higher-spend segments and categories that can hold up when the market polarizes. LVMH’s position is more complex because it includes both luxury goods and other luxury-adjacent businesses, each with different sensitivities to consumer income distribution. Investors therefore look not just at the headline brand strength, but at the internal composition of demand: which products are bought by the top segment, which by the middle, and which by both.
The “K-shaped” idea also implies that luxury demand may not decline uniformly; it may become more concentrated. That concentration can benefit brands with strong pricing power and supply discipline. If the top segment keeps buying, brands that can protect margins and manage inventory may outperform those that must discount to stimulate volume. In a polarized market, discounting can be particularly damaging because it risks eroding the very status signals that luxury depends on.
Here, the operational side matters. Luxury companies are not just selling products; they are managing scarcity and brand perception. If AI-driven wealth increases the gap between those who can spend and those who cannot, the market may reward brands that can keep their positioning intact without chasing volume at any cost. That is why investors pay attention to pricing strategy, product allocation, and the ability to avoid promotional behavior that could weaken long-term brand equity.
There is also a subtle point about how consumers interpret “value” when technology changes the economy. In a K-shaped world, the middle may not only have less disposable income; it may also feel less certain about future earnings. That uncertainty can make consumers more reluctant to commit to big-ticket purchases. However, it can also make them more willing to buy items that feel like stable anchors—things that don’t require constant replacement and that carry social meaning.
Again, bags can serve as that anchor. They are not typically “impulse” purchases in the same way smaller accessories might be. They are also easier to justify as part of a personal style system. Jewellery can be similar, but it often competes with other uses of discretionary cash, including travel, experiences, and event-related spending. If the middle segment reduces discretionary flexibility, jewellery may be among the first categories to see a shift in timing.
Yet it would be inaccurate to frame this as a simple “bags always win” story. Luxury is not a single market; it is a set of micro-markets with different demand drivers. Even within handbags, there are differences between entry-level icons and ultra-premium limited editions. Even within jewellery, there are differences between everyday luxury and high-end pieces. The K-shaped economy may not eliminate demand; it may reorder it.
That reordering can create opportunities for brands that can capture the top segment’s continued spending while also maintaining enough relevance to the middle to prevent a collapse in breadth. The best-positioned companies will likely be those that can keep their product lines coherent across income groups—offering aspirational entry points without diluting the brand, and offering premium hero products that satisfy the top segment’s desire for exclusivity.
This is where the “bags or baubles” debate becomes a proxy for a deeper strategic question: how much of a brand’s growth depends on the middle segment’s willingness to trade up? If a brand’s growth model relies on broad-based aspirational demand, it may face headwinds when the middle becomes more uneven. If a brand’s growth model is anchored in top-segment durability—supported by categories that remain attractive even when budgets tighten—it may be better insulated.
The K-shaped scenario also raises questions about geographic demand. AI-driven wealth effects may vary by region depending on labor markets, capital ownership patterns, and the speed of adoption across industries. Luxury demand is already sensitive to currency movements, travel flows, and local consumer confidence. In a polarized economy, these factors can amplify divergence: some markets may see stronger top-end spending, while others may experience a sharper middle squeeze.
Investors