Tiffany & Co. Doesn't Want An H&M Next Door

by Deidre Woollard (RSS feed)
Sep 11th 2009 at 3:02AM

Sharing the Westfield Century City mall in Los Angeles with a grocery store (Gelson's) doesn't seem to bother Tiffany & Co. but the jeweler draws the line at H&M getting too close. The LA Times reveals that Tiffany has sued its landlord at the Westfield Century City shopping center saying that a planned H&M would violate the terms of its contract. Tiffany's contract with Westfield forbids retailers that are not considered to be "luxury, upscale or better by conventional retail industry standards." to use or lease certain spaces within, fronting or adjacent to the Tiffany store. The lawsuit alleges that the location of the H&M store so close to Tiffany will cause "irreparable injury to Tiffany's business reputation as a luxury retailer."

The LA Times keenly points out that in Pasadena along Colorado Boulevard, the H&M store and Tiffany are very close to each other. Also, while H&M is a low-priced retailer, the store's focus on trendy style isn't offensively downmarket. Tiffany's lawsuit seems to imply that the H&M shopper and the Tiffany shopper are such separate people that they don't mingle or that somehow a person who buys a $19 sweater instantly becomes a Tiffany undesirable. It seems an odd distinction for a brand that had spent the last couple years reaching out to the aspirational consumer and bumping up its line of silver jewelry in order to attract new customers. Certainly there is a gap between a silver necklace and a $19 sweater but these days plenty of malls and shopping centers feature both expensive stores and lower market ones reflecting today's affluent shopper who often purchases at both ends of the spectrum.

Tags: hm, los angeles, LosAngeles, mall, tiffany and co, TiffanyAndCo, westfield mall, WestfieldMall

Filed under: Jewelry

Source

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Mike F Sep 11th 2009 3:17AM

Ha ha! That is funny :) As a Finnish-Swede, I know that H&M sometimes have a rather "cheap" reputation. But not everyone can afford ultra-luxury in the wardrobe. So stores like H&M are very much needed. And they have good clothes at good prices. So why complain?

That H&M would cause Tiffanys injury seems like a lot of BS. If some rich people cannot see a "cheaper" store next to a luxury one it is just silly. Those people should realise that intelligence (and good personality, probably!) does not sit in the tie knot (something a high-prize lawyer told me. Good expression, btw). So looking down at people who visit a "cheap store" is just silly. And to make a court case out of it!!!!

Q. Sep 11th 2009 7:51PM

Well its not only snobbery.

H&M provides non-luxury goods such as jewelry, which (believe it or not) reduces the effective consumption of other jewelry producers (a.k.a. Tiffany's).
Then again, seeing the target audiences of both retailers (teens vs. adults), maybe it's more of a disturbance to T's clientele, who doesn't want to listen to kids scream and mess around their shopping.

But yeah, completely agree with you...
Going to trial with this is just plain stupid.