logo
Immigration May Stop But Foreign Brands Keep Coming

Immigration May Stop But Foreign Brands Keep Coming

Forbes27-05-2025

The exterior of the Chopard mansion that has become the new Lalique store in New York.
The U.S. is the largest and most competitive retail market. Success here brings scale and validation in other markets.
Especially in Asia, many consumers aspire to own products that are made by popular U.S. brands. America is often the great unlock for worldwide success and brand growth.
While many non-U.S. brands have found success here, they're in the minority. For most non-U.S. brands, America is more graveyard than goldmine for their worldwide ambitions. It's a crowded, fast-moving and mercilessly competitive market that's hard to stand out in. It looks a lot easier to succeed here than it really is.
But they keep coming because the promise is so great.
So it is that three French brands have recently opened (or re-designed) new stores on expensive, prime real estate in New York. Each brings a unique approach and takes a different kind of retail gamble.
One is the department store Printemps. Arriving with a big splash and written about extensively (including by me), its reviews are universally positive.
Retail expert, advisor and investor Ken Pilot said about it, 'I can't remember the last time I walked into a store and was blown away.' He loves the displays, the merchandising surprises around every corner and the artful consistency of presentation across brands. As Pilot says, 'art, design and shopping converge seamlessly' in the new Printemps store.
The other new store by a French brand is Lalique, the legendary French tabletop brand renowned for its crystal glass creations and iconic bottles and vases. Lalique was founded in 1888 in Paris by Rene Lalique and today the brand also includes jewelry and fragrances.
The Lalique store is getting a lot less attention than the Printemps store. So let me show it to you.
The outside (pictured above) could not be a more elegant New York entrance. It's a mansion owned by the Chopard family that is now leased to Lalique.
When you enter there's a stairs (or lift if you're disabled). At least when I was there, a person greets you at the top of the stairs.
The entrance to the store.
The rear of the first floor.
First floor main area.
Second floor selling area.
Second floor fragrance area
The new store was inspired by the Lalique bar at the well-known restaurant Daniel where it allowed high-end customers and collectors of Lalique to see the brand in a new way.
James Mun, CEO of Lalique, said previous U.S. Lalique stores were 'very traditional.' But 'we weren't seeing a lot of our collectors and die-hard fans' in the stores and we 'weren't seeing a lot of new next generation' consumers come in either. So Lalique decided to 'revamp the retail experience' to 'educate the next generation of Americans" about Lalique.
The new store is right beside stores of the jewelry brand Graff, luxury brand Hermes and leather brand Goyard. Mun says they hope to attract those high-end customers to the Lalique store.
Mun says the townhouse allows them to show other products including fragrance and interior designs which Mun says is the company's fastest growing segement. He says the store is more of a 'home environment' and they are 'breathing Lalique life into it.'
The Lalique store is gorgeous and it's a pleasure to be in such a beautiful environment.
Mun is right to think about how to integrate their online presence with their store. Consumers want brands to speak with one voice and to shop interchangably between online and physical stores. He's also right to think about attracting younger consumers. If Lalique can't do that, their future is a big question mark.
But when I consider the potential success of the store, it makes me wonder about a few things:
- Will consumers find it? Lalique isn't big enough to have a giant advertising budget and while the Goyard/Hermes/Graff customer base might see it, few other casual passersby will. It can be fun to shop in a beautiful New York mansion but if you don't know it's there it's not worth much.
- What makes retail interesting now? The Printemps store is fun to be in. What makes that true is hard to define exactly and it's a little different for each person. Printemps is offering clothing, footwear, fragrance and beauty but above all, food. Every area of the Printemps store has either a bar or restaurant or some offering where shoppers can sit and be part of the environment.
And it has action. The merchandise is different from what you'll see almost anywhere else and the food keeps the people inside. All those elements make it more likely that a consumer will buy something. Lalique doesn't have that.
Printemps has people that look like you or what you'd like to look like. It feels right as a customer to be in an environment where you feel like you belong. When I was in the Lalique store on a sunny, 70-degree day, there was one other customer on one of the floors. It makes a consumer wonder: why am I alone here? What does everyone else know?
You might say that the private, exclusive, rarefied atmosphere is a key to success in luxury. But Hermes and Chanel do pretty well being on some of the most heavily foot-trafficked streets in New York with tons of traffic in-store.
If the Lalique store is going to do well, it will take time for people to find out it's there; Lalique can't afford a blowout marketing budget. The store has to work.
It will also take adaptation. They're planning events and there's no doubt that will help. But having a store on an expensive piece of real estate that isn't visible to the high-end consumers going by is kinda risky.
If you build a store that looks like someone else's, it's not interesting and consumers don't come back.
That's what's so interesting about the newly redone Longchamp store on Spring Street in Soho in New York.
When you enter, you're looking at what must be one of the most interesting stairs in a public place in New York, here:
Stairs at entryway of Longchamp store in Soho, New York
And the view from the top of the stairs is just as interesting. It makes you want to walk on it.
Top view of the staircase at Longchamp store in Soho, New York
The store is on a busy shopping street with lots of pedestrian traffic, the window is inviting and the store is intriguing. But of course the product and the store experience are what will make it succeed or not and here Longchamp acquits itself well.
Longchamp store shop floor area in Soho, New York
There's no question when you're in the Longchamp store that handbags and small leather goods are the brand's identity, there's no mistaking it. The prices are accessible, you can buy a handbag for well under $200 and it's hard to find one more than $600.
The sales staff is well trained, knowledgeable about the product and helpful without being overbearing. They are also keyed in to comment kindly on something about how you look.
I was not told what the rent is or how much the improvements cost so I can't say if Longchamp is getting a good return on its investment. But the store works and it's both a great showcase for selling and a fun place to be.
I'm not the only one who thinks so. The store is busy and there were many customers even though I was there on a rainy weekday afternoon. There are multiple events and activities going on in the store they'd like to try, like painting photography and refreshments.
All three stores, Printemps, Lalique and Longchamp are unique in their own ways. That's important because consumers don't want more sameness. But uniqueness can be risky because American consumers can be fickle and often don't respond the way non-U.S. consumers do.
If Printemps and Longchamp keep doing what they're doing it appears that their New York stores will be successful. But the Lalique store is less clear. They need to get more people in the store and the path to doing that is difficult and costly. It's one of the most vexing problems in retail: how do you adapt an established brand that works well abroad to what U.S. consumers want now?
If you're successful in your home market, it's easy to believe you'll be successful in the U.S. and that motivates brands to try. But success in America isn't guaranteed by pedigree and it's a big investment to market in the U.S. For foreign brands, the formula requires deep consumer understanding, smart store design and often, a willingness to rehtink legacy.
But it's also a big opportunity. And that's why, no matter what happens with immigration, the scale, status and singular challenge of retail success in America will keep the brands coming.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower
Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower

Bloomberg

time18 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Financial Repression Won't Make Interest Rates Lower

The federal government, financial markets and most Americans are all in a state of denial about interest rates. Whenever someone goes on business TV, gets a mortgage or makes a long-term debt projection, I usually hear some variation of the phrase, 'when rates go back down.' I am sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but rates are not going back down, especially to the levels of the 2010s. And almost any attempt to try to force them down — what we economists call financial repression — will only bring pain.

Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE
Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE

Elon Musk stepped down from his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on May 30, only months after promising to transform government by cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget and eliminating so-called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Just a week later, Musk's relationship with President Donald Trump ― the man Musk spent nearly $300 million to elect — went up in flames, as Americans watched the drama unfold in real time on X and Truth Social. Trump publicly denounced Musk as 'disloyal' for criticizing the president's signature legislative effort, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' while Musk called the bill a 'disgusting abomination' and openly called for Trump's impeachment. The spectacle of the richest man in the world and the president of the United States exchanging insults online may be remembered as DOGE's final chapter in the public imagination. But it should not obscure the damage Musk wrought when he commanded one of the most powerful positions in the Trump administration. More from Freep Opinion: Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run To start, Musk's promised savings never came. The DOGE website currently claims to have saved the public $175 billion through a range of actions like eliminating 'fraud and improper payment' and cancelling grants. But even that sum — which is believed to be falsely inflated through a combination of guesswork and suspect arithmetic — is less than 3% of the federal budget, and less than 9% of the $2 trillion in cuts Musk promised upon assuming his role. In other words, DOGE failed on Musk's own terms. What did materialize is an unprecedented attack on public institutions, beginning with the people who carry out the work of public service. According to the latest data, around 260,000 federal employees have either been forced out, been slated for cuts, or chosen to leave their posts since DOGE began its work. These aren't faceless 'bureaucrats.' They are the people who test our water for contaminants, inspect our food for harmful bacteria, and ensure air travel is safe, among other public services. The department with the highest number of planned terminations is Veterans Affairs, with up to 80,900 personnel serving our nation's veterans slated for future cuts, according to the New York Times. Many of these jobs are health care workers who care for veterans directly. More from Freep Opinion: I'm a gay man in Detroit. Celebrating Pride feels more important than ever In cutting both people and programs that provide essential services, DOGE attempted a bargain that Michiganders are painfully familiar with: treat government like a business, and attempt to cut public services to balance the books no matter the risks to public health, the economy or democracy. During our state's era of emergency management, decision-making power in several cities and school districts like Flint and Detroit shifted from democratically elected local officials to appointees of the governor. In Flint, a series of emergency managers focused on cost-cutting to address the city's financial crisis, including the ill-fated decision to switch the city's water source. The result was the worst man-made environmental catastrophe in American history. Flint should have been a warning to the country that 'efficiency' without regard for public welfare is a dangerous proposition. Yet DOGE was a far more extreme expression of this logic. Like Flint, the DOGE experiment is a grave warning about what happens when democracy is treated as a private enterprise rather than a public trust, when billionaires think they know best what people need in their own communities. And while it may take decades to account for the potential harms DOGE's actions might produce, we are already seeing some. Here in Michigan, DOGE reportedly canceled $394 million in federal public health grants, money that ultimately supports local health initiatives statewide. These cuts are not abstract. They will be felt in people's bodies and the broader society. Local health providers will have to cut back on critical services such as vaccine administration and interventions for substance use disorder. According to a 2019 study, every dollar invested in public health departments yields as much as $67 to $88 of benefits to society. DOGE also cut $15 million in AmeriCorps funding for our state, impacting programs that offered tutoring, support for seniors, and assistance for homeless residents. At a time when Michigan ranks 34th in the nation in overall child wellbeing, students in more than 60 school districts may see tutoring support disappear. This begs the question: Who ultimately benefited from Musk's relentless cutting? The clear answer is Elon Musk, who is $170 billion richer since endorsing Trump in the summer of 2024, even accounting for the drop in Tesla's stock attributed to the public backlash over DOGE's actions. (How this most recent fiasco will affect Musk's bottom line remains to be seen.) Meanwhile, DOGE spent months attempting to 'delete' entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which stops predatory banks from scamming veterans, seniors, and consumers in general. And it destroyed the IRS' ability to audit wealthy tax cheats, forcing workers and families to shoulder more of the nation's tax responsibility. DOGE has also made us less free. The initiative's most significant legacy may be what the writer Julia Anguin described as 'a sprawling domestic surveillance system for the Trump administration ― the likes of which we have never seen in the United States.' In agency after agency, Musk and his lieutenants accessed the most sensitive data about Americans and handled it with reckless disregard. Information like Social Security numbers and bank accounts that once stood in the relative safety of government silos are now being merged to create more sweeping surveillance tools than ever before. They could be used to further crack down on immigrants' speech, or to simply make it easier to target political enemies. This is what we're left with. A public more exposed to harm — from preventable diseases, from corporate predation and scams, from toxins in our air and water—and a small group of wealthy elites more empowered to dominate our government and our democracy. Perhaps this is why a solid majority of Americans disapprove of Musk's job performance, arguably accelerating his departure from government. The American public deserves a government that is fit for purpose and delivers on its promises. But Elon Musk never intended to create that. DOGE was built on the fiction of Musk's mastery of all things, one of the many myths attributed to the ultra-wealthy. What it concealed was a public sector novice who failed to understand the basic mechanics of the institutions he railed against. On the day Musk announced his departure, a lawsuit against him and DOGE was cleared to proceed, accusing him of wielding unlawful power over federal agencies, contracts and data without democratic oversight. It was a fitting coda. Musk left behind no durable reform, only institutions hollowed out, public trust frayed, and a template for how easily government can be turned against the people it exists to serve. Even this spectacular fallout with Trump should not distract from the wreckage he leaves behind. Bilal Baydoun is Director of Democratic Institutions at the Roosevelt Institute, a national policy think tank devoted to building on the legacy of FDR. A version of this column was previously published on the Roosevelt Institute's Substack. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access witha Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Elon Musk-Trump spat is a distraction from DOGE failures | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store