Boutique (from my mac dictionary): French, literally ‘small shop,’ via Latin from Greek apothēkē ‘storehouse.’ Compare with bodega .
Some people are getting my reference to boutique mixed up with luxury brands. Personally, I wouldn’t be caught dead with Louis Vuitton bag and I’m sure most Boutiquers wouldn’t be either. The difference, as the diagram suggests (and there are many more differences than I quickly plotted in this image) is the motivations for buying. I said, “Bought for connection” because, as Sanford commented in the previous posts comment section:
“People go out of their way to purchase certain goods - like moleskine notebooks - or buy cheese from specific vendors because it broadcasts something about who they are. This statement can be personal/internal, shared with a small audience…”
[Consequently, Sanford runs these boutique-like events called Stirr in the Valley that people really connect to] Oops…wrong Sanford! David Sanford, who wrote this actually works at LinkedIN.
It’s a way to connect. To friends. To the environment. To your heritage. To your neighbors. To your senses…etc. And, it is a way to express yourself. We’ve understood that we have purchasing power. That if we use that purchasing power towards our passions and beliefs (sweat shop free, recycled materials, locally grown free from chemicals, etc.) or as ways to tell others who we are, we feel like we have a bit more control over this mad, mad consumption culture we live in…..or something like that.
I don’t know…I’m really still exploring this. Trying to figure it out. Not ‘nail it down’ or anything (you know how I hate defining things narrowly), but definitely trying to differentiate it from what is already out there.
And, to tell you the truth, different brands are going to fit into different spots on this diagram for everyone…
:: Total bonus. David Sanford created this interpretation of What Boutique is [pdf]?
View Tara Hunt's profile
19 Comments
Thanks so much for the chart and the food for thought! I love this subject!
Sometimes I also call boutique artisanal, or right now as I’m back from Sundance Film Fest, indie spirit. (Indie: independence alone does not guarantee a ’boutique’. I noted that Krups sponsored the New Frontiers on Main cafe with local Salt Lake Roasting Company’s coffee. The owner is devoted to scouring the globe for the best coffee in the world for over 40 years, and the Krups marketing guy said that’s why they chose them as a co-sponsor. Nope, not every independent coffeehouse is boutique.)
Some luxury stuff is boutique, and vice versa. For instance, in Saratoga, CA I adore the jewelers Deja & Co. Astronomically pricey, yet I feel a boutique vibe there whenever I go in. Deja herself is charming and warm and the space is warm and inviting rather than pretentious and ‘exclusive’. Who else has baby blue walls, fresh flowers and an adorable chandelier — and that’s just the bathroom?
This level of devotion, not just attention, to detail stratifies the boutique from the mere luxury. A boutique is typically a labor of love for the owners. And I find it’s the owners that I also fall in love with at boutiques. Luxury alone all too often is a sterile, cold beauty rather than the effusive, gracious beauty of boutique.
The small production runs I find are typically because of this devotion to detail - for instance, the butter for the chocolate might simply taste better hand-churned, and thus it results in small batches. Small production is the result, but not the objective necessarily.
Tara, your stuff on “boutique” lately has just been outstanding. Thanks for posting it (and thanks for the comment over at my blog, too).
Evelyn, your next-to-last paragraph about the level of devotion lit a light bulb for me. Your description of the boutique is exactly what makes a great blog or podcast: “level of devotion;” “labor of love;” “it’s the owners I also fall in love with.” BLOGS are BOUTIQUE!
Based on your post, what I take away on what you’re saying about boutique is:
Boutique is about you. It’s about connecting what is around you to aid in expressing who you are.
For example:
I carry a moleskin notebook to make a statement of creativity. I have a bookmark pen (fantastic things) to show I appreciate design and efficiency (and pens). I go to an indie cafe here with great wifi hookups and a ‘community work’ type environment. And so forth.
This isn’t to be confused with image. Boutique isn’t about ‘image’ in the general sense. It’s about the image of what makes up your life. It’s an image of your belief, your age, your affections, your disgusts, your interests, et all.
At least, that’s what i’ve taken away from what you’ve written so far. I am liking what you are describing
Nathan, that is an awesome way to put it.
Evelyn always hits the nail on the head. She has been some of the inspiration to going in this direction. Her stuff is boutiquey.
Thanks, Tara for keeping this conversation going.
In the spirit of full disclosure, it is actually I, Bigsanford (see link), not Sanford Barr (founder of Stirr) who has been contributing to this thread. No offense taken on my end - you’ll have to check with Mr. Barr to see how he feels about the mix-up
In your paragraph about connection you leave out “connection with self.” Heritage may capture some element of self, but perhaps an historical element. Decisions around boutique are also about connecting with “present” and “future” (i.e. redefining self at every moment) self.
@Nathan: I think the distinction you’re making is a good one, and the same one I’ve been making in the previous post - what you’re essentially describing is *identity* (not, as you point out to be confused with *image*)
It’s probably more fair to say “quality varies” with commodity goods, especially since commodity goods often form the raw material for boutique goods. Think small-run artist-designed t-shirts.
@bigsanford: Ah, you are correct. I hadn’t caught the new comments on the moleskin post before writing my own. In which case, I would agree about boutique being linked with identity.
However, a new thought came to mind from your comment about Starbucks pertaining to identity (of which I agree) and Tara’s response. That is, and I am merely brainstorming here, that boutique could perhaps be broken down into two fundamental identity occurences (assuming we are using identity as the main force of boutique). Those being, identity, and being identified.
Identity would be purchasing the unique coffee at starbucks, wearing Rainbow sandals, having a moleskin, etc.
Identified is somewhat different in terms of what has initially been described, but still ties in with identity. It is still the idea of connection based on what you do (or what you choose to support) but it is different in that you are the object (as opposed to the item). For example, if you went to a small coffee shop with not a lot of ‘unique’ options, but because your identity is solidifed going there. They know who you are, what you like, and more importantly, what you’re like.
Sorry, a bit of a long winded comment.
Nathan,
Yes - it’s funny you mention this because I sent tara an email last night with a little chart i put together (don’t think we can post images to comments). Hopefully she’ll post it for me
What I proposed in this chart is that boutique is defined by customization and identification in both *production* and *consumption.* Customization on the production side (and I even used a similar example) captures what you’re stating about being identified. I’ll wait to write more on this, but I’ve also got some thoughts on distinguishing luxury and commodity from boutique.
Tara,
Is “Boutique” your latest spin on Pinko Marketing? If so, I think this is a much more appealing metaphor–In fact, i think it extends the PM metaphor to a more concrete tool.
The customization thread is intriguing. We make a statement through an acquisition paid for or not. We are at once conforming to our desired peer group and at the same time, projecting our independence–our own uniqueness. This is the power of the boutique–in my opinion.
I’m struggling with this in my business as I type. Trying to take my somewhat unique “mass produced” product and making it “mass customized”. I look forward to your fleshing this idea out further–it is heading in the direction of my desired end point.
I really agree with the last portion of the boutique category-about personal expression. Luxury brands are bought to impress, commodities are bought through necessity. The niche you describe as boutique lies in the realm of inner satisfaction. That intrinsic balance is slipping away from today’s modern, global society.
Hey Tara …. While I generally buy the thread you are on here, I disagree with the luxury assessment here. “Quality varies & over priced.” sounds emotional to me.
You don’t have to like Hermes, for example, but you can’t question the quality. I think the differentiator of luxury is the antithesis of some of the points made there.
Boutique would land more in the space of a niche provider that understands how to provide one service (only Birkin and no others might be an example) for an astonishingly low price, yet achieve 90% of the quality.
To me, boutique is all abut focus on certain core elements and doing those really well. (Moleskine, W Hotels, Audi cars etc.)
Just some thoughts ….
Colin
@Colin,
I say that ‘quality varies’, but that doesn’t mean that luxury brands are all questionnable quality. Some, perhaps Hermes (I don’t know, I can’t afford to even step into a store), are incredibly high quality, with great attention to detail. Others aren’t that great, but they are still symbols of status.
My best friend used to buy this $450 face cream at Holt Renfrew. A half a year later, she visited her Dermatologist, who told her that cream was doing terrible things to her skin and that it was full of bad chemicals (not the ‘all natural ingredients’ they promised). Her dermatologist gave her a sample of cream that helped her clear up instantly…turns out you could buy it from natural food stores for about $15 a jar.
Yes, I admit that I’m biased about luxury brands. I personally think they are a waste of money. I like nice, high quality stuff, and, though many luxury brands are, not all are.
And, yes, the definition of a luxury brand (according to Trading Up) is the price point.
I very much like David Sanford’s grid in the pdf, but my immediate reaction to this is that the customer participation element of the customisation means that the boutique category is limited to “products” that are assembled post-order. I don’t think that this applies to all the categories I would see as boutique but wonder if I’m in the minority there?
Another quibble would come with the quality element of your commodity category - I think it’s dangerous to assume that the assumption of good quality in niche and luxury products implies lower quality in more mass-produced categories.
Not only does the assumption of luxury=quality not always hold (as the skincream comment above illustrates), but the mass production=markedly lower quality is I feel also questionable. The standard economic definition of a commodity recognises this and I think it’s possible to argue that in an advanced economy that there are mass-produced goods of high quality and specification which can only make a step-change in functionality or design via an increased cost.
Thus these commodity goods compete almost exclusively on price but I’m not convinced that they have to be low quality, inexpensive (except within their product category) or lacking detail. It’s all relative.
@John - I suppose that what I’m assuming in the commodity = low quality is that, when a commodity pays attention to quality, it actually moves into the boutique level.
But perhaps I should have a couple of ‘grey areas’.
@ John Dodds: Thanks for the kind words on the consumption/production grid. I’m certainly open to refining the consumer customization element. Perhaps it would be helpful to provide some of those examples you were thinking of so we can flush it out.
With regard to the discussion of quality, as I indicated in the pdf, I don’t think commodity is necessarily low quality. Some of what Ikea produces is the example I used there. An additional example might be paper.* I’m sure most people would consider paper to be a commodity by almost any standard, and one can certainly purchase mass-produced, non-customized, non-participatory, BUT very high-quality papers. Forget paper for writing or printing, maybe toilet paper hits closer to home! Gas-station single ply and wash-cloth-thick Charmin Ultra both seem like commodities to me, but with significant quality differences (environmental concerns aside).
*Let’s set aside any envir
@Bigsanford - I think there are many categories. The local bakery for example is definitely a boutique but the customer does not (pace birthday cakes etc) customise the production in the way you laid out in the coffee example.
@ Tara - Grey areas should be avoided in my opinion. Yes some commodities can have boutique incarnations, but I sense that boutique items do not necessarilly have commodity incarations. I think the point about commodities is that higher price leads to lost sales whereas in the other categories higher price will not dissuade purchase (for different reasons).
Busy weekend so it took me so it was difficult to find the time to focus my attention long enough to make a thoughtful (or hopefully thoughtful) response.
In terms of what commodity is, i’d like to take a stab out a more simple definition as opposed to a narrowed one.
Commodity is to me, more or less, an item with various competitors competing almost solely on the basis of price with slight variations otherwise.
Eg: Burger King vs. McDonalds.
Luxury is a good or service often, but always, given a higher price and that is more often than not consumed for the reason of image or personal reward (I deserve this luxury).
With this, boutique is about identity. The connection of who you are to what you consume. The non-verbal conversation of your identity.
@bigsandford: From your pdf, I’d say i’m a little confused.
Identification - Consumption is essentially product identity.
Identification - Production I am not exactly sure what you’re getting at.
Customization - Production is basically have a product tailored according to ones specifications or identity?
Customization - Consumption is a special order (in the sense of say, a usual at the deli, or a coffee at coffee shop)?
An addition until I get your response (and while I continue to consider boutique) is a quote that pertains to commodity in terms of second-order identity (well described between first and second order, btw).
” Like everyone else, I had become a slave to the IKEA nesting instinct. If I saw something like clever coffee table in the shape of a yin and yang, I had to have it. I would flip through catalogs and wonder, “What kind of dining set defines me as a person?” ” - Fightclub
I think the last line of that is perhaps the fundamental element of boutique.
Nathan,
Thanks for your questions - I DO plan on getting back to you with a more thoughtful reply- have just been busy. Wanted to let you know…
Thanks for letting me know!
And not to worry, I see today why you’ve been busy (congrats)
Looking forward to your response.
3 Trackbacks
[...] 2) We believe in the Boutique Era. Over the last few days Tara Hunt has been blogging about her view of the boutique culture and we could not agree more with her thinking. [...]
[...] An excellent graphic from Horsepigcow Marketing [...]
[...] It could also be argued that: Web 1.0 = big corporations etc trying to sell us stuff through the web Web 2.0 = everybody trying to sell things through the web, but developing ‘communities’ of people in the process (Tara’s Boutique Era?) Web 3.0 = god alone knows. Snow Crash or something. [...]