Corporate Fashion Museums Communication Strategies: The Case of the Louis Vuitton Maison de Famille in Asnières-sur-Seine

The landscape of fashion museums within the French context is heterogeneous: in fact, both public and private entities cohabit in this same category. If in the Parisian context, we observe two types of museums for public entities: those entirely dedicated to fashion and financed by local municipalities and those dedicated to contemporary art museums that regularly host temporary exhibitions. Apart from the financial dimension (see paragraph 1.3), many scholars have underlined the risks associated with the progressive integration of fashion houses in the management of temporary themed-exhibitions designed using public-private ventures. The co-construction of these exhibitions may indeed undermine the scientific integrity of museum institutions, which are likely to be caught up in market dynamics [4]. These museums fall into the second category (cf. private entities). Foundations (e.g. Alaïa), commercial galleries including exhibition spaces showcasing archives or pieces that are not for sale (e.g. Galerie Dior) as well as Corporate Fashion Museums. The latter may refer to a diversity of locations [5]. ‘Corporate Fashion Museums’ are defined as physical exhibition spaces dedicated to the presentation of a company’s history and know-how, which are open to various audiences [6]. These museums do not meet the museum’s criteria adopted by the International Council of Museums during the 21st Conference in 2000. As such, companies can communicate freely about their history and heritage and are not subject to the same regulations as public museums. This implies the existence of both curatorial and geographical specificities. Among these, we note that the location is directly linked to the production site. The distribution of company museums within the French territory is thus modelled on the structure of the ‘fashion system’ and reflects the industrial history of the hexagon [7]. Close study of the French context allows us to identify different types of locations associated with the identification of Corporate Fashion Museums (Table 1):

The display of cultural heritage is very strategic for fashion houses that place most of their value on symbolic aspects. Firms investing in museums take advantage of their ‘heritage brand’ through a specific narrative, which allows highlighting the value of the brand while reinforcing their image and reputation [7]. The literature review considered corporate fashion museums as privileged viewpoints to observe the interconnections between public engagement and luxury fashion brands. Many studies have been conducted regarding the rationale behind luxury fashion brands investments in corporate museums. Those cultural spaces are considered as part of brand value creation [8, 9]: within this context, art is perceived as a business investment [10] useful to reconnect the firms with their origins (and heritage) [11] as well as with their customers [12]. The opening of art-oriented places also allows fashions brands to diversify their marketing strategies: in this perspective, museums can be instrumentalized by luxury companies to offer new consumer’ experiences [13]. As private entities, Corporate Fashion Museums are free to define their brand narrative and to curate autonomously their own ‘patrimonium’. We rely here on the Latin term ‘patrimonium’ at the core of the notion of heritage, referring to the idea of ‘family belongings’. In this context, they may adopt communication methods based on entrepreneurial and marketing techniques. If one refers to the museums located in a historic building owned by the company’s owners, one routinely observes that the brand discourse is mainly grounded in the presentation of the personal objects of the place owners. Given the nature of the museum, the biographical dimension prevails over the material one. The text panels are rare: the objects are exhibited because of their aesthetic value [14] and provide an opportunity to portray the lifestyle, passions, or extravagances of the founders of the brand. Rationales for this kind of museums are mixed. Some scholars argue that it is a political choice of fashion companies, which decide to give primary importance to visual culture and advertising methods [15]. Other authors justify these choices considering the playful and recreational value attributed to the museum by brands themselves [7]. The absence of a pedagogical discourse implies, as a direct consequence, an aestheticization, and even a form of ‘sacralization’ of the exhibited objects [14] as well as a sort of ‘starification’ of the brand owners [4]. Guided tours are often preferred to written media for strategic and logistical reasons. The latter are provided by company employees who are familiar with the corporate narrative. In fact, companies develop a narrative within their museum spaces designed to present the brand’s specificities (e.g., know-how, creativity, innovation, etc.) to a wide range of audiences. The aim, even if it is not market-oriented, is to persuade the visitor of the company’s excellence and to arouse his admiration. To do this, several levers are mobilized, notably the symbolic one involving prestige and reputation, and the historical one involving tradition and know-how [15]. Guided tours are generally based on a limited number of curatorial topics. Concretely, to curate the fashion ‘patrimonium’, corporate museums usually delve into the following themes. 1) history of the company’s founders. 2) history of the fashion house. 3) history of the museum site and territory. The guided tours close, oftentimes, with a look into the future: the brand’s innovations are highlighted, both within the creative process and the production system. This topic allows fashion houses to present their cultural heritage, which is still ‘in the making’. In this respect, the boundaries between the scientific and the promotional discourse seems to be blurred [4].

Alongside the ateliers, LV has created a gallery for temporary exhibitions. From a geographical point of view, the space reserved for the exhibitions is relatively modest compared to the overall area covered by the building. According to an estimation produced by the author referred to the surface area data of the ‘maison de famille’, only 10% space is open and accessible to the general public. The gallery is accessible for free, and it is explicitly advertised on the brand’s institutional website. The latter provides in fact detailed information on the availability and accessibility of the galerie. The author visited the “200 trunks, 200 visionaries: the exhibition” exhibition in March 2022. A complete visit of the premises was also made in October of the same year on the LVMH ‘Journées Particulières’ event. The following paragraph is intended to critically assess the visits, focusing specifically on the communication strategies and the target audience of the brand. The visits opened to the general public include LV merchandise within non-market spaces, conferring a particular status to the exhibited objects. The latter become “artistic” objects: they intervene as ‘êtres de langage’ (cf. ‘beings of language’) as they are recognized as worthy of being preserved and displayed. Therefore, they are also supported by social practices as they are specifically collected, exhibited, etc. [17, p. 104]. As such, the exhibits can broadcast a narrative defined by the company (or, in this specific case, the gallery managers) [18] which is conceived to be easily approachable. The broadcasted narrative seems to follow three main objectives: producing a corporate history, defining links between the brand and the artistic ecosystem, and implementing a process of heritagization. As per the first objective, it refers to the brand policy aimed at inscribing LV in a unique and intimate past (e.g. the Art-Deco styled House is filled with black and white photos of LV family members). Objects and furniture in the home are preserved even though the house has undergone renovation: within this context, the brand adopts a ‘documentalist approach’ [19]. Likewise, the exhibitions consist, most of the time, on thematically curated retrospectives. The exhibition was specifically enriched with archival elements (e.g. letters, motifs, logotypes, etc.) tracing the historical evolution of the house. The second objective is specifically related to the LV willingness to insert the brand into a specific ‘artistic ecosystem’, by showing visitors the links between the Vuitton family, the firm, and contemporary artists. This goal was particularly noticeable within the framework of the exhibition. The latter was in fact aimed to stress the links between LV and prominent figures from the artistic field Japanese streetwear Nigo, Danish toymaker Lego, among others invited to customize the trunks to commemorate the bicentennial of the brand. According to the corporate narrative, those artists are defined as ‘friends’ of the house. In this context, the audiences are consideredand treated both as art-visitors and as (potential) customers. The third objective refers to the enhancement of the brand’s products through specific processes of heritagization. The exhibited objects are symbolically located in a remote past, independently of their date of production. The narrative is consistent and still the same both for trunks dating from the beginning of the twentieth century and for trunks produced in 2020: LV qualify as unique and non-reproducible art works worthy of exposition even those merchandise items that are relatively mass-produced and commodified.

The narrative, developed in the framework of the guided tours open to the general public, is then inserted into a broader brand communication strategy. Thus, the exhibitions of the LV collections can be studied as a set of event-based practices that are part of a corporate policy aiming at enhancing the brand’s heritage (and its products). In this last paragraph, we have decided to examine the way in which the family home – and, more generally, the displayed objects are reused – or even diverted – for marketing and promotional purposes. We intend to highlight the overlapping of scales that occurs in this context. We also focus on the iterative character of the process of heritagization. As an example, after being displayed in Asnières-sur-Seine, the “200 trunks” exhibition was then shown in Singapore, in Los Angeles and in New York. We argue that LV implements a performative policy, where the maison de famille is used as a proper marketing tool. The above-mentioned policy is based on various physical performative space(s). The first space, which is the family home, is partially used by the brand to display ‘heritage’ products to the audiences through thematic circuit(s). The second space refers to the urban space surrounding the maison de famille. Indeed, with the opening of the Gallery in 2015, LV wished to demonstrate its’ involvement in promotionr of the common good and towards the preservation of Asnières-sur-Seine public spaces. To this end, in parallel with the Gallery’s inauguration event, the brand entered a dialogue with the local authorities to rename the street adjacent to the museum space. The negotiation was complex but relatively short lasting: as early as 2016, the former ‘Rue du Congès’ (92600) was renamed, under the impetus of the company ‘Rue Louis Vuitton’. The brand has implemented a form of ‘social marking’ [20] of the mentioned street, which is regularly walked by the gallery’s visitors. LV enacts a ‘system of signs’ [21] that evoke both the attachment of the brand’s founder to Asnières and the attention given by the enterprise to the city. The company’s objective is clear and consists in showing the public the importance of the family home in the area by going back to the fundamentals and the roots of the brand. In fact, the street sign focuses exclusively on the founder’s original ‘métier d’excellence’, namely that of ‘trunk maker’. The brand seems to want to return to the know-how of the Ateliers and to the aspects of communication that are traditionally reserved for highly selected audiences (see paragraph 2.1). The third performative space is the catwalks. The architecture of the maison de famille was taken up by the LV Artistic Director Nicolas Ghesquière during the Spring-Summer 2023 fashion show. The designer presented a vanity-case representing the family home. The maison is thus reproduced – in the guise of a fashion accessory – and propelled internationally – via fashion runways. This process is integrated in a corporate narrative since the brand decided to replicate the house in the form of a commercial product. Even if the communication is based on a fiction such as the beauty-case being only a fictional miniature reproduction of the place it offers an adequate opportunity for the brand to speak more widely about its museum and its artification practices. This reproduction allows the firm both to palliate the large-scale production of its merchandise (by conferring a patrimonial value on it) and to adhere to the ‘fashion regime’ [22]. The latter is specifically customer-oriented: grounded on the enhancement of the ‘family belongings’ and the patrimonium, the corporate narrative(s) ultimately allows LV to promote new products during the fashion week(s).