Dealing in Human Luxury: Private Communities vs. Facebook

I just read this interesting guest post by Eric Schwartzman on Scott Monty's blog. The topic focuses on private B2B social networks of course, but it made me think a little more about what's going on in the luxury watch industry now - and what I think might happen as time passes (no pun I swear).

Early on, Eric quotes Steve Rubel:

"In our rush to amass friend and followers...we're assembled online social communities that are so loud and so constant, that it's become difficult to use them for more then mundane conversations."

And that's if you're lucky I'd say. The post then discussed the alternative, namely private "intimate" social networks and their genesis, naming Beluga and GroupMe as examples. In the luxury world, you have several such "private" networks as well. ASW is an invitation-only platform. It has a dedicated watch forum. GILT is semi-private. LuxurySociety is invite-only with a B2B focus. Just to name a few.

Nowadays, many watch brands are on Facebook and Twitter. I say "many" because I've only tallied 118 on Facebook and 89 on Twitter so far. And I know there are probably hundreds if not more active ones worldwide. On these "public" playing fields like Facebook, they shoot far and wide - and wait for the chips to fall. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Ahead of the game: Swatch, Hublot, and B&M.

One thing's for sure, it's all about quantity right now. It's not a bad military strategy actually. It's important to invade and occupy as much territory as possible very early on in a conflict, as long as you can keep advancing and maintain supply lines. And Facebook "likes" farming is nothing short of a major battle at the moment.

But then, some high-end brands also maintain private social networks for customers - folks like Hublot, JLC, or DeWitt, to name a few. These are private gated communities they can manage and throttle at will - with authentication at the door - often tied into an electronic warranty card or device. In the current landscape, some cash-infused brands are hedging their bets on being anywhere and everywhere - just in case one channel doesn't pan out, or another takes off unexpectedly.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that exclusive private brand networks will continue to multiply and thrive. For high-end brands, I'd even suggest investing more in those than Facebook, Twitter or the other "usual suspects" - Why? Because public networks are too "noisy", and too diluted.

When you buy a First Class ticket on an airline (or better yet, on something like OpenSkies), you're really buying speed, privacy, access and isolation from the "masses". Social is great, but social with the "right people" is ten times better. Elitist outlook? Not really if you believe the nodes of an exclusive luxury community, namely its members, must also be "luxury" material - What does this mean in human terms?

It means they're good, connected people you can trust and count on. It means they're leaders in their field. It means their reputation is spotless. It means they have connections and access you can trust hands down. If this sounds Masonic, you're on the right track :) - It means they share life and behavioral values. Their word is their bond. Their discretion absolute. And their commitment to the tribe unwavering.

This kind of prime, luxury human "capital" is what private luxury networks can contain. Much harder to build and nurture than amassing "likers" on Facebook by the hundreds. But much more in line with a luxury offering. Because ultimate luxury is human luxury - a very rare commodity indeed - and one not easily attracted by just any brand. And I also believe these groups should remain as small as possible. Because there is luxury in intimacy.

What do you think? Are private luxury networks elitist and old-school, or likely to take on a major role in  luxury social media?