I've been wondering about this (press release):
In 2004 American consumers spent $57.4 billion buying jewelry and watches, a dramatic 6.9 percent increase over previous year. As a category in the durable goods segment, jewelry and watches outperformed the overall durable goods sector, which only rose 4.7 percent by comparison.No answer is given. And the full report costs $2,700 Euros, so we will have to do with assuming that the lower-income market is just, you know, larger, than the alleged "core target" demographic.Jewelry and watches were purchased by half of U.S. consumers in the past year, with �twenty-something� to �fifty-something� women with higher incomes representing the core target market.
For the last several years discounter Wal-Mart has been the nation�s #1 retailer of jewelry, despite the fact that the prime target market for jewelry -- high-income women from 25 to 54 years -- are the least likely of all consumers to shop for jewelry in discount channels.
How are jewelry marketers and retailers to understand this dichotomy in the marketplace -- that the ultimate luxury good is sold most by the nation�s top discounter and that lower-income shoppers who spend under $100 on each item of jewelry bought have propelled Wal-Mart to their #1 position?
Posted by Kevin on March, 15 2005 at 01:39 PM
