Secondly, an independent brand has more freedom to compete at whatever price point and market it feels is necessary. Among the big conglomerates, there exists a hierarchical structure that aims to minimize competition between brands under the same corporate umbrella.
TAG Heuer and Zenith, for instance, may have been direct competitors in their pre-LVMH mid-century heyday as chronograph manufacturers, but today they’re aimed at different markets and income levels and don’t really compete directly with one another.
Were all the brands of LVMH and Richemont to come under the same roof, it’s possible we could see some increased sharing of technology and movements, which would further muddy the differences between these brands.
We could also see a shuffling in the hierarchy of these brands. Perhaps IWC would move downmarket to not overlap with Zenith, or maybe Hublot moves further upmarket to create more distance between it and Panerai.
This could be good for consumers if certain brands suddenly become cheaper, or it could be bad if the brand you’ve had your eye on suddenly moves up and out of your price range.
Finally, it’s possible some brands wouldn’t even survive the merger. If it’s deemed that underperforming brands aren’t pulling their weight, it may be an easier call to simply let them fall by the wayside than to keep propping them up. After all, with the portfolios of both LVMH and Richemont to draw from, there’s plenty more where that came from.