DIOR, THE €53 NUMBER, AND WHY THE AURA STILL WINS
Heritage is the most elegant weapon a brand can carry. Not because it’s old; because it’s continuous. Heritage is memory made physical: a silhouette you can recognize across decades, a ritual you can repeat, a signature detail you can spot from across the room. It’s the shortcut that tells a buyer, trust this, this will not betray you.
Production cost is the opposing god: unsentimental, arithmetic, always awake. It’s labor hours, yield loss, freight, compliance, waste, returns, QC, packaging, customer support; the parts of the empire nobody puts on a moodboard. And yet this is the quiet truth: most brands do not die from lack of story; they die from physics.
So the real question isn’t “heritage or cost?”
It’s: how do you keep the myth intact while the math keeps coming for your throat?
The smartest houses (old or new) protect what I call the Sacred Three: the signature detail customers can feel in three seconds; the ritual that makes the product itself “the brand”; and the proof that turns claims into receipts. Everything else can flex. But if you cheapen what the customer touches, the aura doesn’t just dim—it turns on you.
Which brings us to Dior, and the number that went viral like a hex.
In June 2024, a Milan court placed Manufactures Dior SRL (an Italian unit connected to Dior handbag production) under judicial administration, after investigators alleged its subcontracting chain enabled exploitative labor conditions. ([Reuters][1]) The headlines caught fire around a single detail from court documents: contractors were able to charge Dior as little as €53 to supply a handbag that retailed for €2,600, with Reuters citing a Dior model code PO312YKY as the example. ([Reuters][1])
The internet, being the internet, wanted a face for the story, so the discourse often pinned itself to the Book Tote. But publicly reported court examples referenced a model code, not a famous nickname; the Book Tote became the symbol because it’s culturally legible and instantly visual. ([Reuters][1])
And yet, the €53 number didn’t “end” Dior. People still buy. They will keep buying. Because luxury was never priced by factories alone. Luxury is priced by meaning.
When someone buys Dior, they’re not only buying stitches. They’re buying permission: to belong, to be recognized, to be read as fluent in a certain world. They’re buying a shorthand for taste that works without explanation. They’re buying the brand’s ability to make an object feel inevitable; of course this is worth it. That is heritage as social technology.
But don’t let the glamour fog the real rupture: this scandal wasn’t only “markup.” It was a collision between heritage language: craft, responsibility, “Made in Italy” romance, and supply-chain reality. Reuters reported the court criticized Dior’s unit for failing to adopt appropriate measures to check actual working conditions and supplier capability, including audits. ([Reuters][1]) And later, Reuters went further, describing a broader “broken audit system” problem in luxury supply chains, where inspections can be too shallow to catch what’s hidden one layer down. ([Reuters][2])
This is where heritage becomes dangerous for a brand: the moment you sell not just beauty, but virtue, your backstage becomes part of the show.
In July 2024, Italy’s competition authority (AGCM) opened an investigation into whether Dior and Armani may have misled consumers with messaging around social responsibility and craftsmanship. ([Reuters][3]) In February 2025, Reuters reported the Milan court lifted the special administration on Manufactures Dior SRL early, citing reforms and supplier-control changes that convinced judges the issues were unlikely to recur. ([Reuters][4]) Then in May 2025, Reuters reported the AGCM closed its probe without establishing an infringement, after Dior made commitments including €2 million over five years to support initiatives for victims of labor exploitation, plus stronger supplier oversight and updated responsibility messaging. ([Reuters][5])
So what’s the Nom Brias takeaway; the actual lesson, not the viral gasp?
The €53 number didn’t prove luxury is “fake.”
It proved luxury is not priced by materials alone. It is priced by faith.
But faith is fragile. And modern luxury has evolved from “we are beautiful” to “we are beautiful and better.” Once ethics is part of the product, the supply chain stops being background; it becomes a moral ingredient. And if the customer starts whispering, it’s not the same, the myth doesn’t die loudly.
It dies elegantly.
Quietly.
In the mirror, when the aura doesn’t hit the way it used to.
THE VERDICT:
People don’t buy Dior because it costs a lot to make.
They buy Dior because it costs a lot to mean.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/dior-unit-put-under-court-administration-italy-over-labour-exploitation-2024-06-10/ "LVMH's unit put under court administration in Italy over ..."
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/inside-luxury-goods-broken-audit-system-2024-12-31/ "Inside luxury goods' broken audit system"
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/italys-antitrust-investigates-armani-dior-over-alleged-exploitation-workers-2024-07-17/ "Italy antitrust targets Armani, Dior after worker exploitation ..."
[4]: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/italy-court-lifts-controls-lvmhs-dior-italian-unit-over-alleged-labour-practices-2025-02-28/ "Italy court lifts controls on LVMH's Dior Italian unit over labour practices"
[5]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/italy-antitrust-closes-dior-probe-with-pledges-fund-fight-against-labour-2025-05-21/ "Italy's antitrust body closes Dior probe with pledges to fund fight against labour exploitation"