The Expensive Wake-up Call That Changed My Perspective: Why Silence Works Better Than Ads in the Luxury Market
Why the most successful luxury platforms are built in silence, not with splashy launches. A firsthand look at the rise of 'invisible marketing' in high-end markets.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
You're reading Entrepreneur Europe, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
The luxury world isn't going digital. It's going dark.
When visibility becomes a liability, the smartest marketing strategy might be no marketing at all.
Last summer, I received an email from the CMO of a heritage fashion house. She wanted to partner on a "next-gen luxury experience": a digital launch backed by influencers, Meta ads, and a seven-figure press tour. Five years ago, I would have replied within five minutes.
Today, I never even sent the proposal.
The reason? I've spent the past 12 months quietly building a luxury platform that doesn't rely on traditional promotion. No paid ads. No influencers. No press blitz. The homepage isn't even indexed by Google yet. Early partnership discussions suggest this approach is working, though it's too early to claim victory.
This isn't a stunt. It's a strategy rooted in a painful lesson about how luxury consumers actually behave.
The expensive wake-up call that changed my perspective
In 2023, my agency secured what seemed like a dream project: marketing luxury real estate developments across southern Europe. We had everything—serious production budget, paid media allocation and exclusive inventory. Our campaign reached millions of targeted impressions with above-average engagement rates.
We generated exactly zero qualified leads.
Not low conversions. Zero.
When we interviewed target customers afterward, their feedback was brutal. The most common response? "If I saw it advertised online, it can't be that exclusive." One family office advisor in Geneva put it bluntly: "The properties we actually buy aren't on Instagram."
That failure cost us the client and nearly £200,000 in sunk costs. But it taught me something invaluable.
In ultra-high-net-worth circles, visibility had become a liability.
The invisible economy I discovered
Over the next six months, I interviewed family offices, boutique hotel owners, and luxury service providers across Europe. The pattern was consistent: the best-performing businesses weren't optimizing for reach.
They were optimizing for invisibility.
This shift isn't just anecdotal. Private banking reports consistently show ultra-high-net-worth individuals increasingly valuing discretion over display. The most successful luxury businesses I studied had already adapted to this reality.
One Monaco concierge doubled revenue after shutting down its Instagram and moving to WhatsApp-only. A yacht charter platform built a multi-million business through invitation-only Telegram groups with just a few hundred members. These weren't marketing tactics. They represented an entirely different philosophy.
But here's what surprised me most: not everything worked this way.
I also found plenty of failures. A Swiss watch dealer lost 40% of revenue trying to go "too exclusive." A London art gallery's members-only strategy backfired when they couldn't generate enough word-of-mouth. The lesson? Invisibility only works when you have something genuinely worth hiding.
My three-phase experiment (and what went wrong)
Inspired by these findings, I began developing my own test: a platform built on radical privacy principles. Instead of following the startup playbook, I reversed every step.
Phase 1: Silent testing
I built a basic prototype without branding or analytics. No domain announcements. No team updates. I personally reached out to 15 potential users who collectively managed significant discretionary spending.
The early results were promising. Within 72 hours, most had shared it with their networks. But I also made mistakes. My initial interface was too complex. Three users dropped off immediately because the onboarding took 20 minutes.
Phase 2: Controlled expansion
Rather than opening registrations, I made access harder. New users needed referrals. Registration required video calls.
This friction had mixed results.
Yes, it created exclusivity. But it also frustrated legitimate users. One potential partner, a luxury travel curator I'd worked with before, gave up after the third step. I had to manually onboard her and redesign the entire process.
At one point, I nearly made a fatal mistake. I considered launching with a viral waitlist campaign: "10,000 spots for the world's most exclusive platform." My finger was literally hovering over the publish button when I realized this would destroy everything we'd built. The contradiction would have killed our credibility overnight.
Phase 3: Strategic partnerships
Instead of traditional B2B sales, I focused on "silent partnerships." No announcements. No case studies. Just direct value exchange with select partners.
This is where the model started clicking. I've been applying these principles with luxury.it, testing whether a platform built on invisibility could actually create more value than one built on virality. But even then, two partnerships failed because I couldn't provide the social proof they needed for internal buy-in. Invisibility has its costs.
What entrepreneurs can actually take away
Through this experiment, I've identified principles that apply beyond luxury markets:
Not every product needs a launch. Test with five ideal customers before you tell 5,000 strangers. Early users shape products better than early publicity.
Friction can be a feature. The right obstacles filter for the right audience. But know the difference between valuable friction and poor user experience.
Some metrics matter more than others. I track "invitation scarcity": how many users could invite others but choose not to. High scarcity often signals high value perception.
Failure teaches more than success. My biggest learnings came from the watch dealer who went too exclusive and the gallery that couldn't generate organic growth. Study both extremes.
The counterintuitive path forward
We're entering an era where certain audiences actively avoid findable brands. They don't want to discover products; they want products to be revealed to them through trusted sources.
This doesn't work for every business. Most companies still need traditional marketing. But for specific segments, particularly those serving privacy-conscious affluent consumers, the old rules are reversing.
Luxury consumers increasingly interpret easy access as low value.
The path forward isn't about shouting louder. It's about knowing when to whisper and when to stay completely silent.
Six months ago, that fashion house CMO reached out again. She'd heard about what we were building through her network. This time, she didn't want a campaign.
She wanted to understand how to disappear.
Some brands chase attention. Others choose to be discovered only by the few who matter. In today's market, the rarest value signal might be silence itself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
I'm a Real Estate Agent: The 4 Types of Condos That Are Hardest To Sell
Trying to sell your condo, but the listing seems to have gone stale? While it may be easy to blame the marketplace or the turbulent economy, the hard truth is that four types of condos are just inherently disadvantaged when it comes to attracting a buyer. Read More: Find Out: But first: What specifically is a condo? And how does it differ from an apartment? While the terms 'condo' and 'apartment' are often used interchangeably, 'when you own the unit, you bought a condo even if it looks exactly like an apartment building, but when you rent the unit, you live in an apartment regardless of whether the owner calls it a condo,' said Eli Pasternak, real estate agent at Liberty House Buying Group. In other words, renting equals an apartment; buying equals a condo. Now that the terminology is out of the way… Here are what experts, Pasternak and Brett Cobb, real estate agent and owner of Premier OKC Home Buyers, have to say about the four types of condos that are hardest to sell — and some ways to make them easier to sell. Sure, sometimes a lack of stairs is swell. But Pasternak stated ground-floor units (especially those in buildings without doormen) are tough to sell because buyers worry about safety and security. In addition, ground-floor units don't exactly offer the same view as, let's say, penthouse units. And noise from the street or lobby is often looked upon unfavorably — especially by those who work remotely or have sleeping children. What's more, ground-floor units are especially vulnerable to flooding in hurricane-prone areas. Discover Next: Even in prime Miami locations, Pasternak has struggled to move studio units, 'because buyers worry about resale value down the road.' The reason is that studios are intended primarily for single occupants, leaving no room for family planning and making the pool of potential buyers smaller. Therefore, studios face limited demand and the possibility of not appreciating much over time. And, if there's no return on investment, a client could just rent. Additionally, studios are not always suitable for certain mortgages because lenders can have minimum square footage requirements. Condos with peculiar layouts often hurt sales because buyers simply can't envision living comfortably in them. In addition, furniture placement becomes awkward. 'I tell my clients that units with kitchens opening directly into bedrooms, or bathrooms accessible only through living rooms scare away most buyers who do not want renovation projects,' said Pasternak. 'Hands down, the hardest apartments to sell, in my experience, are the ones with sky-high HOA fees and no clear value to show for it,' said Cobb. While these fees may be tolerable with the right amenities or upkeep, no one wants to spend large amounts of money: 'If the pool's always closed and the roof looks like it's from 1995.' And even the cost of upkeep has become an issue in certain parts of the country. Following Miami's Surfside condominium collapse in 2021 due to corrosion, HOA fees skyrocketed throughout the state of Florida as mandatory repairs and six-figure assessment fees were immediately put in place for buildings 30 years or older. According to The Economic Times, Florida's condo market is in steep decline. If you're an owner trying to move one of these condos, don't panic. The task may be difficult, but some workarounds can help increase the odds of a sale. As the saying goes, it's all in the presentation. If you're trying to sell a studio, Pasternak advised staging it to show multiple functions, perhaps adding Murphy beds or convertible furniture to demonstrate how to maximize square footage. In other words, turn a negative into a positive. 'You can demonstrate how spaces work for sleeping, working and entertaining in the same room,' he said. Pricing aggressively is another strategy Pasternak advised for hard-to-sell units because the seller needs to offer enough value to overcome a buyer's concerns. Additionally, sellers should consider sweetening the deal of any hard-to-sell condo by offering a few months off HOA fees. Cobb advised brightening things up to make the condo more appealing — particularly for ground-floor condos with no natural light. A coat of white paint, or the addition of light fixtures and mirrors, ought to do the trick. After all, dark and dingy doesn't exactly scream, 'live here!' New floors, refurbished cabinets, and updated appliances can all go a long way in making a condo look more current and appealing. More From GOBankingRates 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value This article originally appeared on I'm a Real Estate Agent: The 4 Types of Condos That Are Hardest To Sell
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
European leaders worry they're too reliant on U.S. tech
European governments may be reconsidering their use of American technology and services, according to a new report in The New York Times. The flashpoint seems to come after President Donald Trump sanctioned Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, over the ICC's decision to issue arrest warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. In response, Microsoft turned off Khan's email address. Casper Klynge, a former diplomat who has also worked for Microsoft, told the NYT that Microsoft's action became 'the smoking gun that many Europeans had been looking for,' pushing them to look at alternative options. (Some ICC workers have reportedly switched over to Swiss email service Proton, for example.) 'If the U.S. administration goes after certain organizations, countries or individuals, the fear is American companies are obligated to comply,' Klynge said. For its part, Microsoft said it has subsequently made policy changes to protect customers similar situations, and it noted that it did not shut down the email accounts of four ICC judges who Trump sanctioned earlier this month. In addition, just this week, CEO Satya Nadella announced new 'sovereign solutions' to protect European institutions.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How global art auctions expose FX fees imbalance
Imagine for a minute that you were the winning bidder last year for Claude Monet's Nymphéas. It sold last year at Sotheby's, New York after a competitive bidding war lasting only 17 minutes. And the price? $65.5m. That is just for starters. One might be forgiven for thinking that the auction house commission for the sale would be paid by the seller. One would of course be wrong. There is the buyer's premium to calculate. In this case, if Sotheby's standard fees applied, that means a 27% buyer's premium for works up to $1m; 22% for the part of the transaction between $1m-$8m and 15% for the balance above $8m. The Monet is now going to set back the buyer almost $76m. And there is more to come. Let us also imagine that the buyer is based in the UK and is working through his or her bank, say one of the traditional big four banks. The bank will typically add to the cost of the Monet by charging an FX fee of at least 2%, probably closer to the 3% to 4% range. Even at the midpoint of the FX fees scale, that adds about another $2.3m to the final cost to the buyer. For the sake of brevity, let us avoid the tricky question of VAT on the buyers premium or VAT on imported works of art and just focus on FX fees. The total cost of the Monet in question, including VAT, is now way over $80m for a UK buyer. A saving on the FX fee is do-able and it is almost akin to negligence if the theoretical winning UK bidder uses a traditional bank and meekly pays a 3%-4% FX fee. It also offers disrupters in the market such as iBanFirst, an outstanding market opportunity to highlight the benefits of its smarter, fairer FX fees structure. Vivek Savani, UK Country Manager at iBanFirst, is on a mission to address the imbalance in the FX market. 'Whether we're talking about high-net-worth individuals or not, the foreign exchange imbalance is an unnecessary premium that really doesn't represent smart financial management. It also affects businesses. And I think when we look at it, there are exorbitant fees and premiums built into FX pricing and services that many banks offer. 'Over 70% of businesses are still using their bank. If we extrapolate that to the private market for individuals, it's probably vastly more than 70% moving up towards 80% and 90% of individuals that have currency transfers and requirements, that are using their bank. And it's there that these fees really start to kick in. Typically, they may charge between 2% to 4% and ultimately, that's a really, really high price to pay for, ultimately what is quite a straightforward transaction. And they offer, essentially an execution only service. They seldom offer the quite bespoke service that many of these individuals and businesses require. So yeah, I'd say it's quite a vast problem.' To suggest that the global art market is struggling, as some have claimed, might be stretching it a little. If you want a quick but comprehensive summary of the sector, the annual Art Basel and UBS Global Art Market Report 2025 by Arts Economics is a good starting point. It reveals that the global art market recorded an estimated $57.5bn in sales in 2024. The number of transactions grew 3% year-on-year, demonstrating continued interest from collectors worldwide. On the other hand, that total for the year of $57.5bn is down by 12% y-o-y. The US and UK continue to lead the way with 43% and 18% respectively of global sales by value. But their 2024 sales of $24.8bn and $10.4bn are down by 9% and 5% respectively. Given the decline in the total value of art sales, Savani argues that it is time for the art world to start paying closer attention to FX and says this could support the entire ecosystem. It would encourage higher bids for auction houses/dealers, support a better seller experience and increasing buyer strength. And he highlights the support iBanFirst provides in the global art market and says that its business model, built around close relationships, mirrors the art world. Specifically, iBanFirst can help buyers and sellers better track payments, meaning that they are better equipped when it comes to buying and selling based on the real-time cost of currency. 'Purchasing art is a sizable investment for many people, and those fees add to the overall cost of that transaction. They're quite opaque. So ultimately, I would argue that this really deters many people from potentially participating in an overseas auction. It erodes confidence and penalises the sellers potentially from having a wider audience to bid on those particular pieces of art. Having overall transparency would really encourage people to participate and help the sellers and help the buyers at the same time, as well as the intermediaries, the brokers and the auction houses that are a central part of that particular ecosystem.' Savani says that there has been a rise in levels of interest in working with FX specialists instead of banks for such international transfers and in the specialist service that bespoke disruptors can offer. But he adds: 'It's not moving at as quick a pace as one would hope. From the consumer perspective, we want to work with more individuals, more dealers, more brokers, to try and bridge that gap. It is improving. There's still a lot of work to be done, and we hope that we can get the message out there that there is an alternative to the bank. There are better levels of service, of convenience, of information, of assistance that are out there.' Savani summarises the iBanFirst proposition as offering a combination of technology mixed with the human touch. 'We have a really nice piece of technology. Many clients find the platform really convenient, very easy to use, and very different to what a banking system would offer them. We also offer that human touch, so someone that is there to speak to the client from the beginning of the transaction right until the end. And this is something that is really missing from a banking solution and many of our competitors. 'That is, a specialised individual that can provide guidance in terms of setting up the transaction, even more insight and a real, healthy overview of what's happening in the market at any particular time. Ultimately, we hold the hand of the client from the beginning until the end. And that is a very important feature, I would say, when it comes to these high value transactions. They're not small amounts of money, and it's a comfort for clients to know there is someone at the end of a phone that will help them with any situation, whether it's funds, whether it's the payment, whether it's making the transaction, the FX piece.' Founded in 2013 and headquartered in Belgium, iBanFirst is regulated as a payment institution, passported throughout the EU and is a serious competitor to the traditional bank offering for SMBs. Its core banking platform offers fast and secure multicurrency transactions and it wins on cost versus banks, thanks to no setup fee, no tiered monthly subscription costs and no transfer fees. Savani says that what the client sees is exactly what the client pays. The iBanFirst pricing structure is designed with scaling international businesses in mind. iBanFirst gives a standard exchange rate spread that applies across all of a client's transactions. This means they can predict their costs even as payment values increase, rather than watching fees eat away at profits. Its offering best suits established small and medium businesses that are outgrowing entry level payment providers and that need advanced tools for things like FX risk management. It will suit importers and exporters with international supply chains seeking the tools and expertise to manage complex payments, that do not want fees eating into their margins. And it suits wholesalers who rely on FX risk management tools that crave detailed payment tracking and hands on responsive support. What's more, iBanFirst clients are able to track international payments every step of the way, with detailed, timestamped updates and tracking links that clients can share with their partners and suppliers. This is, however, a competitive market, and iBanFirst is competing with some serious players. For example, Wise Business can claim that it keeps things simple, both in terms of pricing and functionality. It targets both individual consumers and businesses, especially those looking for a cost-effective solution. On the other hand, once you are regularly moving over, say, €100,000 euros annually, across borders, iBanFirst would argue that Wise's per transaction fees soon start adding up. And if a business is growing, foreign currency risks will become more of a concern. Wise doesn't offer the kind of FX risk management tools or dedicated support that iBanFirst offers to protect margins from exchange rate swings. Another competitor is Airwallex, a cross-border payment provider that offers multi-currency accounts. Airwallex is a payment gateway allowing e-commerce businesses to collect online payments, and it offers virtual and physical cards for expense management. On the other hand, it's a more complex platform, and its features are plan dependent, that may require a steep learning curve for some users. And iBanFirst might argue that the Airwallex pricing structure is not the most SMB friendly. Another competitor is Payoneer, which specialises in facilitating payments to and from freelancers, contractors and online sellers. But with a split focus across multiple audiences, freelancers, businesses and marketplaces, Payoneer, arguably isn't so focused on developing solutions that meet the specific needs of SMBs. And then there is Ebury. Ebury offers forward contracts and other FX hedging tools and offers mass payment capabilities for handling multiple international transactions. However, its complex tailored pricing structure can make it harder for businesses to predict costs or compare Ebury to other providers. In addition, iBanFirst may argue that the Ebury platform is not so user friendly, making it harder to integrate into a modern tech stack. Two other competitors are Convera and Revolut. Convera does suit large businesses with more complex FX needs across multiple countries, but some SMBs may find the Convera platform overwhelming and potentially more expensive than alternatives like Wise or iBanFirst. And finally, there is Revolut. It features a tiered monthly subscription model and each plan comes with a monthly allowance for currency exchanges at the interbank rate. Revolut business does work well for companies that want a single platform to handle most of their financial needs. So, it does have a lot to offer in terms of functionality, but iBanFirst could argue it's not a specialised tool for a specific business type, because it tries to cater to vastly different audiences. Accordingly, some clients may find themselves paying for features that are not relevant to their business needs. And Savani can argue that if human support is a must have, iBanFirst can win against any of what is a very competitive peer group. "How global art auctions expose FX fees imbalance" was originally created and published by Retail Banker International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
