It’s no secret that I love accessories. I’d consider myself a jewelry girl, but not one who wears a ton of pieces, and I prefer simple items to match my personal style and day-to-day life. If one of these baubles happens to have a charitable cause to match, then that’s even better, and that’s why I love everything about the latest Louis Vuitton for UNICEF Silver Lockit Fluo Bracelets.
For the 3rd year of its partnership with UNICEF, Louis Vuitton again created a bracelet that both raises awareness and funds to support some of the most vulnerable children around the world. To date, Louis Vuitton has raised $5 million to provide humanitarian support for children and families in urgent need. I always like to hear more specifics about causes, and to demonstrate what the funds raised meant for children and their families last year: 1.5 million people in Syria were provided with life-saving clean water.
As for the bracelets themselves, it is a style I can easily and happily wear daily, with different five different fluo-colored strings available (there’s also a black version available, as well as a full silver bracelet). Each of the fluo bracelets retails for $250, $100 of which will be provided to UNICEF on your behalf; if you opt for the sterling silver version, $200 will be donated to UNICEF. The lock is a classic LV symbol, and it’s a tiny but perfect touch on the bracelet.
Learn more and purchase one yourself here. Thanks to Louis Vuitton for supporting such a great cause and sending these bracelets to me to share about the cause with you!
very cute.
While I admire the fashion houses for helping raise money for charities, why not donate all net proceeds to the foundation? Why keep 2 or even 1 percent? The sterling silver sells for $500 and only $200 of that is being donated.
I have no idea about LV. But I used to make something and sell for charity with 60% contribution to said charity. I couldn’t do 100% because I still have to pay for materials, staffs, stalls for sell and publications. In short, 60% was profit of that whole event and went straight to charity.
But LV is multi-billion dollar fashion empire. They can afford to cover the materials without taking a percentage for themselves.
They have to cover cost and other operations expenses, I guess. I’m just guessing.
The cost LV is covering could be their form of giving, more than what they are collecting from the customers?
$250!!!! For a stupid piece of string with a silver lock you’ve got to be kidding me. Way over priced. I though these would be under 100$. They look really cheap like something you’d get a fair or made in camp.
they look cheap, i never pay 150€ for a piece o 50cents string and a 5€ lock…LV is donating but is also make a lot of profit on a cheap product…
Oh please LV!!! I don’t TRUST Unisef as they do keep so much cash and very often our genuine donation won’t reach the final destination that’s why I didn’t use your service when my group support for Tsumani victims in Japan back in 2011. Unisef organization known as scum bag and they makes hell of CASH!!! Wake up guys you are just being brain washed.
Oh please… It’s is just a marketing gimmick to sell a piece of junk for $150. If you REALLY want to help, make a $250 donation directly to UNICEF. Of course when you donate directly you don’t receive anything to wear advertising your donation….: https://www.unicefusa.org/help/donate
Exactly
#IstandwithSparky
$$$$$
They’re not donating a small percentage. They’re actually donating a substantial portion of the price of the item. And why is it bad to broadcast your support of a cause publicly, be it through a bracelet or a T shirt or a placard? It could inspire others to give, and, honestly, if charity and caring about others becomes “trendy,” I’m all for it. It would be a much better trend than cross-body fanny packs and tiny sunglasses that allow dangerous UV rays direct access to your corneas. I feel like complaining about this is just cranky.
I’m with Sparky on this one. I don’t have a quibble with selling merchandise to raise money for charity, but when a premium designer does it and charges a non-tiny price, the item should be more than just a tacky colored piece of string with a mini charm on it. That bracelet is about one step up from a hair scrunchy. The design team must have come up with the idea after wandering the discount aisle of an Auchan supermarket.
If a (supposedly) high-end designer wants to do this type of charity merchandising, then FFS, put some thought into it. Make it something people would be interested in buying even without the charity hook. Bulgari has done this with a special Save the Children collection based on one of their popular jewelry lines. My friend had decided to buy one of the rings even before she learned it was a fund-raising item.
If LV was in the business of making t-shirts, cheap trinkets and $10 canvas totes, then this bracelet would make sense. These bracelets cost almost nothing to make and LV’s profit on each item significantly outweighs the money raised for charity.
Sparky: One more thing:
Advertising your donation does not have to be a bad thing as it might #1 inspire others to buy the cute bracelet (the ones who buy it has, “by accident”, contributed to charity too!) #2 remimd others to donate directly.
I can take myself as an example, I have donated monthly when I was working, now, as a student, I don’t. This bracelet is cute though so I could ask my BF to give it to me as a birthday gift. I know I COULD ask him to donate the same amount to unicef or wherever. But honestly, even if it makes me a bad person in your eyes, I won’t. Wouldn’t an extra $100 to charity better than nothing?
The issue for me is more about what they are selling. As Passerine mentions above about Bulgari, they offered a premium product inline with their brand as a fundraiser (I haven’t seen it). Here we have a bit of string and a cheap lock which they are obstensibly charging $150 for. A better stratege would have been “make a $250 donation to UNICEF through LV and we give you this trinket as a thank you.” All money collected (the whole $250) goes for charity, not just 30% of it. Silver is cheap. The quantities they are producing that bracelet I’m guessing it cost them $3.00 to make it…
Sparky: This is really a wrong way of thinking if you really want to help those in need. How is it a bad thing that now, even those who normally don’t give to charity, might contribute by buying a cute pieces that they would buy anyway. It doesn’t stop you or others from donating $250 straight to Unicef or any other organisation.
If I could like your comment 100 times, it still wouldn’t be enough!