Gucci’s Taylor Swift bump, is it real?

Kering (EPA:KER), the French luxury house that owns Gucci, has supposedly benefitted from what some people call “Swiftonomics”, aka the Taylor Swift effect.

Shares in the Gucci-owner were up for six straight days, gaining 7.5% to trade today at €341.75, after Swift and her NFL-player boyfriend Travis Kelce were photographed wearing Gucci on a night out in London last weekend.

A coincidence? ... Does a photo of Taylor Swift using your brand equal immediate stock market success?

Well, the cancellation of Golden Goose from the IPO slate probably says things aren’t so simple – the singer is heavily associated with the ‘destressed-by-design’ brand, which sells trainers for around $500 per pair.

Golden Goose bailed on its stock market IPO last week blaming the impact of political turmoil on European stock markets, after previously going to investors with a valuation pitched at around $2 billion.

For Kering, which as well as Gucci owns Balenciaga and other brands, the team at Bank of America had a more traditional analysis.

BoA today issued a ‘double upgrade’, flipping its rating from ‘underperform’, past ‘neutral’, to a ‘buy’.

Analysts at the bank reckoned Kering will begin to see ‘green shoots’ of its turnaround plan come through.

It claimed Kering’s bottom is now done, whilst pointing to forecasts of growing sales.

It noted that the company’s turnaround plan included engagement with what it referred to as trend setter – which, perhaps, does mean its about Taylor Swift after all.

Is ‘Swiftonomics’ even real?

We’re not the only ones asking this question.

Carl Bergkvist, chief economist at Stockholm's Chamber of Commerce, has scrutinized the much hyped impact that the singer’s Eras tour had before, during and after sweeping through the Swedish capital.

Swift performed on three nights in Stockholm in May, selling 180,000 tickets and reportedly generating $81mln  of economic benefits for the City.

“This extra turnover is a great weekend boost for Stockholm and, in particular, its tourism sector.

"But it’s just that — a weekend, with no visible or significant impact on overall economic growth.”

Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING, echoed similar thoughts, calling the Swift effect "extremely small and temporary, at best".

"There is copious research in the run-up to big events outlining the economic benefits but after the fact you need a magnifying glass to find these so-called benefits in the numbers," he said