QUOTE:
The Cayenne is hideous, they had massive difficulty selling them in Germany when they were introduced, and Italians won't touch them. I also wonder whether your mispelling of Touareg is an indication of what you really think of VW.

Nah, that was just a typo. I own a VW and, quite frankly, love them.

QUOTE:
Have you ever read PopCo by Scarlett Thomas? It's really good. It's about all this 'branding' bollocks and it centres on a bunch of people challenged to invent something just like that.

I haven't. I actually tend not to actively read much about my industry. If someone's got a neat looking book laying on their desk, I might borrow it. But I generally get my fill from industry sources from 9 to 5.

King Mob wrote:

QUOTE:

The other guy in Forgetting Sarah Marshall?

Anyway, back to the topic:

To Chubby and Reed: there really is no snobbery like coffee snobbery. 'Good' coffee is coffee that you enjoy drinking. If you've drunk instant coffee for 60 years (as my parents have), that's good coffee. If you enjoy drinking heavily roasted coffee ('burnt'), that's good coffee. For many, Tim Hortons' or Dunkin' Donuts' coffee is as near to heaven as they can imagine. So what? It's roasted beans with hot water run through it. Again, with brands, you're not buying coffee. You're buying the perceived image and experience (the construct) that surrounds it.

You know how many people wouldn't be caught dead driving a Hyundai? "They're shit!". Yeah, and they're the best built car behind Toyota. Brands baby. Nothing but.

I like the coffee, me. Not Starbucks coffee, anyone who says they like Starbucks coffee is probably lying, or maybe suffering from dead mouth syndrome. I like coffee though. I'm not really into the "experience" so much.

Anyway, surely Coke has to be the worst, ever, doesn't it?

I'm OK. I hate coffee in all its forms, so I couldn't give a toss how burnt the beans are.

Cayenne drivers are twats, to a person. And you have to wonder if Porsche will ever manage to escape the 911 shape. I mean, it's been around for 40 years and whilst it's a design classic, at some point they're going to have to move on. Mind you, when that is I've no idea since the 924/944 was an attempt at that and what a success that was.

As explained in The Rebel Sell, the world would actually be a lot worse without brands, because they are "reputation mechanisms." In this day and age, we don't realize how often people got ripped flagrantly off in the days before established brands. (I plan to write a full book report on The Rebel Sell because it touches on so many topics beloved by OTF.)

One wouldn't be inclined to rip-off one's neighbor, because you'll see them again and want their business again, but when business becomes regional, let alone national or international, we need some way for a company to establish a "name for itself" so they have an incentive to treat customers fairly, lest word get out that they're dishonest.

As I recall from my Economics History class, the roots of this sort of reputation mechanism were traders in the middle ages who would often see the same people year after year at trade fairs.

Of course, the downside of this is that companies have figured out ways to create build a reputation for themself that has little or no connection to the actual product.

As left-wing people who fancy oursevles well-informed, we find it very irritating that companies get away with this sort of flim-flammery and we should.

But it's not a great global capitalist conspiracy. It is a collective action problem. Nike has to create an aura of coolness around their sneakers because Adidas, Puma and Reebok are doing the same. If any company decides not to advertise, then they'll just be left in the dust and won't sell anything. I'm sure all of the companies would prefer not to have to spend money on advertising, but for that to work, they'd all have to agree to it, and that will never happen, because the company that knows its stuff is actually the worst would never concede that sort of advantage.

But they do have to give you something other than image. If the trainers fall apart or cause injury, they'll get a reputation for shoddy trainers, like LA Gear did when that NBA player's shoes exploded on the court (I forget the details).

The only way to combat this sort of crap, I think, is education. People need to be aware that a company's image is only that. It may or may not translate to anything substantive with the product. Of course, in the case of clothes or shoes or even cars, the image is the product to some extent in that people's preferences are based on what the thing looks like. That's ok - otherwise we'd all just be wearing grey jumpsuits or somesuch - but people, especially kids, need to taught to look past the label and decide if they really like what the thing looks like. Of course, no aesthetic judgement is so pure, but I think at least being conscious of the brand influence helps a lot.

I know I'm always happier with my buying choices when I think all of that through, whereas I'm often dissapointed in the long-run with things I bought based on short-term brand appeal.

QUOTE:
The only way to combat this sort of crap, I think, is education. People need to be aware that a company's image is only that. It may or may not translate to anything substantive with the product. Of course, in the case of clothes or shoes or even cars, the image is the product to some extent in that people's preferences are based on what the thing looks like. That's ok - otherwise we'd all just be wearing grey jumpsuits or somesuch - but people, especially kids, need to taught to look past the label and decide if they really like what the thing looks like. Of course, no aesthetic judgement is so pure, but I think at least being conscious of the brand influence helps a lot.

But what's the point of this? Why deconstruct a brand if you, as you state above, believe that brands serve a useful consumer purpose? And who gets to deconstruct that brand....you know, tell us 'the truth' about what the company is 'really like'? This just seems so "all consumers are idiots...except me", I think.

I agree that kids need to be shielded from many advertising messages. In fact, I believe that kids shouldn't be advertised to. But what is inherently evil about creating a product (like the funky socks I mention above) that one person loves, and someone else sees and wants? Even if that other person is a kid, what is wrong with that? And yeah, god forbid we're all wearing government issue track suits so we don't need to shop based on brands and colours and image. Lord protect us from ourselves.
I think consumer vigilance would be a great thing, but I really don't see that many people trying to fill their evenings reading reports of a company's manufacturing practices or its corporate governance. And why does Toyota get so much applause for the Prius but so few 'boos' for the Highlander and Sequoia? Who knows? Maybe because no one has the time or energy to think that much about it.

QUOTE:
But what's the point of this? Why deconstruct a brand if you, as you state above, believe that brands serve a useful consumer purpose? And who gets to deconstruct that brand....you know, tell us 'the truth' about what the company is 'really like'? This just seems so "all consumers are idiots...except me", I think.

The point is to avoid buying something seems superficially better but actually isn't.

They can serve a useful purpose, but only insofar as the reputation of the brand has some grounding in reality.

The simplest example would be something like Volvo's reputation of building cars that are safe. I believe the testing data supports that claim. That's a pretty objective characteristic. So there's not much concern about "who gets to deconstruct the brand" as far as that goes.

But of course, if you're talking about matters of individual taste like fashion or food or beverages, then it's up to the individual to "deconstruct" the brand for themself.

Of course, as you suggest, a lot of people think their analysis should be normative. It's one thing to say "I'm not a fan of Starbucks burnt bean coffee." Fine. But some people (like me) think it's ok. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I'm a dupe because I do.*

People pay way more for North Face and Patagonia gear thinking its better - in terms of how well it keeps them warm and dry in the outdoors - than cheaper alternatives, but in fact there's usually not much basis for that claim.

If you're paying a hell of a lot more for just the label on a shirt, as opposed to the rest of the shirt, you should be well aware that that's all you're getting for the extra expense.

Most sensible people, when faced with that choice in clear terms, will go with the cheaper option. Some people, however, gladly pay way over the odds the label.

I'm pefectly comfortable saying that this behavior is just plain stupid and should be treated as such - mocked and ridiculed among adults and discouraged among children.

It's not about the evils of capitalism or brainwashing or any of that nonsense. It's just plain DUMB to pay more and not get more. And we, the consumers, are the ones being dumb.

Of course, we can't expect companies to be totally honest with us about all of this if for no other reason than what might be a meaningless difference between two products for one person may be worth a high premimum to another, so it would be very hard to conclusively prove that, for example, a $150 jeans from Armani are really the same as the $20 ones I got at Old Navy. It's not their job to sort that out for you, because if they did, we wouldn't have choices. And that would suck.

Plus, freedom of speech and all of that.

So the onus is on the consumer to know what they're buying and give it some thought.


*However, I think in general, and with Starbucks in particular, I think a lot of people are duped. We get the little baggies of Starbucks coffee for our coffee maker in the kitchen at the office. I've noticed that when other people make the coffee, they usually only put in half the baggy into the filter. I always put the whole thing in. To me, their coffee tastes too watery. Mine usually tastes about like the stuff you get at the store. And of course, a lot of the more popular items at Starbucks don't really taste like coffee. They taste like sugar, milk, chocolate and whatever else goes into those various drinks. But it's the coffee that's supposedly merits the higher price (because Starbucks uses better beans and has experts roasting them, etc). This leads me to think that, when given a choice, people don't really like the taste of Starbucks. And yet, its staggeringly popular. So loads of people are paying over the odds for something they don't really like. That's just stupid.

QUOTE:
We're all consumers...

And therein lies the problem.
We're all people. Only the constant bombardment of image over content and the incessant message that acquisition is good turns us into consumers.

What? I'm pretty sure the simple fact that we buy stuff and is what makes us consumers. Long before the bombardment began, there were consumers.

But we are also, of course, producers and NON-consumers (ie I haven't bought any Nike stuff for more than a decade) and - above all else, citizens and human beings. Which is Hobbes' point.

Though I actually think your long post up there makes some important points there, Reed.

Good. I figured that if I just kept writing, I was bound to say at least one useful thing.

I agree, consumption is not our most important role in life. But people wanting stuff and valuing themself and others based on their possessions did not begin with advertising or the industrial revolution.

It may be the case that Starbukcs has kick-started a high-street coffee revolution, but not in a good way. All that I can see has happened, is that every pie and pasty emporium such as Greggs and their regionalised counterparts have bought a Gaggia on the cheap and serve coffee that Starbucks would be ashamed to peddle. It's not like there's been a proliferation of independent cafes dedicated to producing a variety of coffee styles and flavours.