It seems to me that the few times that I went into a factory outlet mall, the selection for Polo was kind of off, i.e., it wasn’t the same stuff you could get in the main stream stores. Sort of as if what wouldn’t sell was sent to the FOMs. Does this seem to be anybody else’s experience, or am I hallucinating?
This reminds me of something I was thinking about after I wrote the OP:
Sometimes a technique is dying but companies try it more and more because that’s all there’s left to do. One example is TV advertising. It costs as much today as it did in 1994, but the top show in 2014 would not have been in the top 50 in 1994 (Network TV in 1994: How the Big Four's last golden age happened 20 years ago.). I.e., TV advertising is a terrible value compared to in 1994, but companies still use it because there is still nothing more effective than TV advertising.
Likewise, Kmart, we can all agree is going down the tubes, so branding efforts at stores like that seem like last-ditch efforts to stay relevant. Perhaps someone sees a Rachel Ray frying pan and that brand has some marginal effect on the purchase while still not being enough to help the business succeed.
Of course, one would have to go case by case. Perhaps some of these brands have been big successes within dying businesses. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
I have little doubt that’s the case. It’s also one of the few companies (outside of luxury fashion) that really stands behind its brand and doesn’t apply it to everything under the sun just to make a quick buck.
I’d say: sort of. The reason the company went bankrupt is because their products stopped selling as well. And they stopped selling as well because people eat a lot less of that shit than they used to. So we are talking about actual failing products causing the business to fail. But there are also a lot of people who grew up eating those products (including myself, though I don’t any more), so there is a kind of legacy value to the brands and the recipes. I think the trend will continue to hurt products sales, however.
Thus, the case study supports both my contention and yours, and we are both right.
Tip: Black Market in Indianapolis prides itself on its collection of small-batch rums, so you might want to hit them up.
I’m not sure about your case being opposite what I’m talking about, however. The logic behind marketing luxury products is much different than that of ultra-mass-produced products like Bacardi. Unless you are trying to produce a rum at Bacardi’s price point though slightly better in quality (which wouldn’t be a good idea, and I doubt that’s what you’re doing).
There’s no question that alcohol brands have very strong legacy value. But the trend against them is the rise of craft brewers, distilleries, etc. Like yours. A read a couple years ago that craft brews outsold Budweiser for the first time. That’s not going to change.
I can’t imagine anyone drinking Bud except because of brand or price. Because anyone who cares about beer qua beer is going to drink something else. But there are a lot of, say, 60-somethings who are going to go to their grave drinking Bud precisely because of brand. It’s going to take another 50 years for the trend to play out, but play out it will, I believe.
Now, all the craft brewers and distilleries of course have their own brands. Brands will always be necessary at least to identify the product. I sure like Three Floyds beer but I drink each individual beer by them because I genuinely like it. That’s different than people who currently purchase inferior products because they “believe in” the brand.
Good point!
You have many good points, thanks!
Yes, and in the case of private label, sometimes it’s the except same product but cheaper.
Though, upscale retailers did have a shitty Christmas, so I don’t know if it’s all roses right now even for the 1%.
Yes, and that bifurcation will continue, though I did put luxury goods in a different category in my OP. Luxury brands are almost a necessity for conspicuous consumption to work.
I selectively shop at both place, but I don’t think I agree. Some additional thoughts:
• TJ is much deeper into private label, though WF has its own PL (which is also reasonably priced). Thus, for me, the TJ shopping experience is about experiencing a particular PL product and continuing to buy it because it’s good. Whereas with WF, I can price shop their products elsewhere. Thus, TJ has inculcated a kind of loyalty in me (also because the atmosphere and employees are great), whereas WF has done no such thing (with some exceptions, since they have a few unique products that I can only get there–great andouille sausage!).
• TJ has no sales at all. WF seems to me to be all about the sale. Their regular prices are often (but not always) too high, but then they will have ridiculously big discounts on products.
• TJ is about curating a few products. WF is about carrying a lot.
• In any case, I inferred from what you wrote that TJ’s quality really isn’t all that great, but I have found it to be pretty good overall.
I think this is true.
Different idea:
This is an excellent point. The trust in retailers has been greatly undermined and at the same time reconstituted in the form of private label.
I think you are correct!
Isn’t it all about education? As you mentioned before if you needed Product X you went to the store and purchased one made by a brand you trusted. Now when you need Product X many of us do an online search about available products, then an online search about opinions, then finally an online search about where to purchase it. Consumers are educating themselves.
Advertising (to me) seemed to be a system of mass education for a society that didn’t have individual access to information. I imagine to be effective advertising today still needs to provide education unavailable to the individual to be truly effective (usually introducing a new or improved product that the public isn’t aware of yet).
Once the public understands a product advertising loses power.
Hard to deny that if consumers have been starved for products and have a limited selection, they won’t be so picky. Or that in markets with an overload of choices people will be choosier.
I have my doubts that beyond looking for bargains (much easier now in the Internet age) consumers are really more savvy about what they buy or disdainful of branding.
If companies can come up with the right buzzwords (“natural”, “organic” and “non-GMO” for starters)* they can still make a ton of dough.
I would like to think that restaurants and other businesses that stress quality and attention to customers’ needs will triumph in the end. Price and convenience tend to win out, though.
*Chipotle’s troubles were magnified because they had promoted supposedly healthier locally-sourced produce and non-GMO ingredients, which are not supposed to leave you crawling for the toilet. They might have a tougher time recovering than, say, Jack In The Box, whose E.coli-contaminated food actually killed several children in the 1990s, but which regained a profitable status relatively quickly. Few saw that chain as being a fount of “health food” to begin with.
Urk. I still refuse to eat at Jack-in-the-Box.
Maybe that played a role, but I think the main difference is that Chipotle’s troubles came after the tipping points of internet and mobile connectivity. I bet the next fast-food chain that sees a contamination story, er, go viral, will take a hit more like Chipotle’s than like those earlier cases–regardless what market sub-segment they’re in.
I can sort of see some of this. It made me think of the recent popularity of ‘box’ services (Loot Box, Graze, etc.) that basically send you a monthly box of products. There are so many things fighting for attention that people are willing to pay to have someone else sort them out for them.
On the other hand, I see personal brands taking the place of traditional brands. Take Beyonce for example. She has an army of people willing to defend and attack even the slightest criticisms. She is described as perfect and flawless by multiple media outlets and is (at this point) beyond even light criticism. Now that is a brand that matters. And traditional brands are trying to latch onto these personal brands in any way they can (via ad posting in personal social media, etc.).
Aechines is right on every count, IMHO.
Now, as to what to do:
- Make the shopping experience hassle-free. If your brand or (web)store can do that, they’re way ahead of the competition. Many times, I’ve walked away from a full (on-line) shopping cart at the last stage of the sale, because the website asked me to fill in my client number, even when I got to their site n my own -loaded-with-cookies PC and was linked to their site by an personalized e-mail. It was too much fuss to get my client number from some old e-mail, and by the time I could have gotten it I lost interest in my purchase. Cracked did some good articles on such flaws here and more recently here.
- This is a very important point. A good example is ladies clothing. Women have to buy clothes all the time, and most women are very consicous of what fit and cut and style of clothes make flatter them and which don’t. That is not an area where reviews help; a woman has to stumble on a piece of clothing by accident, or in a brichand mortar store. And if she gets compliments and good wear out of it, she’ll be inclined to by that brand again and again.
So, if such a lady customer has found a brand that makes clothes that fit and flatter a size <difficult> pear shaped lady, with easy-to-care-for-clothes that have the right balance between office-neatness and practicality…then she will be mightlily pissed off if that brand tries to branch out by suddenly offering a different style and fit of clothes. I think that is why “narrow brands” of clothing ( I’m making up that word) like Desigual or King Louie are so popular. They are even very popular as second hand clothes, because cutomers know exactly what tey will get. King Loue, Desigual, but also work clothes from Duluth trading, have each one ( reasonably timeless) style, a limited number of models, almost always the same two or three types of fabric, and their sizing is reliable. They don’t offer fashion, as such, but each season new clothes that are remarkably similar to last season’s clothes. No surprises.
I think this is an excellent point.
Yes, well observed! I grew up in the 70s and today when I look at 70s commercials, I am amazed at how massively stupid they are. As though life depended on which brand of toilet paper people were using. They literally seem to be talking to mentally impaired people. (Not that regular TV commercials are much better today, but slightly.)
Or, to put it another way, takes ownership of the shopping process based on that understanding, not reflexively throwing “my brand” or “my husband’s brand” into a shopping cart.
I will be interested to see how much damage the Michigan shooting spree does to the Uber brand. I mean, hell, at least it was possible for some Chipotle customers to have not read a lot about their food making people sick. I don’t think any potential Uber customers–connected all–are going to miss the notion that their next driver might be a psychopath.
While there may be an argument about how much Uber (and similar outfits) can do in vetting drivers, it seems like a bad move–counter to the marketplace.org advice–to just come out immediately and say they aren’t going to do anything. The company already had attention for inadequacy and misrepresentation in this area.
I don’t see it as a matter of being disdainful. I see it as a backing off from the deep emotional attachment to a brand that gurus had been touting. Or from attachment on pretty much any level.
Sure, but I’m not sure how much that has to do with “brand” as I’m talking about it. You certainly see organic bulk foods, produce, etc., that are not branded.
I think the premium/value bifurcation is here to stay. Though it’s nice when value can represent a certain minimum level of quality.
I totally agree. I think there’s a very good chance that Chipotle won’t survive this at all. I had not forgotten the Jack-in-the Box poisonings, by the way. For some reason, they have been able to make inroads into Indy since then (not that the poisonings would have prevented that, but I don’t see the use of another pretty generic fast food option in this town).
[quote=“skylyn12, post:31, topic:746336”]
I can sort of see some of this. It made me think of the recent popularity of ‘box’ services (Loot Box, Graze, etc.) that basically send you a monthly box of products. There are so many things fighting for attention that people are willing to pay to have someone else sort them out for them.[/quot]I got Lootcrate for my daughter, and I have to say, it’s a pretty incredible deal. You get a lot of stuff for your money. And the thing is, you wouldn’t know where to find all those things in the first place.
Good points. It’s also an extension of the celebrity obsession/worship of our era.
Thanks, I try. 
Right. That’s one reason why brands will stick around: as markers of a consistent experience. If a clothing brand can’t offer that and it’s not ultra-premium, there there will be very little reason to stick with it. E.g., I bought a charcoal-gray sweater at American Eagle in the mall because I was looking for such a sweater. I have no emotional attachment to that store or its brand at all, and they don’t even necessarily have consistent sizes or anything to keep me going back.
Yes, brands as consistent experiences. What I find odd, is how little brands do to advertise the kind of consistent experience they offer. Take for instance the brand Anna Field. I stumbled on that brand by accident. It offers exactly what I need: clothes for 35-55 year old women who works in an office but like the ability to bike or walk in the clothes. . Feminine, colorfull but not hippyish, a lot of warmish dresses for fall and winter, suiting to my body type, and many clothes and shoes to accesorize those dresses. And in the range of 200 dollar for an entire outfit that will last about two years.
Now, why doesnt Anna Field advertise like that? Why not brand their clothes to the dresses- and color loving 40 something woman who bikes to her office ? Is that a client demographic no-one wants to admit to being?