Anybody remember when Coors Beer was thought to be something special? You could only buy it in Colorado and the West Coast-people used to praise it to the skies! Only when it was distributed around the country, people realized that it was just another weakly-flavored, mass-market beer. The same I find true for a lot of consumer products: ARMANI clothes…they are expensive and poorly sewn. Or take german optics: a Leica camera will cost you 10X what a good japanese brand (like Nikon or Minolta) will, and isn’t really all that much better. I could go on and on…is this proof that advertising actually reduces rational people to idiots?
Just check out CONSUMER REPORTS…many times they find that the most expensive product isn’t necessarily the best one. 
Re the Leica example it’s not “10X” more. Given comparable build quality levels it’s usually more like a 50% to 100% premium in most cases for the lens. What people are paying for in the Leica example, are fairly small (but critical to perfectionists) perceived upticks in overall lens assembly and build quality. Also from a practical economic POV, you can generally recover a lot more of the sale price if you re-sell a used Leica product compared to other brands.
Leica is not a “mediocre product”. It’s a super premium product with a matching price. You get to decide if it’s worth it to you.
RE your OP the absolutely God-King-Emperor-Of-The-Entire-Universe product in this category bar none is Rolex watches. Rolexes started as a well crafted mechanical watch with some nice (and new at the time in the 50’s and 60’s) engineering details, that sold in the same price range (in relative dollars) that a Tag Heuer or Omega does today.
Today they are still a fine, well made, mass produced watch with a sturdy and attractive case and bracelet, that sells at prices completely and utterly unrelated to the degree of craft associated with their manufacture. Rolex, through near genius level brand management, sells at the same prices truly fine mechanical watches that exist a stage or three above Rolex in overall build quality, mechanical movement quality, workmanship, attention to detail.
Given the relative quality, the prices they command and the esteem in which people hold the brand is truly mind boggling.
See
THE ROLEX EXPLORER REF. 14270 by Walt Odets Pt 1
THE ROLEX EXPLORER REF. 14270 by Walt Odets Pt 2
I would like to talk about the Swiffer. My friend “M” adores her Swiffer, bought a second one, Swiffers every day.
I have one now. For those who don’t know, a Swiffer is a mop that you attach a piece of cloth to the bottom of. What’s so special about the cloth? The packaging says it has “3D texture” and “electrostatic action,” giving it adhesive qualities. Fair enough. I used it and it does pick up some dust, hair, etc. It doesn’t pick up everything and it is not as effective as actually mopping the floor with water. So I’m curious - how is the Swiffer any different from, say, spraying a paper towel with oil soap & attaching it to a mop. Keep in mind the Swiffer cloths are sold in a box - I paid $4.59 for 16 cloths. Have all Swiffer owners been duped?
Swiffering is a happy medium between sweeping and mopping. It is as fast as sweeping, but more effective.
I have my dads 50s vintage Leica, with the cloth shutter, it still hits 1/1000 on the cloth shutter, never been replaced or worked on. He took it in to get it checked out before giving it to me last year, it is in immaculate condition. I even have the complete set of filters and lenses that came in the nicely fitted and rather large case=)
I would say that if they still make the leica today, and the quality is still the same, it is a camera that will last 50 years [and this one went through 2 combat zones] take a whaling and still be great lo unto the second generation.
Leicas was a bad example. Sure, they are overpriced, but not much and their cameras are really great. For example, the M4 has one of the lowest shutter-release delays. It is also a rangefinder, and Nikon and Canon don’t make rangefinders.
I still remember The Onion’s headline when the Swiffer was introduced:
Amazing New ‘Swiffer’ Fails To Fill The Void
CINCINNATI–The blank, oppressive void facing the American consumer populace remains unfilled today, despite the recent launch of the revolutionary Swiffer dust-elimination system, sources reported…
Ray-Bans: The state of the art, thirty years ago.
Still not a bad product at the price, just not nearly as good as the baby boomer generation seems to think they are.
In the liquor category, a lot of people seem to think that rare and old single malts are necessarily better. It isn’t so. Nor are they necessarily better than a good bourbon. But people with a lot of money are willing to ooh and aah over the rare and expensive; otherwise, what would they have to brag about to their friends?
The Leica example proves that Consumer Reports is not always the appropriate criterion for making your assertion. Expensive products may have very desirable properties that are only relevant to a small target audience.
I agree that “better” is not the appropriate term to distinguish rare whiskys. However, as a rare Scottish single malt lover, I can attest that they are unique - they don’t taste the same as any other type of liquor.
For me, sometimes that rarity is a reason to pay a lot of money for a product.
Reading the OP, my first thought was my own field of work - computers. It is very common for people to pay way too much for completely inferior products. There are many reasons. Sometimes people think they are really tied to a given product - they think it’s too difficult to switch, or use something else in the first place. (Sometimes that’s true, often it’s not.) Lack of knowledge plays a role - people don’t know the alternatives. (This greatly amplifies the previous reason.) Then there is politics.
Well, I’m not talking about Lagavulin 16 year–moderate in price but worth every penny. I’m talking about–did you hear about this?–some bottles of Bowmore from the 50s they were selling for $5000 or so apiece a few years back.
A lot of Scotch over 18 years is overaged. The 16-year Lagavulin is about as old as I like it. 14-year Clynelish is also “da bomb.”
Then again, plain ol’ white label Jim Beam ain’t so bad, either.
I always wonder about designer and pricey name brand clothes. Once on my day off I went poking around one of the more upscale of the local department stores, and spotted a lovely blouse. It was quite attractive and original looking, and IIRC was silk, so I wasn’t surprised that it was expensive. But I had to look at the price tag several times to be sure I wasn’t misreading it. This top cost as much as I get paid in a month! And that’s gross, not net.
On another occasion, while on a window-shopping visit to The Big City, I saw some cute t-shirts on display. They cost roughly $50 each. $50! For a t-shirt! I later told my deskmate that if he ever sees me in a $50 t-shirt he should put me on suicide watch, because it would be a sure sign that I didn’t care about the future anymore.
I can understand that people want clothes that are attractive and well-made, but I went to Germany for two weeks for less than that blouse would have cost me. How could it possibly be worth that much?
Funny post. I totally agree. Only people who don’t know how to shop would pay that much for clothes.
As for me, I wear my clothes until they are totally worn out. Then I have my m-i-l sew them. Then I wear them some more.
For guys at least, it doesn’t cost much to attain the “neutral and unembarrassing” look I go for.
OK, that would be out of my league, too 
I have seen single malt 50yr whiskies in stores, distilled in 1941, bottled in 1991. I can see the value of that stuff. It isn’t made any more, and nobody can make it anymore, ever again.
I read about a Michael Jackson whisky tasting once, where they were going to taste single malt whiskies, including some from the '20s. Would’ve loved to try that.
I am an Islay aficionado. And for me, whisky can’t be old enough. 30yo Caol Ila is my favorite. Although there is a great difference in how whiskies mature. I have tasted 9 year old that was more mature (softer, etc.) than some 21yo.
Although, it seems to me that they mature whiskies faster these days. Even this 5 year old Lagavulin tastes really good. (A store manager said that this is 5yo Lagavulin, and by the taste, I think that’s entirely plausible.)
Talking about price, I might pay $100-$200 for a bottle of whisky, if it’s special in some way. I once bought a bottle of plain simple Laphroaig 12yo, non-cask-strength, for maybe $180. The catch? It was a bottle from 1975. As you know, whisky does not mature in the bottle. I wanted to try if the taste, i.e., the “recipe” (broadly interpreted) had changed between then and now. And by golly, both my whisky-loving cousin and his friend, and myself, we all could clearly taste the difference! It was certainly the same whisky, but it was a bit sharper than modern Laphroaig. Ah, the magic of single malt whisky…
I think that it´s not just the aestethic and quality value the buyer seeks, but also the (perceived) symbol of status implied on using insanely over priced clothes/watches/whatever. It´s an ego bust.
Obtaining things just for the sake of showing off the fact that you can obtain them is probably as old as humanity itself.
If you get a good tour guide at The House of Seven Gables in Salem, MA, they’ll point out the door completely studded with large iron nails. They serve absolutely no purpose at all except to demonstrate to the neighborhood that the owner was rich enough to have all these nails created (which had to be hand-crafted at the time) for purely decorative reasons.
The OP mixes reputation and price. Somethings get a good reputation because of their price (like the expensive clothing), others get their price because of their reputation. I feel like its the latter that the OP is trying to explore.
Re: Coors beer
A friend once told me about ads for another regional brand, Iron City Beer, which stated: “It don’t taste too good, but it gets you there.” All some people want from a beer is a VERY low price, a vaguely beer-like flavor that doesn’t make you want to puke just from the tase or smell, yet still can get you somewhat buzzed. Coors filled the bill in its day, but if you were looking for real quality and heard the Coors fans go on about it, you might get duped into buying some, at which point you found out it was pisswater.
Re: Armani clothes
Another example of the price preceding the reputation. There are a lot of upscale clothing lines that aren’t worth shit. I stopped buying pants at Structure because they didn’t last longer than about 2 months. Now, think for a second, once they get that reputation, then if you see someone who always wears Structure, you might realize they were rich, because they could afford to buy all new pants every two months. Status again.
Re: Leica Cameras
All I know about these is that my former roommate the professional photographer coveted one with all his being. For some items, it depends on what you need to do with it. Some of these have been pointed out by other posters, such as the rangefinder, etc. that don’t come standard on the cheaper Japanese models. It is easy to spend too much money buying more than you need for what you are doing in a lot of fields.
Re: Rolex watches
Status again, at this point.
Re: Swiffer
I have to say, I used to think I only needed a broom. Then I Swiffered my kitchen minutes after giving it a really good sweep with a really good broom. The cloth came up a dark gray. I only use my broom for obvious, large particles now. I could just soap up a paper towel on a mop, but that would be messier, and the Swiffer cloth lasts longer than the paper towel would. It all depends on what each factor is worth to you.
Re: Consumer Reports
Consumer Reports makes it a point not to cover high end products most of the time. they assume that if you are in that market, you may be looking for specialized features that might be of no use to the general consumer. By keeping their reviews in the mid-range, they can weed out the best values from the over-priced turkeys. If a high-end brand’s mid-range offering doesn’t match up, it doesn’t necessarily mean their high-end stuff is of low quality.
Not terribly expensive but achieving amazing success in the last year or so has been Krispy Kreme. They opened one store near me and for months whenever I drove past there would be queues out through the carpark, queued cars for the drive through. People who know I live near there would get to buy them boxes of donuts. Eventually I bought a box to take to work for morning tea and for all the fuss they were pretty damn ordinary, just like any other place’s fancy donuts.
How they invaded the Aussie conciousness so quickly has me baffled.
I kinda want to say Dell PCs, but they’re kinda more of a “get what you pay for” thing. Though even their high end models blow goat.
An economist named Thorstein Veblen described this very well. He’s the guy that coined the term “Conspicuous Consumption”. Some products have a value that is contained solely in the price and/or lack of availability. Most ‘designer’ brands are Veblenesque goods. You could take a $500 Fila purse, reduce its price to $50, and there would probably be less demand for it. Not right away - the brand has a strength that makes it desirable at any price. But if they lowered the price that much, over a fairly short period of time the cachet involved in buying it would fade. The Veblenesque value would vanish.
Then there are the products that are overpriced simply because the company has outstanding marketing, or because of outright fraud. The audio world is full of this stuff. Take Bose, for example. The average person thinks Bose represents high quality equipment. Auto manufacturers proudly advertise their Bose car stereos. But Bose is really more of a marketing and industrial design company. The actual audio performance of their consumer grade equipment is mediocre at best, and awful at worst. Occasionally Bose comes out with something truly innovative and of reasonable quality, but most of their stuff relies more on audio gimmicks and marketing to maintain its value.
The fraud end of the spectrum is high end audio cables. They sell this things for very high prices because they flat-out lie about what their products can do. The truth is that no one should ever spend more than a couple of hundred dollars for all the cables in their audio system, and the only reason they might spend that much is because there are many different cables required in a complex home theater setup. But the world’s most expensive multi-thousand dollar audio cable will be auditorily identical to a $19.95 Radio Shack gold cable. The best speaker wire in the world will be auditorily identical to .20/ft home depot speaker cable. And yet, there is a multi-billion dollar industry selling ‘high end’ wires and cables. This is just pure fraud.
Zagadka, I respect your debating abilites in GD, but with respect to this issue you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Dell’s service is stretched thin these days, and is certainly less impressive than it once was, but their machines on average are well built, reliable and a very good deal for the money. I’ve been inside lots of different machines from lots of different manufacturers, and dollar for dollar, if comparing machines at the same price points, Dell units are generally better laid out, easier to work on and better equipped component quality wise than the same price level competition.
Business purchasers aren’t fools. The reason Dells are popular is that they give excellent value for the dollar in the categories they compete within. If you want to say some build it your self box or Alienware PC has better or faster gaming components than a “lame” Dell box, fine, but that’s not where Dell is really focusing their product.