How Premium Mediocre Conquered Fashion(businessoffashion.com)
businessoffashion.com
How Premium Mediocre Conquered Fashion
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/opinion/op-ed-how-premium-mediocre-conquered-fashion
18 comments
The end of the article hints at it, but I think this stuff really represents the "high end" of the fast fashion cycle. You got the logo, and you spent enough money to feel like you've bought something premium, but actually it's low quality, disposable tat.
I'm vaguely aware of a lot of this simply due to working with a tracking product for fashion brands, but where I'm really aware of it is with watches, which are a bit of a hobby for me.
Notably, brands such as MVMT, Vincero, Daniel Wellington, and Michael Kors, take the cheapest of the cheap quartz movements, case them up - particularly with MVMT and Vincero - in cheap, generic cases, with straps made of the lowest quality materials, slap their logo on, do a ton of fantastic social media marketing, and then chuck on a ridiculous markup to charge sometimes hundreds of dollars or pounds for these effectively disposable time-pieces.
MVMT in particular have come in for a lot of flak recently, because people have started calling them out on the fact that you can buy the exact same watch, minus the MVMT logo, on Alibaba for $5 as opposed to $100.
Still, overall these brands are absolutely killing it, and aren't having a great effect on more established brands that produce higher quality timepieces. These are brands that offer objectively better products, but aren't nearly as savvy with their marketing: Timex, Seiko, Orient, Citizen, Tissot, Inox, Hamilton, Zeppelin, Junkers, Junghans, and the list goes on. None of these specialise in luxury watches, but in the same price range as the fashion brands they do offer good watches, many extremely stylish, that will last for decades.
Premium mediocre might also be the reason that TAG Heuer get such short shrift amongst watch aficionados. They're nominally a luxury brand, and they certainly do make some decent timepieces. For example, the Monaco is a classic and - for a horology geek - their high end chronographs are seriously impressive (and way the hell above my price range).
Nevertheless, you really get ripped off on TAG's entry level quartz pieces. These are still kind of pricey, but the quality isn't there. For example, they will cheerfully charge you well north of £1000 for a quartz Aquaracer with a misaligned second hand. Not OK, but a lot of people buy into it because it makes a TAG Heuer attainable.
I'm vaguely aware of a lot of this simply due to working with a tracking product for fashion brands, but where I'm really aware of it is with watches, which are a bit of a hobby for me.
Notably, brands such as MVMT, Vincero, Daniel Wellington, and Michael Kors, take the cheapest of the cheap quartz movements, case them up - particularly with MVMT and Vincero - in cheap, generic cases, with straps made of the lowest quality materials, slap their logo on, do a ton of fantastic social media marketing, and then chuck on a ridiculous markup to charge sometimes hundreds of dollars or pounds for these effectively disposable time-pieces.
MVMT in particular have come in for a lot of flak recently, because people have started calling them out on the fact that you can buy the exact same watch, minus the MVMT logo, on Alibaba for $5 as opposed to $100.
Still, overall these brands are absolutely killing it, and aren't having a great effect on more established brands that produce higher quality timepieces. These are brands that offer objectively better products, but aren't nearly as savvy with their marketing: Timex, Seiko, Orient, Citizen, Tissot, Inox, Hamilton, Zeppelin, Junkers, Junghans, and the list goes on. None of these specialise in luxury watches, but in the same price range as the fashion brands they do offer good watches, many extremely stylish, that will last for decades.
Premium mediocre might also be the reason that TAG Heuer get such short shrift amongst watch aficionados. They're nominally a luxury brand, and they certainly do make some decent timepieces. For example, the Monaco is a classic and - for a horology geek - their high end chronographs are seriously impressive (and way the hell above my price range).
Nevertheless, you really get ripped off on TAG's entry level quartz pieces. These are still kind of pricey, but the quality isn't there. For example, they will cheerfully charge you well north of £1000 for a quartz Aquaracer with a misaligned second hand. Not OK, but a lot of people buy into it because it makes a TAG Heuer attainable.
What's interesting about brands like MVMT and Daniel Wellington in particular is that it's not like they ever produced actual 'quality' stuff. Unlike a lot of the brands in the article, where the 'premium mediocre' stuff is a kind of brand dilution from prohibitively expensive luxury stuff, MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap the illusion of being quality without ever having had to put up the work for it. I guess it's made possible by some combination of what traditionally makes for a quality watch being somewhat opaque to a non-geek consumer (not that it's hard, it's just not something most people feel like spending time learning about), and the traditional definition of quality of watches moving away from functional timekeeping and towards fashion accessory (you can see this with Rolex too, as they start to move up-market).
This in contrast to TAG Heuer, which is much closer I think to the article's subject. Before TAG bought them, Heuer produced a number of absolute classics (such as the Monaco you mention) that they're only just getting back around to continuing now, with the current theme of vintage styling being hip again (something I am, don't get me wrong, grateful for!). But to your point, for a while, TAG tried to get by on brand alone, and sold a lot of relatively low-quality stuff at almost-luxury prices.
There is a possible means, however, by which this kind of process drives the genuine premium market. Some set of customers who buy a DW are gonna wear it and love it for a week, and then start to get pissed off as they find out that the cheap plating rubs off, or the applied indicies aren't applied so well and are rattling around under the crystal now, or that it loses 30 seconds a day. They'll start learning about actual quality differentiators, maybe geek out a bit if they are that type, be bothered they blew $300 on a $5 watch, but maybe next time around they buy a Tissot, or a Seiko. And then an Omega after that. And it's possible I guess that the number of people who go through this process is larger than if there were no such 'premium mediocre' market at all?
This in contrast to TAG Heuer, which is much closer I think to the article's subject. Before TAG bought them, Heuer produced a number of absolute classics (such as the Monaco you mention) that they're only just getting back around to continuing now, with the current theme of vintage styling being hip again (something I am, don't get me wrong, grateful for!). But to your point, for a while, TAG tried to get by on brand alone, and sold a lot of relatively low-quality stuff at almost-luxury prices.
There is a possible means, however, by which this kind of process drives the genuine premium market. Some set of customers who buy a DW are gonna wear it and love it for a week, and then start to get pissed off as they find out that the cheap plating rubs off, or the applied indicies aren't applied so well and are rattling around under the crystal now, or that it loses 30 seconds a day. They'll start learning about actual quality differentiators, maybe geek out a bit if they are that type, be bothered they blew $300 on a $5 watch, but maybe next time around they buy a Tissot, or a Seiko. And then an Omega after that. And it's possible I guess that the number of people who go through this process is larger than if there were no such 'premium mediocre' market at all?
> MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap
MVMT and the like have come about due to forums and blogs. there’s no somehow about it. as mid market buyers have flocked to places where they can display and discuss their wares, MVMT etc have sprung up in symbiotic fashion.
MVMT and the like have come about due to forums and blogs. there’s no somehow about it. as mid market buyers have flocked to places where they can display and discuss their wares, MVMT etc have sprung up in symbiotic fashion.
Aren't watches anachronistic, though? It's basically a fashion statement rather than a functional timepiece; we're surrounded by devices that can tell the time for us. A watch's only purpose is wealth/fashion signalling.
I haven't worn a watch since I started carrying a cell phone and it perplexes me why they are still so popular.
I haven't worn a watch since I started carrying a cell phone and it perplexes me why they are still so popular.
> Aren't watches anachronistic, though?
This is perhaps the best pun ever to appear on HN. I hope it was intentional!
This is perhaps the best pun ever to appear on HN. I hope it was intentional!
I didn't form the sentence with that in mind, but once it was formed, I recognized it and left it! Especially since fancy watches are called "chronographs."
"I can see by my watch, without taking my hand from the left grip of the cycle, that it is eight-thirty in the morning. The wind, even at sixty miles an hour, is warm and humid. When it’s this hot and muggy at eight-thirty, I’m wondering what it’s going to be like in the afternoon." -- zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, robert m. pirsig
For some people, there are some times when a watch is _way_ more useful than that phone in their pocket...
(Also, I can trust my 1962 vintage mechanical watch to not be silently tracking me and selling me out to advertising companies...)
For some people, there are some times when a watch is _way_ more useful than that phone in their pocket...
(Also, I can trust my 1962 vintage mechanical watch to not be silently tracking me and selling me out to advertising companies...)
I think the OP was talking about quality differences on watches than the utility of a watch itself.
A 10$ watch does everything the $1000 watch does. The $990 are purely a fashion statement. The quartz being low quality doesn't affect the usability of the watch in anyway. If anything, the cheap digital watch with silicone straps is the e most comfortable and fuctional of all watches.
This is unlike clothing, where the 300$ suit or jacket does often have genuinely better fit, comfort and lasts longer.
A 10$ watch does everything the $1000 watch does. The $990 are purely a fashion statement. The quartz being low quality doesn't affect the usability of the watch in anyway. If anything, the cheap digital watch with silicone straps is the e most comfortable and fuctional of all watches.
This is unlike clothing, where the 300$ suit or jacket does often have genuinely better fit, comfort and lasts longer.
> I can see by my watch, without taking my hand from the left grip of the cycle, that it is eight-thirty in the morning.
Not having to rotate my arm to see the time was one big reason I got an always-on transflective LCD smartwatch (mine's the Amazfit Bip) instead of say, an Apple Watch.
Not having to rotate my arm to see the time was one big reason I got an always-on transflective LCD smartwatch (mine's the Amazfit Bip) instead of say, an Apple Watch.
There is a marginal bonus - not having to fish out your phone. You appreciate it the most when you have cold weather or an environment where pulling out your phone is forbidden or inappropriate. It is perfectly viable to go without of course
The wrist watch for men started being acceptable in WW1. Before it would be a matter of ridicule because it wearing a clock on your wrist was for women! The sheer ruggedness of the situation and making pocket watches less practical shed the stigma - nothing girly about a leather strap in muddy trenches in a hellish stalemate of a war.
The wrist watch for men started being acceptable in WW1. Before it would be a matter of ridicule because it wearing a clock on your wrist was for women! The sheer ruggedness of the situation and making pocket watches less practical shed the stigma - nothing girly about a leather strap in muddy trenches in a hellish stalemate of a war.
> There is a marginal bonus - not having to fish out your phone.
There's a non-marginal privacy bonus - not having to take your phone with you...
There's a non-marginal privacy bonus - not having to take your phone with you...
> Aren't watches anachronistic, though?
> I haven't worn a watch since I started carrying a cell phone and it perplexes me why they are still so popular.
That very much depends on the person. I started wearing a watch again because I wanted to spend less time futzing with my cellphone, which has worked. Secondarily, it's jewellery, so I do tend to match my watch to my outfit as a result.
> I haven't worn a watch since I started carrying a cell phone and it perplexes me why they are still so popular.
That very much depends on the person. I started wearing a watch again because I wanted to spend less time futzing with my cellphone, which has worked. Secondarily, it's jewellery, so I do tend to match my watch to my outfit as a result.
>It's basically a fashion statement
For some. I like having a watch on my wrist where I can glance at the time rather than taking out my cell phone.
I do have an Apple Watch but, especially when traveling, I often just wear a $30 Timex because I don't need to charge it. I see a lot of cheap watches in the store so I'm guessing I'm not alone.
A lot of people these days also wear fitness bands of one sort or another. I suppose you could consider those fashion statements in their own right.
For some. I like having a watch on my wrist where I can glance at the time rather than taking out my cell phone.
I do have an Apple Watch but, especially when traveling, I often just wear a $30 Timex because I don't need to charge it. I see a lot of cheap watches in the store so I'm guessing I'm not alone.
A lot of people these days also wear fitness bands of one sort or another. I suppose you could consider those fashion statements in their own right.
I found the opposite to be true: Like you, I used to think I didn't need a watch when I always had my cell phone. Then I started wearing a smartwatch for other reasons (activity tracking) and I realized just how much I missed having the time accessible right on my wrist.
It's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it recently but the difference between 1) fishing in your pocket, pulling out your phone, hitting the button, looking at the time then putting it back, and 2) turning your wrist 45 degrees is enormous. I can look at the time even when I have both my hands full, I can check when it's raining without getting my phone wet, I can start a timer without unlocking my phone and hunting for the Clock app... it's really been an eye-opener for how much better a watch is than a phone.
It's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it recently but the difference between 1) fishing in your pocket, pulling out your phone, hitting the button, looking at the time then putting it back, and 2) turning your wrist 45 degrees is enormous. I can look at the time even when I have both my hands full, I can check when it's raining without getting my phone wet, I can start a timer without unlocking my phone and hunting for the Clock app... it's really been an eye-opener for how much better a watch is than a phone.
A watch is practical anywhere you can't use your phone. Any water sports or even being caught out in the rain comes to mind.
I wear a Citizen Eco-drive and get that naked feeling if I ever leave the house without it.
I wear a Citizen Eco-drive and get that naked feeling if I ever leave the house without it.
I wear a watch because I don't always have my phone on me. Also, sometimes I need to check the time in front of people without them noticing. Just to not appear rude. A watch is perfect for that.
What’s humorous is when there are people who wear watches as a fashion accessory that can’t even read the time on them, so pull out their phone to check the time anyway.
This is amazing.
interesting to consider how much an average consumer cares about the "quality" of a new watch they are buying today
unless you're buying a dive computer or ruggedized/solar-powered wrist GPS, you don't need a watch. you have an infinitely more accurate and powerful device in your pocket that fulfills the same function of telling time x 1000000 other applications
time-telling watches are now 100% a status symbol, heirloom, and/or enthusiast good
brand is and will become that much more important as the old school "quality" collectors and wearers die out and are replaced by brand/social signaling watch consumers
same to a lesser extent with clothing - you're sitting in an air conditioned office or car or your home for most of the day, but it's a powerful expression of who you are and what you can afford when you wear your new balenciaga sneakers out to drinks on friday night and pull out your $5 branded bic lighter.
mediocre quality is good enough because our environment is so tame, brand is everything
unless you're buying a dive computer or ruggedized/solar-powered wrist GPS, you don't need a watch. you have an infinitely more accurate and powerful device in your pocket that fulfills the same function of telling time x 1000000 other applications
time-telling watches are now 100% a status symbol, heirloom, and/or enthusiast good
brand is and will become that much more important as the old school "quality" collectors and wearers die out and are replaced by brand/social signaling watch consumers
same to a lesser extent with clothing - you're sitting in an air conditioned office or car or your home for most of the day, but it's a powerful expression of who you are and what you can afford when you wear your new balenciaga sneakers out to drinks on friday night and pull out your $5 branded bic lighter.
mediocre quality is good enough because our environment is so tame, brand is everything
When it's 6 degrees Fahrenheit and you're wrangling a toddler outside and trying to catch a city bus, a watch is much more practical. I still wear mine, and it doesn't satisfy any of your criteria. It's just practical in conjunction with a lot of activity outdoors in winter. Won't drop it in the sewer drain or the woods, can't be flung by toddler, doesn't freeze and malfunction like the phone, can be operated while wearing mittens, can easily be looked at while biking.
There's a good chance you've chosen the tame environment you bemoan!
There's a good chance you've chosen the tame environment you bemoan!
[deleted]
None of the explains the difference between a $5 and a $5000 watch.
I don't think this is really a fair assessment. Watches have always been a luxury good and a fashion statement, despite also varying in quality and price. Quartz watches are still a relatively recent development: before then, watches were the realm of highly skilled craftsmen. I don't think anyone shops for watches based on the accuracy of the timekeeping: shoppers expect that all watch brands keep time roughly equally, and make purchases based on branding and design.
Quartz watches have been the pragmatic time telling choice for decades. More accurate and cheaper than mechanical.
Plenty, possibly the majority, of watch enthusiasts today have never experienced a time when their mechanical watch was simply a practical tool.
So I can't see people who care about quality dying out.
Plenty, possibly the majority, of watch enthusiasts today have never experienced a time when their mechanical watch was simply a practical tool.
So I can't see people who care about quality dying out.
When we're talking about unbelievably expensive mechanical products that tell the time with less accuracy than a cheap quartz movement, "quality" is perhaps not the best word.
These products - like overpriced fashion brands - are pure capitalist virtue signalling. They're personal advertising tokens and power objects, intended to display to the world that the wearer/buyer is conspicuously untroubled by any material scarcity.
It's not about quality in any of the usual senses of the word - except maybe in the archaic sense that being that kind of rich is self-defined as being "a person of quality".
These products - like overpriced fashion brands - are pure capitalist virtue signalling. They're personal advertising tokens and power objects, intended to display to the world that the wearer/buyer is conspicuously untroubled by any material scarcity.
It's not about quality in any of the usual senses of the word - except maybe in the archaic sense that being that kind of rich is self-defined as being "a person of quality".
all of the enthusiasts i know hide their watches. it’s about an appreciation for craftsmanship.
edit: i guess i do know a lot of folks that wear a watch for brand status but those aren’t enthusiasts.
edit: i guess i do know a lot of folks that wear a watch for brand status but those aren’t enthusiasts.
I don't hide mine, but mine are bought for odd personal reasons.
The one I have on right now is _probably_ a real 1957 Sputnik 1 Poljot commemorative watch. It could be a fake, but if it is it's got the pre 1962 movement in it, so its at least "period"... And I don't actually care, it only cost me $70.
I also have a somewhat-less-likely-to-be-genuine 17-jewel Sturmanskie Soviet Airforce watch like the one Yuri Gagarin wore into space in 1961. Again, I don't actually care if it's genuine or not - I like the idea of it enough. Somebody might have gone to enough effort to make a plausible fake out of period-correct parts, and sold it to me for ~$80 - good on them... I still get to use it as a story-starter...
The one I have on right now is _probably_ a real 1957 Sputnik 1 Poljot commemorative watch. It could be a fake, but if it is it's got the pre 1962 movement in it, so its at least "period"... And I don't actually care, it only cost me $70.
I also have a somewhat-less-likely-to-be-genuine 17-jewel Sturmanskie Soviet Airforce watch like the one Yuri Gagarin wore into space in 1961. Again, I don't actually care if it's genuine or not - I like the idea of it enough. Somebody might have gone to enough effort to make a plausible fake out of period-correct parts, and sold it to me for ~$80 - good on them... I still get to use it as a story-starter...
> These products - like overpriced fashion brands - are pure capitalist virtue signalling.
I think people might think that's true, and I'm sure some people buy watches to show off but they're sure to be disappointed because here's the thing: nobody notices the watch you're wearing (except for, occasionally, other watch enthusiasts).
I felt a bit self-conscious the first few times I wore a "proper" luxury watch, but pretty soon realised nobody was paying even the slightest bit of attention. Now I don't even think about it.
I think people might think that's true, and I'm sure some people buy watches to show off but they're sure to be disappointed because here's the thing: nobody notices the watch you're wearing (except for, occasionally, other watch enthusiasts).
I felt a bit self-conscious the first few times I wore a "proper" luxury watch, but pretty soon realised nobody was paying even the slightest bit of attention. Now I don't even think about it.
I still find a watch more convenient than pulling out my phone.
> time-telling watches are now 100% a status symbol, heirloom, and/or enthusiast good
or non-status jewelry. men especially can much more easily justify a watch over a bracelet.
or non-status jewelry. men especially can much more easily justify a watch over a bracelet.
[deleted]
Yeah, I always cringe at those, before I got a Smart Watch, I was a loyal user of the Seiko V - its an inexpensive mechanical watch, very durable, classically styled, and in my opinion, a more reliable time keeper than a Rolex (for much less money, and with much less brand status).
Does anyone actually buy MVMT watches? Are millennials really that dumb? Or did they just fake it till they make it really hard? Did their acquirers audit the sales?
People don't really need watches, you got everything you need on your phone, a watch is purely status signalling fashion accessory and as such the quality doesn't matter, just the brand, the design and the price. You might get the same design from a no brand piece and you might get the quality from non status signalling brands but you want get the recognition of your status which is the most important thing you pay for.
> People don't really need watches, you got everything you need on your phone, a watch is purely status signalling fashion accessory and as such the quality doesn't matter, just the brand, the design and the price.
No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
1) A watch has a useful function: telling the time. And it performs this without the need for me to get my phone out.
2) Quality is important: I don't want everything I own to be disposable, and I don't like things that malfunction, break down, or otherwise stop working when subjected to the stresses and strains of normal life. In fact I prefer to buy high quality items that I enjoy and that will last for many years. Apart from anything else it's simply more sustainable than buying crap.
No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
1) A watch has a useful function: telling the time. And it performs this without the need for me to get my phone out.
2) Quality is important: I don't want everything I own to be disposable, and I don't like things that malfunction, break down, or otherwise stop working when subjected to the stresses and strains of normal life. In fact I prefer to buy high quality items that I enjoy and that will last for many years. Apart from anything else it's simply more sustainable than buying crap.
I don’t get where this mindset comes from. I love my watch for the purpose of telling time. Phones are a distraction and the less time I can get caught in that, the better. I had the same mindset until my boss told me it was better to look at your watch in front of a client than your phone. That got me to switch but it’s so much better at doing the job it does than a phone. Just turn your wrist and you can see the time.
Exactly. There are at least two wholly practical reasons to wear a watch (and a conventional watch is actually better than a smartwatch for the second).
It doesn't require my fishing a phone out my pocket especially if it's cold, rainy, etc.
It's easier, as your boss suggested, to casually look at the time out of the corner of your eye in a meeting, presentation, etc. than it is to see it on your phone--especially if the phone is turned over as is often the custom in meetings.
It doesn't require my fishing a phone out my pocket especially if it's cold, rainy, etc.
It's easier, as your boss suggested, to casually look at the time out of the corner of your eye in a meeting, presentation, etc. than it is to see it on your phone--especially if the phone is turned over as is often the custom in meetings.
Who cares about clock movements today?
When everybody has a GPS on their phone they have automatic synchronization with satellite atomic clocks. As a matter of fact there is redundancy with connection to cell towers and Internet that also syncs the clocks with atomic clocks.
What happens is that with tech advancement the main utility of clocks had disappeared like photography killed the utility of painters as recorders of visual information.
Photography created impressionism first, then cubism and ended in absurd paintings like "White over white"(empty canvas)selling for hundred of thousands of dollars, color dots for tens of millions and so on.
People selling clocks will do it for different reasons that in the past, like signaling that you have so much money you don't care about wasting it.
When everybody has a GPS on their phone they have automatic synchronization with satellite atomic clocks. As a matter of fact there is redundancy with connection to cell towers and Internet that also syncs the clocks with atomic clocks.
What happens is that with tech advancement the main utility of clocks had disappeared like photography killed the utility of painters as recorders of visual information.
Photography created impressionism first, then cubism and ended in absurd paintings like "White over white"(empty canvas)selling for hundred of thousands of dollars, color dots for tens of millions and so on.
People selling clocks will do it for different reasons that in the past, like signaling that you have so much money you don't care about wasting it.
"Brands are giving the masses the illusion that they are consuming luxury, when in reality they are doing nothing of the sort, argues Eugene Rabkin."
This approach to serving the midmarket has been around for a long time, especially in the consumer goods sector. Very lucrative indeed because the margins are so much higher when you charge premium for a mediocre product that cost correspondingly little to make. A good example is the Victoria's Secret underwear brand. It produces mediocre products but pumps huge money into marketing itself as a luxury brand. Worked well in N. America where until recently, there was little variety of underwear brands available.
I've also noticed over time that European fashion products tend to have a higher quality threshold even at the lower ends. I attribute part of it to the region having longer history with haute couture (high-end luxury), which in turn established higher quality expectations for the aspirational and lower end brands, as well as more choices of brands including within the underwear sector.
This approach to serving the midmarket has been around for a long time, especially in the consumer goods sector. Very lucrative indeed because the margins are so much higher when you charge premium for a mediocre product that cost correspondingly little to make. A good example is the Victoria's Secret underwear brand. It produces mediocre products but pumps huge money into marketing itself as a luxury brand. Worked well in N. America where until recently, there was little variety of underwear brands available.
I've also noticed over time that European fashion products tend to have a higher quality threshold even at the lower ends. I attribute part of it to the region having longer history with haute couture (high-end luxury), which in turn established higher quality expectations for the aspirational and lower end brands, as well as more choices of brands including within the underwear sector.
The logo/brand obsession that they talk about in this article really annoys me. I went into REI to try and buy a jacket recently and could not get anything without an unremovable brand name on the front of it. Underwear without a brand name readable from across the room on the waistband is also difficult to find in stores.
Check out Uniqlo!
I have extreme aversion toward advertising a brand on my body. Uniqlo has nice basic clothes with zero logos on them.
I have extreme aversion toward advertising a brand on my body. Uniqlo has nice basic clothes with zero logos on them.
I'll second Uniqlo. I'm also very happy with the quality for the price. Probably half my clothes are from there now.
They also invent textiles for their target markets, i.e. Apple style vertical integration.
I'm the same way, but it has struck me that this is a kind of inverse brand fixation. If I were indifferent to brands, I wouldn't mind that my clothes happen to advertise them, but I do. I think on some level I view highly visible brands as crass, which is to say that a lack of branding is itself a class or status signifier.
Tailored shirts also rarely have logos embroidered on them.
People paying a premium to advertise a brand is a bit like people giving away content and personal data for free to free online platforms.
Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand.
I went to a wedding recently, and someone who is not wealthy asked what the VSL logo on other womens’ purses was. It was actually YSL, for yves saint lauren, but this just illustrated to me that some people do notice. On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable. At the end of the day, we’re all animals, and there is a lot of social signaling going on.
I went to a wedding recently, and someone who is not wealthy asked what the VSL logo on other womens’ purses was. It was actually YSL, for yves saint lauren, but this just illustrated to me that some people do notice. On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable. At the end of the day, we’re all animals, and there is a lot of social signaling going on.
On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable
I was in a Louis Vuitton flagship store recently and noticed that, roughly speaking, the cheaper the bags the bigger the logo. Their _really_ expensive suitcases only and a tiny LV monogram stamped into the leather on a couple of spots.
I was in a Louis Vuitton flagship store recently and noticed that, roughly speaking, the cheaper the bags the bigger the logo. Their _really_ expensive suitcases only and a tiny LV monogram stamped into the leather on a couple of spots.
> Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand.
That's usually the case from the wearer's perspective, and for the brand, it is killing two birds with one stone.
That's usually the case from the wearer's perspective, and for the brand, it is killing two birds with one stone.
'Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand.'
People wearing Ferrari baseball caps, for instance, is probably an extreme of this?
People wearing Ferrari baseball caps, for instance, is probably an extreme of this?
It feels pathetic unless you also own a car of the same brand.
What's interesting to me is how big and accessible the fake market has gotten for luxury brand clothes and shoes. I remember when you'd buy fake Jordans and Coach purses out of trunks. Now you just go on Taobao and you can buy fakes that are completely indiscernible from the real items and costs $20. There's even user reviews for fakes that compare them to the real items like Amazon reviews so you having buying confidence from certain sellers that quality is high.
For a lot of people it's more about repping the right brands than it is about having authentic items. This of course has consequences for the real brands who potentially lose sales to fakes, but from what I can tell it's similar to people who pirate movies, they only watch it because it's free, but wouldn't buy the dvd or see it in the theaters otherwise.
For a lot of people it's more about repping the right brands than it is about having authentic items. This of course has consequences for the real brands who potentially lose sales to fakes, but from what I can tell it's similar to people who pirate movies, they only watch it because it's free, but wouldn't buy the dvd or see it in the theaters otherwise.
Now you just go on Taobao and you can buy fakes that are completely indiscernible from the real items and costs $20.
If you realise that a lot of the time the fakes come from the same factories and use the exact same materials as the real products, then this makes a lot of sense --- the only difference is where/how it's sold, and whether the original brand owner gets its huge profit.
If you realise that a lot of the time the fakes come from the same factories and use the exact same materials as the real products, then this makes a lot of sense --- the only difference is where/how it's sold, and whether the original brand owner gets its huge profit.
There's even a subreddit now: https://www.reddit.com/r/FashionReps
The term they use is "Fashion Replica"
The term they use is "Fashion Replica"
I'm typing this out from a laptop I keep in a Coach laptop case. I only have it because it was a gift from a friend. His mother works at Coach and frequently gifts her son "premium mediocre" items such as card holders and nylon bags such as my laptop bag. His closet has Coach-branded wallets literally spilling out of it.
I'm very grateful for the laptop bad. It was an unsolicited present when I mentioned I was in the market for one, however when I went to his home to receive it, I couldn't help but feel disappointed in the feel of it.
On one hand, its very subtle. I prefer Coach products over something like LVMH or GUCCI because the labeling isn't in your face. And the Coach leather duffel I paid 800 for in 2013 is still with me in excellent condition after 6 years and 10 countries of daily use.
On the other hand, this is not worth 115USD. Its simply a laptop sized sleeve with a zipper, some padding, and and the official seal with a serial number. No straps, no additional pockets. I guess in some instances you really do pay for the privilege of the name.
I'm very grateful for the laptop bad. It was an unsolicited present when I mentioned I was in the market for one, however when I went to his home to receive it, I couldn't help but feel disappointed in the feel of it.
On one hand, its very subtle. I prefer Coach products over something like LVMH or GUCCI because the labeling isn't in your face. And the Coach leather duffel I paid 800 for in 2013 is still with me in excellent condition after 6 years and 10 countries of daily use.
On the other hand, this is not worth 115USD. Its simply a laptop sized sleeve with a zipper, some padding, and and the official seal with a serial number. No straps, no additional pockets. I guess in some instances you really do pay for the privilege of the name.
The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting.
From a clothing point of view, the worst thing that premium mediocre does is break the relationship between price = quality, which as a consumer is just depressing.
From a clothing point of view, the worst thing that premium mediocre does is break the relationship between price = quality, which as a consumer is just depressing.
>The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting.
I noticed this when looking at Mercedes-Benz vehicles. Their most expensive car (the $200k Maybach) has a very small, subtle hood ornament. Their other cars have those huge MB backlit emblems in the grill.
I took this to mean that at a certain level of wealth you don't need to show off a brand to prove your worth.
I noticed this when looking at Mercedes-Benz vehicles. Their most expensive car (the $200k Maybach) has a very small, subtle hood ornament. Their other cars have those huge MB backlit emblems in the grill.
I took this to mean that at a certain level of wealth you don't need to show off a brand to prove your worth.
While I agree with the basic premise of the article (disparaging low-quality goods attached to premium brands), I take exception to two of the examples: Starbucks and premium economy airline seats.
I regularly upgrade to premium economy when I fly for the very real benefits of 1) earlier boarding, ensuring convenient overhead access to my carry-on luggage and 2) extra legroom; I find it's impossible to open and use a laptop with today's shallow seat pitch configurations unless you upgrade.
As for Starbucks, I'm paying a premium (but not much, as a tea drinker) for the amenities: air-conditioning, clean bathrooms, quality furniture. Too many local coffee shops lack these basics.
I regularly upgrade to premium economy when I fly for the very real benefits of 1) earlier boarding, ensuring convenient overhead access to my carry-on luggage and 2) extra legroom; I find it's impossible to open and use a laptop with today's shallow seat pitch configurations unless you upgrade.
As for Starbucks, I'm paying a premium (but not much, as a tea drinker) for the amenities: air-conditioning, clean bathrooms, quality furniture. Too many local coffee shops lack these basics.
Economy Plus seating seems a lot more utilitarian. Also Acela on the Amtrak. There's a market for things that give a bit more convenience and comfort relative to what those buying solely on price are getting. While not providing a product that's significantly higher cost and price--especially to the point where paying for it becomes an issue even for many business travelers.
The issue here is that they're cutting away from what was actually the standard before in order to create something "premium". What used to be "economy" is now "premium economy" with a price hike, and now "economy" is something that was made deliberately worse.
That's an issue, true. And it's a frustrating state of affairs. But it's not in keeping with the theme of the article. I think the author is hinting at the idea that "premium" economy is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, and that people who pay for it are being suckered into paying for pseudo-prestige because of the "premium" label. But unlike the other examples they cite, premium economy is actually better.
I mean, not really? When is the last time you ever gave a shit about "premium" beer? That's literally on every beer out there.
Most of clothing sales are based on branding, not quality, and buying a certain brand means buying into a certain image you want of yourself.
People will avoid WalMart like the plague because they don't want to be "someone who gets their clothes at WalMart," not because their jeans are too crummy for them to wear.
People will avoid WalMart like the plague because they don't want to be "someone who gets their clothes at WalMart," not because their jeans are too crummy for them to wear.
Design is a real factor, and the difference in design between what you get at wallmart, and what is offered by 'premium luxury' is clear.
The article may be upside down:
"Luxury" is the real hustle, because they are selling you 'good design' that is 'inaccessible' to others, i.e. the 'inaccessibility' is the key point.
"Tory Burch" may actually be selling you really great design. But it's affordable and accessible. Nothing wrong with that, although it's probably positioned as less accessible than otherwise.
It's all misleading because this is a category in every consumer product and has been for a long time. Even in finance and private wealth management.
It's a segment in the marketing mix like anything else.
The King of this segment though by far is Apple: they sell you aspiration and a hint of exclusivity without actually being exclusive.
But remember:
+ Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure.
+ Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere.
+ Premium Economy in flights is worth a lot if you get bigger seats without the service. No hustle there - it's what I want, it's the best thing.
I think where it gets ridiculous is when there's are seriously overpriced items, like the $200 keychains etc.. That's so sad.
The article may be upside down:
"Luxury" is the real hustle, because they are selling you 'good design' that is 'inaccessible' to others, i.e. the 'inaccessibility' is the key point.
"Tory Burch" may actually be selling you really great design. But it's affordable and accessible. Nothing wrong with that, although it's probably positioned as less accessible than otherwise.
It's all misleading because this is a category in every consumer product and has been for a long time. Even in finance and private wealth management.
It's a segment in the marketing mix like anything else.
The King of this segment though by far is Apple: they sell you aspiration and a hint of exclusivity without actually being exclusive.
But remember:
+ Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure.
+ Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere.
+ Premium Economy in flights is worth a lot if you get bigger seats without the service. No hustle there - it's what I want, it's the best thing.
I think where it gets ridiculous is when there's are seriously overpriced items, like the $200 keychains etc.. That's so sad.
> + Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure.
Including the measures of people who both couldn't identify Tory Burch, and have never shopped for clothes at Walmart. That's how branding works.
> + Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere.
There were coffee shops everywhere in the US before Starbucks. The trend migrated from the Pacific Northwesterners who created a coffee culture so the rain wouldn't make them kill themselves, and then that coffee culture collided with the urban leftover memories of 50s Beat coffee culture, back-to-nature hippie tea culture, and europhile intellectual coffee culture (a lot of tables had inlaid chessboards.)
This was homogenized by the aggressive expansion of Starbucks, starting in the Pacific Northwest again, wiping out most of the variations that we used to enjoy.
And I lived in places like Northwest Arkansas and Mississippi at the time, so this is not a big-city perspective.
Including the measures of people who both couldn't identify Tory Burch, and have never shopped for clothes at Walmart. That's how branding works.
> + Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere.
There were coffee shops everywhere in the US before Starbucks. The trend migrated from the Pacific Northwesterners who created a coffee culture so the rain wouldn't make them kill themselves, and then that coffee culture collided with the urban leftover memories of 50s Beat coffee culture, back-to-nature hippie tea culture, and europhile intellectual coffee culture (a lot of tables had inlaid chessboards.)
This was homogenized by the aggressive expansion of Starbucks, starting in the Pacific Northwest again, wiping out most of the variations that we used to enjoy.
And I lived in places like Northwest Arkansas and Mississippi at the time, so this is not a big-city perspective.
"Including the measures of people who both couldn't identify Tory Burch, and have never shopped for clothes at Walmart. That's how branding works."
If someone sees the value in something, never having heard of the brand, then that's not 'branding' - it's the opposite, it'd seem there's a universal appeal of Birch beyond what Wallmart provides that is not derived from brand.
+ Starbucks didn't wipe out 'coffee' - coffee was a total commodity and there were no 'varieties'. It was just called 'coffee' by everyone.
Moreover, Starbucks spread Italian style coffee: Cappuccino, Late, Espresso - without that, there'd be no Starbucks.
If someone sees the value in something, never having heard of the brand, then that's not 'branding' - it's the opposite, it'd seem there's a universal appeal of Birch beyond what Wallmart provides that is not derived from brand.
+ Starbucks didn't wipe out 'coffee' - coffee was a total commodity and there were no 'varieties'. It was just called 'coffee' by everyone.
Moreover, Starbucks spread Italian style coffee: Cappuccino, Late, Espresso - without that, there'd be no Starbucks.
If Kanye wore Wranglers, I bet a ton of people would flock to Walmart to grab them to show off they wear the same jeans as Kanye.
Champion Athletic hoodies is something I’ve strangely noticed has caught on more after celebrities starting wearing them. I remember Champion used to be the “lower-tier” athletic wear below Nike and Adidas that was sold at Walmart, but now is being sold on streetwear websites.
Champion Athletic hoodies is something I’ve strangely noticed has caught on more after celebrities starting wearing them. I remember Champion used to be the “lower-tier” athletic wear below Nike and Adidas that was sold at Walmart, but now is being sold on streetwear websites.
As a former (or perhaps just occasional) style writer who has put a great deal of thought into what peoples decisions about what they wear actually mean, 20 years ago the author's "premium mediocre," used to be called "aspirational products."
These were the keychains, perfumes, and ballcaps with astronomical margins that made the real money on the other side of the business, which was their loss leading spectacle (haute couture, etc.) You can't afford a DeHavilland Beaver airplane, but you can buy this saddle stitched wallet as a symbol to remind you of the image of one.
The aspirational products matter because they give us information about peoples true desires. It's a leading indicator for culture and politics. Even the Cambridge Analytica scandal was started by someone who was able to link peoples political leanings to the brands they chose. (I'd link the article but it's behind the FT paywall.)
When someone gets up in the morning, the things they choose to wear are an expression of what team they think they are on, what tribe they think they are a part of, who they think their main stakeholders are, and what kind of incentives motivate them. In business, that's about all you need to know about someone.
Given this, I get the impression fashion, business and culture are not the main field of the author of this op-ed.
These were the keychains, perfumes, and ballcaps with astronomical margins that made the real money on the other side of the business, which was their loss leading spectacle (haute couture, etc.) You can't afford a DeHavilland Beaver airplane, but you can buy this saddle stitched wallet as a symbol to remind you of the image of one.
The aspirational products matter because they give us information about peoples true desires. It's a leading indicator for culture and politics. Even the Cambridge Analytica scandal was started by someone who was able to link peoples political leanings to the brands they chose. (I'd link the article but it's behind the FT paywall.)
When someone gets up in the morning, the things they choose to wear are an expression of what team they think they are on, what tribe they think they are a part of, who they think their main stakeholders are, and what kind of incentives motivate them. In business, that's about all you need to know about someone.
Given this, I get the impression fashion, business and culture are not the main field of the author of this op-ed.
i encourage you to read the original piece that coined the term: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-l...
the reach and scale of social media and how brands can interact (or not) with their followers has really changed the marketing game, and i think premium mediocre combines this insight with the poor economic prospects of the millenial generation
"Premium mediocrity is the story of Maya Millennial, laughing alone with her salad. She’s just not a millionaire…yet. She just doesn’t have a mansion…yet. She just doesn’t drive a Tesla…yet."
strongly implied is the fact that she never will have any of these increasingly mediocre/disposable goods, and that she will be happy to consume increasingly premium but increasingly mediocre asipirational products for the rest of her life because she will never be productive enough to earn close to what her parents earn to afford true quality goods
but also maybe this isn't an intrinsically bad thing and just a sign of a more disposable/fleeting relationship with houses, cars, etc. (which is bad on further reflection, does not bode well for the environment)
the reach and scale of social media and how brands can interact (or not) with their followers has really changed the marketing game, and i think premium mediocre combines this insight with the poor economic prospects of the millenial generation
"Premium mediocrity is the story of Maya Millennial, laughing alone with her salad. She’s just not a millionaire…yet. She just doesn’t have a mansion…yet. She just doesn’t drive a Tesla…yet."
strongly implied is the fact that she never will have any of these increasingly mediocre/disposable goods, and that she will be happy to consume increasingly premium but increasingly mediocre asipirational products for the rest of her life because she will never be productive enough to earn close to what her parents earn to afford true quality goods
but also maybe this isn't an intrinsically bad thing and just a sign of a more disposable/fleeting relationship with houses, cars, etc. (which is bad on further reflection, does not bode well for the environment)
Gave it a read, and the distinction between previous incarnations of entry middle classes and this new category still do not seem to supplant the originals. It's interesting, and recommend it.
The author runs a forum and magazine dedicated to "fashion goth" designers like Rick Owens. He's a bit too close to the subject because his essay lacks distance and the analysis you provided. And like you say, this isn't new - it's just aspirational branding.
This reminded me of a classic essay on how a lot of "luxury" branding is meant to appeal, not to the true elite (the kind of people who are born with seven or more figures in a trust fund and / or live off capital gains), but to the aspirations of professional-class strivers (lawyers, doctors, advertising directors, software engineers, etc.):
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_...
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_...
That was a really interesting read. I embarrassingly have never thought deeply about how marketing or branding works to manipulate the viewer in very subtle ways. I think I’m starting to understand why some serious money is put towards advertising budgets.
Do yourself a favor and watch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
Hey thanks! I actually found it on youtube if anyone else is interested
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
I have to take issue with the inclusion of "craft beer" in the list of examples of "premium mediocre" at the top of the article.
There is certainly "fake" craft beer, made by the macro beverage companies that is designed to basically trick people into shelling out more because they believe they are buying into some premium category. It's classic aspirational stuff all built around marketing.
But then... well, there's all the REAL craft beer, which is (for want of a better word) crafted, made with care, creativity and in an environment of independence and experimentation. This stuff is genuinely good, or can be (sometimes experiments fail and this is fine), and like indie movements in music, art and literature deserves to be celebrated as an authentic expression of human endeavor.
So don't buy Goose, buy Revolution. Don't buy Elysian, buy New Glory. Go see what your local brewery is making. Better still, make some yourself and see how you like it.
Don't order "$25 signature burgers" from those places with all the trappings of the hipster movement but are actually owned by investment banks, order them from your local places that're actually doing it for themselves. It's not that hard to tell the difference usually.
I guess I agree with the article in the final analysis because I hate to see big companies ripping the genuine creativity out of grassroots/artisanal scenes and turning it into a shadow of itself for profit.
There is certainly "fake" craft beer, made by the macro beverage companies that is designed to basically trick people into shelling out more because they believe they are buying into some premium category. It's classic aspirational stuff all built around marketing.
But then... well, there's all the REAL craft beer, which is (for want of a better word) crafted, made with care, creativity and in an environment of independence and experimentation. This stuff is genuinely good, or can be (sometimes experiments fail and this is fine), and like indie movements in music, art and literature deserves to be celebrated as an authentic expression of human endeavor.
So don't buy Goose, buy Revolution. Don't buy Elysian, buy New Glory. Go see what your local brewery is making. Better still, make some yourself and see how you like it.
Don't order "$25 signature burgers" from those places with all the trappings of the hipster movement but are actually owned by investment banks, order them from your local places that're actually doing it for themselves. It's not that hard to tell the difference usually.
I guess I agree with the article in the final analysis because I hate to see big companies ripping the genuine creativity out of grassroots/artisanal scenes and turning it into a shadow of itself for profit.
“Craft beer” as far as I can tell just means overhopped. There’s nothing crafty about it beside swindling people into overpaying for something that tastes like acetone smells. So I think this article was spot on by including it.
I disagree. Good craft beer is far more than "overhopped". It's very difficult to make, and make consistently, and there are a plethora of different ingredients, styles, techniques and methods out there that people are using and innovating with.
A lot of the "overhopped" stuff is actually macro beer disguised as craft beer.
If you don't like it then that's fine of course, but I think it's hard to deny the amount of creativity and innovation that goes into making a really good beer.
A lot of the "overhopped" stuff is actually macro beer disguised as craft beer.
If you don't like it then that's fine of course, but I think it's hard to deny the amount of creativity and innovation that goes into making a really good beer.
And while I’m mostly not going to get excited about macro beer mascerading as craft beer, I still find it a net plus that I can get some e.g. Goose Bay IPA on a plane flight. It’s probably overhopped but it’s still better than Heineken to my taste.
It's incredible on HN the lengths people go to assert their authority and their righteousness over things they know absolutely nothing about.
If you only ever order IPAs, sometimes. You need to try some other beers. Try to find maltier ones, they do exist. But there are also fantastic IPAs that have hops but are still drinkable. Sadly a lot of mediocre breweries sprouted up during the boom and it’s saturated.
But let’s be honest here — the “craft” people are the ones driving the entire industry forward. Look at how popular cider is, which had always been a niche thing before.
But let’s be honest here — the “craft” people are the ones driving the entire industry forward. Look at how popular cider is, which had always been a niche thing before.
Where do you live? I only ask because I can see that being the observation if you're in a place that doesn't have a high concentration of millennials. But if you're in a place like Toronto then it doesn't track with reality. There are plenty of ciders and beers that are truly different with real nuance and varying flavour.
Regardless of its taste, craft beer movement started as class root movement by beer enthusiasts to make more individual beer in small quantities and has been very experimental (in places where it flourishes) and has produced really unique tastes and flavours.
So the GP is correct. See also https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
I think that the main issue is the knowledge about the real value is very hard to obtain and this gives the marketeers an upper hand to flood the marked with the fake information.
So the GP is correct. See also https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
I think that the main issue is the knowledge about the real value is very hard to obtain and this gives the marketeers an upper hand to flood the marked with the fake information.
I guess I'm a dork, but I'll never understand beer branding. The active ingredient is alcohol, a drug that induces various desirable effects. You wouldn't pay extra for artisanal aspirin or tylenol, so why alcohol?
Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBb9O-aW4zI
Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBb9O-aW4zI
It tastes better. Like, way better.
Call me a philistine, but you could mix high-proof liquor into whatever beverage you want. There's no reason why the active ingredient and the flavoring need to be correlated.
That's called a cocktail!
The process of brewing beer produces interesting flavors. Why not take advantage?
The process of brewing beer produces interesting flavors. Why not take advantage?
Do you drink pure ethanol or something? Even that is produced by fermentation, I’m sure different brands will end up being different as a result of impurities. Impurities may mean different taste or just worse hangover.
[deleted]
On the other hand, genuinely premium brands like Brunello Cucinelli stay quiet and do provide high quality, but at a price no one can afford. For those in the know, the namesake CEO is in tight with the Silicon Valley power players. Mark Zuckerberg trademark hoodies are made by Brunello, as are most of the Apple, Salesforce, and various other major tech companies wardrobes. Unlike what this writer believes, even billionaires signal, but it’s far more subtle.
Ok, so if you can't rely on the price to signify quality, what can you rely on? Where does one go to purchase a pair of shoes that will endure?
The best I came up with so far is using Wirecutter reviews. This way I discovered, for instance, where to buy treat-quality bedding and towels, but it doesn't cover anywhere near the spectrum of things that I need. Sometimes I find something good and they stop making it a year later.
The best I came up with so far is using Wirecutter reviews. This way I discovered, for instance, where to buy treat-quality bedding and towels, but it doesn't cover anywhere near the spectrum of things that I need. Sometimes I find something good and they stop making it a year later.
> Where does one go to purchase a pair of shoes that will endure?
There are some fairly strong indicators in the construction of a pair of shoes that bear witness to quality (or not): an upper stitched to the sole is generally better than one that is glued, for example.
There are some fairly strong indicators in the construction of a pair of shoes that bear witness to quality (or not): an upper stitched to the sole is generally better than one that is glued, for example.
Adding on: I believe the keyword to look for is usually known as a "Goodyear welt".
Where are you getting runners stitched to the sole?
Some people are literally ignorant of luxury brands. My bougie sisters-in-law are locked in a competition to outdo one another with Kate spade bags, Michael Kors watches, etc., and have no idea that these aren't the height of luxury. Here in Topeka, they are (where 100k gets you a nice 3br home).
Me? I'll stick to my brand name athleisure thank you very much.
Me? I'll stick to my brand name athleisure thank you very much.
If only they knew the Spade in Kate Spade is because she was married to David Spade's brother. Nothing says "luxury" like "Joe Dirt."
Meanwhile, socialites on the coasts strut around decked out in shit like Hermes, Guiseppe Zanotti, and Patek Phillipe.
People buy based on recognizable brand names because it signals you're able to afford something in that price range and know "what's cool".
What's interesting is that some luxury brands's true high end lines are not really profitable (example: haute couture) and are actually supported by the brand's entry level "premium mediocre" products like canvas bags, perfumes, etc. In a way, the true luxury products acts as a marketing expense to bolster brand cachet, so their entry level products are coveted by the masses as status symbols.
What's interesting is that some luxury brands's true high end lines are not really profitable (example: haute couture) and are actually supported by the brand's entry level "premium mediocre" products like canvas bags, perfumes, etc. In a way, the true luxury products acts as a marketing expense to bolster brand cachet, so their entry level products are coveted by the masses as status symbols.
[deleted]
it’s called mid market
I was thinking something like that too, but I don't think it's the same ("mid market" being defined by size of business, though I think I've heard it colloquially used to describe middle price tag). "Premium mediocre" specifically emphasizes the discrepancy between product quality vs. branding and price tag.
The banner at the top of the page proclaims:
Become a BoF Professional
Get members-only exclusive content and unlimited access to articles.
The whole damn point of the Fashion Industry is to fabricate an experience of luxury and exclusivity in the first place! Otherwise they would just be commodity textiles with a far smaller margin - the ones any early developing country can produce with a little bit of investment.
Then there is the frankly incoherent bashing of millennials for not spending money on the "real high end" while complaining about them splurging and calling them entitled. Look do you want them to buy your overpriced crap or to join the list of victim entitled industries "killed by millennials"?
From a guy who feels entitled to profits at a large mark up, and setting the standards of taste for everbody. Who feels the place of the customer is to serve the merchant. Talk about projecting like IMAX....
As for why the fashion signaling niche has been taken up by logoed commodities: tt is the economy stupid. It is no wonder people are going for an accessible "high end" when essential expenses and debts related to them are high. People splurge a bit for mental health - done within their means it can be healthy even.
Plus even those who are better off can get dirty looks for conspicious consumption outside a sufficently matched setting - and not even in an envious sour grapes way like "I would totally get a Tesla/Buggaratti if I could afford it." but "What kind of asshole spends $50k on a handbag when even $500 is overkill? That is more than my car!".