Hi there! My name is Wisith. I became interested in the world of marketing through a couple of courses I took in my MBA program. I do not work in the field, thus not having any "real world" experience. This blog will represent anything marketing related that I find interesting. Thanks for reading!
When it comes to marketing, Phil Knight is in a league of his own. Prior to forming Nike, he became the U.S. contractor for Onitsuka Tiger. He parted ways after making several million dollars to form Nike. He believed that he needed to sponsor the best athletes and they would be able to market the products for him. At the time in the 1970s, Adidas was the leading firm in the field.
Knight struck gold when he sponsored Michael Jordan in the 1980s, and the rest was history. No other shoemakers can command consistent highly coveted sneakers that have kids line up for hours, or days to secure their pair.
An extremely critical point of marketing is to study your audience. A great example is how McDonald’s menu varies throughout the world. In some parts of the world, alcohol, chicken, pizzas, and other obscure items you wouldn’t typically associate with a fast food place are offered. McDonald’s didn’t assume that everyone would eat the same way as Americans so they cater to the locals.
I really like this ad campaign from Patek. The brand is known for making expensive timepieces, and the campaign is trying to push the point that the investment is worth the money because it can be passed on to the next generations. It infers that the firm’s timepieces are timeless designs and overtime, they will incur sentimental value that is priceless in itself.
A fellow fashion/style hobbyist commented on my initial post. He stated:
“You’ve made good points but I am confused, are you trying to correlate the brands logo to it’s marketing? Because your last paragraph seemed to have jumped to a whole new different topic.
As for logos and monograms, I think most are still stuck at that mindset but look in the runway photos and you’ll see that most of their clothes aren’t logo heavy anymore (actually, iirc most runway clothes never was too logo-centric). Prada’s logo is actually just a small red strip or the triangle, which is practically non-visible for the most part. LV monogram has history, it has gotten some bad connotation but I really wouldn’t have it any other way. I mean they have been doing it to their luggage’s for what, a 100 years? And they are still quality products. Are they expensive, hell yes but you know what, we overpay for everything we buy and this is a luxury item. I always said luxury items are supposed to be reasonable so don’t expect it to go for cheap.
Gucci is really the only one guilty of monogram or logo-heavy clothing. Those LV monogram clothing you see on Busta or Rick are all fakes. Not to say LV doesn’t make monogram or heavy logo clothes but their main clothes are still pretty basic.
In regards to your last point about marketing, at the end of the day, business is business. I bet that Gucci, LV, Prada, etc… makes a lot more money than EG, JL and Zegna and that is mostly because of marketing. They have celebrity endorsements and get their names out there in magazines and billboards. Seeing your favorite celebrity wear these designer clothes goes a long way.”
I did not want to make the initial post a long read so readers can quickly digest it. This one will be a bit longer. I really wish I have the time to pull the 10K reports and analyze the sections further.
Rappers, for the most part, also indirectly market for these brands as they mention a lot of luxury brands in their songs.
I was not talking about a particular garment in the initial post, be it shirts, pants, shoes. I stated that in general, brands like Prada, LV, etc. have logos or logo of some sort, which make them recognizable instantly. This is obvious from belts to sneakers to bags.
At the end of the day, business is business…yes. However, the goal of any firm is to be relevant in the long run. Even major fashion powerhouses go through a brand maker. For an example of this, you can search for Harvard Business Review’s article on Burberry changing its name from Burberry’s to Burberry.
I was not trying to pick one flavor of luxury brands over the other in the initial post. I simply wanted to state a point that many may have not thought about. Many people know brands like Fendi, Prada, and Gucci. But how many know of John Lobb, Brioni, and Isaia when it comes to luxury brands? I know I did not.
When it comes to luxury brands, the general public will most likely throw out names like “LV, Gucci, Prada, etc.”
I find it interesting that most members on StyleForum despise those brands (in general). When you mention luxury brands to those guys…brands like Edward Green, John Lobb, Zegna, etc. appear.
What’s the difference? The former brands such as LV, Gucci, and Prada usually have their logos of sort on the items. The latter brands such as Edward Green, John Lobb, and Zegna are more discrete and low key. To the untrained eye, you may mistaken a pair of $1,500 shoes for a pair of cheap Aldos!
The theory is if you have $10 million to spend on creating your products for the public, and you spend 30% of it on marketing campaigns to get your name out there, you would only have $7 million left to develop the products themselves. If you spend minimal to non on marketing tactics, you would have more money to make the products, thus hopefully resulting in higher quality products.