This reminds me of a fascinating article in The New Yorker called "Twilight of the Brands." [0] The author's basic argument is that brands have historically filled an information gap. Before the Internet, when consumers didn't have tons of on-demand info about products, brands were a compass that pointed them in the right direction. If the last Sylvania TV you bought worked well, you might buy another one without hunting down reviews for the new model.
Now that product info is ubiquitous, the author says, the role of brands and traditional advertising is declining. So, when I hear critiques about a particular form of online advertising, I think about the broader, more subtle ways in which websites influence our purchases. Companies are starting to pay more attention to online forums and social sites, which are more persuasive to consumers than traditional banner ads.
One place where marketers have gotten around this quite adeptly is Windows PCs and laptops.
Try searching for reviews on a laptop you find at Best Buy. There are none. The model number is 10+ random characters and completely meaningless. Comparison shopping between laptops on the basis of reviews is impossible. Consequently, they have you buying on 1) brand and 2) specs, which is right where they want you, and completely ignoring things like build quality and MTBF of parts which might be revealed by long-term reviews.
This is one of the (many) refreshing things about Apple. Macbook Pro is Macbook Pro until the next refresh.
> Try searching for reviews on a laptop you find at Best Buy. There are none. The model number is 10+ random characters and completely meaningless.
This is a problem for a number of users but I think you got the reasoning a bit wrong.
The real reason this is done is for the purpose of reducing price-match deals when other retailers have a discount on the same model.
I for one have never faced a problem finding reviews as a number of tech reviewers mention all model numbers in their posts.
Also, this is not limited to Windows PCs but to most high(er) ticket electronics like televisions.
> This is one of the (many) refreshing things about Apple. Macbook Pro is Macbook Pro until the next refresh.
While partially true, Apple does have multiple model numbers within the same generation, they just don't tell the customers about it. The models are based on hardware used. This makes any review somewhat inaccurate as different customers who bought the same product based on the same reviews from the same retailer may get marginally different hardware.
ex. Macbook Pro - Retina - mid-2012 - came with either a LG display or a Samsung. The LG displays had problems with image retention. A few Samsung had a yellow tint. And at the time of purchase the customer had no way to know which one they were buying.
Considering that your MBP screen issue is the same one always mentioned about Apple, and it was widely discussed online and screens got replaced under warranty, it seems to be the exception that proves the rule.
And it's way more pervasive than that. Companies who make appliances, mattresses, etc. have been doing this for decades. It enables them to say, "We'll beat anyone's advertised price!" Since all the major retailers are getting models tailored and numbered for their chain, they know they can do this with impunity. This is one of the reasons it's so hard to find the models Consumer Reports reviewed at your local retailer. You have to buy the one from that brand that's close enough.
I noticed this as well, but it just pushed me towards those kinds of companies that use reliable identifiers like Lenovo. I find that if a company is doing this kind of weird naming, they're probably not in the business of selling things based on quality.
I think Best Buy and co. do that to prevent them having to make good on "price matching" promises - everyone sells a different model (that really only differs by the model number), so since no-one sells "the same" model they can SAY they price-match without ever actually having to. I believe they do this for TVs too.
Ummm... I love my MBP but it's no way 'the' Macbook Pro until next refresh. I got a choice of two form factors and multiple hard drive/SSD, processor and RAM configurations.
The build quality is great, but don't pretend for a moment Apple don't play the specs game.
This isn't about meaningful variations. Go to Dell and HP's websites and see how many different ways (with different model numbers and sometimes even prices) you can configure a laptop with the same screen, processor, RAM, and hard drive.
I tried it at one point and stopped counting after around 10.
One big issue for me is that brands have become drastically less useful in predicting product quality.
Very few of the major brands that were big when I grew up in the '70s haven't thrown away their quality in favor of ... I'm not sure. Sony is a good example, even good through the '80s as well, as long as you didn't get something manufactured in Mexico with cold soldier joints, as my family back in SW Missouri did, fortunately they knew how to deal with that problem.
Today every purchase I make is proceeded by research, caution or whatever to make sure I'm still getting the same thing, or that the New And Improved version isn't significantly worse, or that the manufacturer hasn't thrown away quality in their new model.
For me, outside of some rare exceptions like Amazon, or some providers of higher end products, brand equity is all but dead. No amount of advertising can counteract the facts on the ground for someone who's been around long enough, and I'll bet even young whippersnappers are getting wise to this new scheme of things.
I think people underrate how much this benefits apple. While I'm sure there are people with different experiences, apple in general, and in my experience, don't sell shit products and stand behind what they sell. With a full motherboard changeout available at a local apple store if necessary. Contrast to hp: we had a hp laptop w/ a next business day in-home warranty that nonetheless spent a week or more in hp's repair shops on two occasions. I've also gotten new power bricks outside of warranty basically by asking nicely at the local apple store. It may be because I do spend a lot of money on apple gear, but I used to do that w/ dell and dell never gave a shit.
The brand I'm most surprised about is sears. They used to make great appliances and stand behind them until the private equity thieves fucked that all up. My partner runs a medium-sized apartment building; the owner is happy to pay for quality, and if sears cost less on the 10-15 year time frame they'd buy it. But sears is the same cheap crap, so they just buy whatever is close to cheapest at home depot.
When brands throw away their brand name and turn into the same cheap shit, you can't blame consumers for shopping just on price.
Well, Sears never actually made their white goods appliances, but they used to do a very good job of sourcing their Kenmore brand ones. That's what my mother, something of a Laundry Nazi, used when she was washing for my father, who hunted and did other things that got clothes dirty, and me, my sister ... and my two younger brothers. Serious cleaning required, which I helped with. Hummm, ditto refrigerators.
Now it's a don't even bother with them.
I don't know about your private equity compliant; are you referring to the late 2004 deal with K-Mart? I'm pretty sure Sears had already "lost it" by then, although I'd have to check to be absolutely sure about Kenmore appliances. If so, it took them only two years to completely lose it, because I bought a washer and dryer in 2007, started looking in Sears and then went with GE (in part because my family has a special relationship with the local dealer). Of course I learned my own Laundry Nazi style from my mother....
"When brands throw away their brand name and turn into the same cheap shit, you can't blame consumers for shopping just on price."
Bingo. There are times when I just give up trying to get something I have confidence in being good and roll the dice with price being a major factor.
Your mom got lucky. When Kenmore was good, they were OEMing Whirlpool stuff. When they weren't, they usually sucked.
The GE stuff that you mentioned actually buying is a similar crapshoot. Until recently, GE was offshoring most whitegoods, and the quality was mostly junk. If you got the stuff made in the US or a higher end line, it's usually ok. But you never know.
If you want quality in laundry, buy Speed Queen or other vendors that make most of their money selling to laundromats.
A few weeks ago a solenoid failed in that GE (it determines what the motor does to the drum and agitator), requiring a $250 repair after $45 for the visit to figure that out. I looked into buying a Speed Queen as an alternative, and based on Amazon reviews discovered a serious problem with their service. They apparently pay by the service call, so if e.g. the I gather old fashioned electromechanical timer breaks, you're fine, it's a obvious, quick replacement. But if you get a rare lemon, you're SOL.
Do you have names for other vendors that sell mostly to laundromats?
GE is now clearly declaring their current stuff is garbage, having dropped their warranty to 1 year, and the reviews confirm that. I ended up having the repair done; when combined with the fact that companies like GE get tax credits to make washers that year by year do a worse job by using less water and less hot water (something buying a Speed Queen avoids), I plan to keep pouring parts into my 2007 GE as long as that's feasible. It's got a good design.
Contrast to hp: we had a hp laptop w/ a next business day in-home warranty that nonetheless spent a week or more in hp's repair shops on two occasions.
Back before flat screens were good, I remember our company would source big old CRTs from a brand with 'on-site replacement'. Turns out this actually meant "Did you keep the box and packaging? We'll pay for the shipping back to the repair depot". Um, no, because the boxes are huge and so is the polystyrene foam packaging. "Sorry, warranty doesn't apply to you". Sorry, last time we buy your big monitors.
Similarly, the Toshiba customer support centre wouldn't talk to you unless you paid them $55 first. Uh... I just want ask about buying some technical manuals. Nope, $55 to talk.
I haven't yet found it to be that bad, at least not yet. E.g. I've always considered Kingston to be iffy except for DRAM, where their lifetime warranty speaks for itself (and isn't bogus, I've had to do one replacement).
The auto decontenting is pretty obvious if you pay any degree of attention, and American tend to do that with their cars.
For medium scale purchases with many interchangeable competitors, this may be true. But for cheap impulse purchase and for high-end commodities, brand still matters quite a bit.
Apple and Samsung are two great examples of higher end companies whose products aren't appreciably superior or inferior to most of their competitors, but through relentless advertising, they have made themselves seem distinct from their competitors.
A significant function of advertising is to reinforce decisions. Very few people buy a car because they saw an ad for it, or a iPhone, for that matter. But the ad serves to reinforce the decision of those who already bought the product, decreasing buyers remorse. It's the reason most higher end car ads are selling the idea of a car rather than the car itself. Ditto with the older iPhone and iPods ads.
And a similar thing is true for low end, cheap products. People buy Coca Cola over store brand cola because of the brand identity coca cola creates. They may be totally unaware of it, but it's just enough of an impetus to push someone to spend the extra $1.50 on a 12 pack of Coke vs another brand.
Apple and Samsung are two great examples of higher end companies whose products aren't appreciably superior or inferior to most of their competitors
I'm not sure this is true: Samsung is not a (particularly) higher-end company, and their phones at least are lower cost than Apple.
In the case of Apple, their phones were appreciably better up until two years ago or so. Their laptops have been physically better in fit and finish for at least a decade (http://paulgraham.com/mac.html).
I didn't mean that Apple doesn't make good products. They make pretty damn good products. But the products are only part of Apple's marketing strategy.
Much of what has made Apple successful is the idea of what a Mac, an iPod, or an iPhone is. For most of the iPod's lifespan it was not the best product on the market, it was just the best marketed. In the case of macbooks, the hardware has been roughly on par with equivalently priced competitors for several years. But they sell the idea of what it means to be a 'mac person'. They get you invested in the idea that macs are better regardless of the reality.
And that strategy is as much about reassuring people who already own Apple products (fighting buyers remorse, and grass-is-greener impulses) as it is about selling more.
For most of the iPod's lifespan it was not the best product on the market, it was just the best marketed.
I wouldn't say it was just better marketed, although that is true. It was also better designed, both in its hardware and software. An iPod in your hands felt and looked great and the scroll wheel made it intuitive to use. Anyone could easily pick it up and check out what you had in your library.
Before I had one, I had an iRiver iHP-120[0], which had a plethora of features an iPod didn't have. But it was ridiculously hard to use if you didn't know what you were doing.
Indeed. I was once engaged on a project to develop a new personal media player. QA had quite a selection of other vendors' PMPs, so we could learn from their mistakes: and ye gods and little fishes, poor UIs were abundant, not to mention often sluggish to respond.
(Sadly, ours never came to be, but that's a long and occasionally hilarious - in the DailyWTF sense - tale. Suffice to say, if your application crashes on trying to close any file, and the vendor's recommended workaround is to never close files, get ready for interesting times)
The scroll wheel was a gimmick in the tradition of the Apple hockey puck mouse, that was worse than the obvious alternatives (a regular rocker is much easier to use for scrolling through long lists) but people bought because they look cute and trusted Apple's supposed design insight.
I too have never understood how the scroll wheel could be considered intuitive. The first time I saw one I was somewhat baffled until my friend showed it to me and even then it was always a struggle to control.
Intuitive (to me) would be the scrolling on other players...hit up it goes up one, hold up and it goes up increasingly fast. Maybe that's boring but it's completely obvious how to work it when you pick it up.
Anyone could easily pick it up and check out what you had in your library.
This is subjective, of course. I'm lost every time I have to change songs on a friend's iPod classic :-). Give me traditional buttons or a touch screen any day.
> For most of the iPod's lifespan it was not the best product on the market,
I first learned the dubious value of reading off a spec sheet after I bought my first iPod. No wireless, less space than a Nomad indeed. But wireless and more space than a Nomad doesn't mean much when your UI and synchronization system is a steaming pile of shit that makes me die a little inside at the mere thought of having to use it. An iPod's specs may not have been top-of-the-line, but the experience sure was in comparison to the competition.
A more modern example is the Samsung Gear Fit that I've complained about previously. Lovely piece of hardware that stomps on everything else if one goes by the spec sheet. Unfortunately, Samsung produced a gigantic steaming turd of software (both firmware and more so on the client software side) that makes me regret that I purchased it. Sure, a FitBit doesn't even have a screen, and it's limited in its capabilities, but at least it works.
Piggybacking this, Coca Cola is the king of marketing prowess, in part because the product stays the exact same (or 99.8% the same). It's part of their "moat." Tech can't do that, in my opinion almost by definition due to expected and continuous innovation -- you can't stay the same. You do see it sometimes in short bursts -- such as with the Thinkpad brand (but even that line will be short lived vs. Coke).
With Coke, they can then use that consistency on anything from Santa Claus to the Olympics to feed on nostalgia of that recurring same-ness -- they're investing in a lifetime of feelings, not a few years or months of popularity. Hershey's, Disney (high repeat visits), and McDonald's to some extent are other great examples of being able to leverage long term marketing on consistent or nostalgic products -- something difficult for tech to do.
"Now that product info is ubiquitous, the author says, the role of brands and traditional advertising is declining"
Declining but still very important. All else equal someone will make a purchase from a brand that they have used, know, or trust, over another brand which they have less or no experience with. I would also argue that even on a lesser feature set the existing brand has a clear edge. And there are other issues like wanting everything to look similar (say with kitchen appliances) or other tie ins.
Let's look at YC as a brand. My guess is that even if statistics were shown that another place was "better" for a startup (if better could be defined) the edge, because of the "brand", would go to YC. Now if YC is not "in your face anymore", say HN declines in popularity, that brand could easily suffer.
Well, I have to say that there are many labels call themselves brands. And a brand is actually more like a notion in one's mind, if there is any, connecting the cognition and the outside world. It helps people quickly get their answers from their brain "HDD" without extra time/energy cost. We often call this "impression" or something like this. ad banner is just one of those channels to deliver the information to your target audience. It is a way to deliver your message to help build the notion in people's mind. So I think they are different things. Hope this helps.
I understand the point he is making, and I agree that the importance of advertising is declining. However, I wouldn't be able to explain Samsung's success without looking at advertising.
If that were mostly attributable to advertising, I think you would see an equivalent success built on a horizontal brand - that is, an OEM without Samsung's vertical integration.
Otherwise an equally valid conjecture is that Samsung bought-in to the idea that the only way to consolidate success is through establishing a brand. As Intel did, for example. But I don't think anyone could argue that Samsung's ad campaigns are mostly cost-effective, coherent, and well-targeted. In other words, I don't think one can articulate a set of hypotheses that links the vast majority of Samsung's ad spending to Samsung's market success.
Contrarywise, there is a pretty good theory that Samsung succeeded in PCs, before they cranked up the ad spending, by being vertically integrated in almost all high-value components except CPUs.
Huh? Samsung pays kickbacks to sales people and carriers. At least with regards to their top of the line phones, that's how they have muscled out all their Android competitors. It's a vicious cycle that you can't sustain unless you're a huge company that can subsidize the strategy with cash from profitable businesses.
When the minimum-wage salesperson at the carrier store or mall kiosk gets $25 in their pocket for selling the top line Samsung phone and $0 for any other phone, the "choice" is clear: customers will be walking out with Samsung phones. That is a majority of their marketing budget, though they go through great lengths to bury the lead in what little numbers they release.
Part of the reason Apple gets so much organic press is they're the only one to release actual hard numbers on a regular basis, though they are certainly coy in some areas.
I agree that establishing causality is very difficult and especially when it comes to the advertising business.
Nevertheless, my point is that when it comes to high end Android phones it is starting to look like a commodity market. So in my opinion the only way to explain Samsung's success is either their ad spending or sheer luck, which may as well be a really good explanation.
My point is that, as with PCs, which have been commoditized for decades, Samsung's success is mainly a product of vertical integration. In fact I'd cite their recent mobile handset launch events as a prime example of marketing and advertising spending gone off the rails.
I also compared them with Intel for a reason. Intel wins because they can simultaneously push chip and chip fab technology. That's an explanation that can put most people to sleep by the fourth word. And yet, once it was a small enough part of their budget, they went into the ad market, spent tens of millions, and bought brand recognition. It was a check-off item.
From a consumer's perspective all I see is a bunch of high end cell phones with very similar features and priced the same. Nevertheless, many people decide to buy the Samsung flagship phone over the Sony, LG or HTC.
Better economies of scale could be the reason if they decided to price their phones lower, but they don't. So that it's not the reason why people are choosing Samsung.
About the competent design, I don't see the Galaxy being superior to the HTC one or the Z2.
An economy of scale doesn't necessarily mean they price their phones lower. It could mean they offer more expensive products at the same price and with the same profit as their competitors, or offer equivalent products at the same price but higher profit than their competitors.
That's right. But they do not offer a better product, the flagship phones are all pretty much the same. And there is no reason why a higher margin should turn into a higher market share.
Now that product info is ubiquitous, the author says, the role of brands and traditional advertising is declining. So, when I hear critiques about a particular form of online advertising, I think about the broader, more subtle ways in which websites influence our purchases. Companies are starting to pay more attention to online forums and social sites, which are more persuasive to consumers than traditional banner ads.
[0] http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/02/17/140217ta_...