When YOUR brands go bad.
Discussion
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.If the brand goes bad then you'll start trying other brands and develope a beautiful brand relationship that will last as long as the product is good.
I dont think anyones "falling" for anything, if Wills experience is positive with Dyson (and I recon Dtyson are quality too) then there is no reason to change unless the product quality drops.
Edited by Vagabond on Thursday 11th June 12:27
Surely the classic PH related brand would be Subaru. I can remember when they were farmers cars (Old man & his old man have always bought Isuzus), and almost remember to the day the first turbo Impreza I saw in the dealers back in about 94. Trying to convince my dad to buy one of them instead of a new trooper! Now everyone knows what a Subaru is and mostly think 'Chav' when they hear it. I don't care though, I've wanted one for 15 years and I'm still going to have one!
Vagabond said:
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.If the brand goes bad then you'll start trying other brands and develope a beautiful brand relationship that will last as long as the product is good.
I dont think anyones "falling" for anything, if Wills experience is positive with Dyson (and I recon Dtyson are quality too) then there is no reason to change unless the product quality drops.
Edited by Vagabond on Thursday 11th June 12:27
That foul drink SunnyD - did a complete con job on the food industry when it launched - by associating itself with a 'chiller cabinet' (awful Americanism) and by the power of association implying it was 'fresh' juice rather than a fruit squash type drink.
I am not criticising this. I am a complete label sucker - I love it. But I'm not going to kid myself it's always because it's a better product.
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.That the very same Dyson is still in the cupboard almost 4yrs later, is testimony to that decision. I explained my general purchasing criteria in my last post. I don't think it's majorly different to many others. I'm happy to pay more for what I perceive to be better quality. If that turns out not to be the case, I move on. Wacky eh?
FoolOnTheHill said:
I remember having what I thought was a comfortable, good-looking leather jacket. It was even stylish, right up until the time David Brent wore one in The Office.
Leather jackets stopped looking good way before the office 
Edit: unless you are a PowerRanger
Edited by RobCrezz on Thursday 11th June 12:50
parakitaMol. said:
Vagabond said:
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.If the brand goes bad then you'll start trying other brands and develope a beautiful brand relationship that will last as long as the product is good.
I dont think anyones "falling" for anything, if Wills experience is positive with Dyson (and I recon Dtyson are quality too) then there is no reason to change unless the product quality drops.
Edited by Vagabond on Thursday 11th June 12:27
That foul drink SunnyD - did a complete con job on the food industry when it launched - by associating itself with a 'chiller cabinet' (awful Americanism) and by the power of association implying it was 'fresh' juice rather than a fruit squash type drink.
I am not criticising this. I am a complete label sucker - I love it. But I'm not going to kid myself it's always because it's a better product.
parakitaMol. said:
No, perhaps a bit harsh, but really is Dyson better? - they created that concept when they launched - and high pricing was part of the illusion and so was the clear container - and it's placed itself into the higher end market segment. I have no doubt they do a great job and are a great product - but price wise - is it better than comparable engineering with an PL brand on it for several £ less?? This is why I giggled.
That foul drink SunnyD - did a complete con job on the food industry when it launched - by associating itself with a 'chiller cabinet' (awful Americanism) and by the power of association implying it was 'fresh' juice rather than a fruit squash type drink.
I am not criticising this. I am a complete label sucker - I love it. But I'm not going to kid myself it's always because it's a better product.
I agree with what you're saying, there are possibly similar products that cost less but do pretty much the same job, but there lies the difficulty for advertisers, how do you break someones brand loyalty when it is gained through experience with the brand?That foul drink SunnyD - did a complete con job on the food industry when it launched - by associating itself with a 'chiller cabinet' (awful Americanism) and by the power of association implying it was 'fresh' juice rather than a fruit squash type drink.
I am not criticising this. I am a complete label sucker - I love it. But I'm not going to kid myself it's always because it's a better product.
Price is one way, but all it takes is one bad experience with a cheaper product to make you convinse yourself the extra you're spending is well spent.
Even a perceived difference can happen with a brand, like TV's, you somehow know that a Panasonic screen will be better than an LG, even though you may later find out they buy their screens from the same place, you get a sense of comfort with the Panasonic somehow.
ukwill said:
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.That the very same Dyson is still in the cupboard almost 4yrs later, is testimony to that decision. I explained my general purchasing criteria in my last post. I don't think it's majorly different to many others. I'm happy to pay more for what I perceive to be better quality. If that turns out not to be the case, I move on. Wacky eh?
ukwill said:
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.That the very same Dyson is still in the cupboard almost 4yrs later, is testimony to that decision. I explained my general purchasing criteria in my last post. I don't think it's majorly different to many others. I'm happy to pay more for what I perceive to be better quality. If that turns out not to be the case, I move on. Wacky eh?
Vagabond said:
ukwill said:
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.That the very same Dyson is still in the cupboard almost 4yrs later, is testimony to that decision. I explained my general purchasing criteria in my last post. I don't think it's majorly different to many others. I'm happy to pay more for what I perceive to be better quality. If that turns out not to be the case, I move on. Wacky eh?
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
parakitaMol. said:
ukwill said:
I'm not sure that brand loyalty is inherently snobbish/shallow. I tend to stick with a few brands simply because I appreciate the quality and have no reason to change. Take my vacuum cleaner - it's a Dyson. It's done it's job perfectly over the past 3-4yrs. If it brokedown I'd probably buy another one - simply because of my experience with the brand. I could go and buy a Dyson-clone for far cheaper I'm sure, but would it last as long? Would it be as good? I don't know, and I don't wish to know. Now if my new Dyson kept breaking down and caused me hassle, then I'd have to re-evaluate my loyalty to the brand. In a nutshell that's pretty much my criteria for anything.
Oh Will,You actually fell for the whole Dyson thing! AND say that brand loyalty isn't shallow.
I love you now.That the very same Dyson is still in the cupboard almost 4yrs later, is testimony to that decision. I explained my general purchasing criteria in my last post. I don't think it's majorly different to many others. I'm happy to pay more for what I perceive to be better quality. If that turns out not to be the case, I move on. Wacky eh?
You're right - I didn't know at the time of purchase whether buying Dyson would work out. But, they had already created a decent brand at that time, and I think it's very hard to build a decent brand with a crap product. In that respect I felt relatively safe with my decision.
ukwill said:
But, they had already created a decent brand at that time, and I think it's very hard to build a decent brand with a crap product....
Of course its hard - that goes without saying (not impossible though, I do know of one brand with 30% returns that they managed to hide with excellent 'replacement' and customer care). The product's qualities, USPs and benefits - emotional or functional are used. And testimonials are so important - especially for services... Product Managers don't sit in isolation from the development side - it's integral.
Is Andrex really longer? nobody would check that or know - but people believe it - thats the thing.
Ah but some cheaper toilet roll is of the John Wayne persuasion (takes s
t from no-one) or is so weak that a damp st will result in it going into holes meaning st on your fingers, with those risks you find a toilet roll that meets the requirements without costing too much, besides a toilet roll purchase is likely to depend on what offer the supermarket has.
t from no-one) or is so weak that a damp st will result in it going into holes meaning st on your fingers, with those risks you find a toilet roll that meets the requirements without costing too much, besides a toilet roll purchase is likely to depend on what offer the supermarket has. Both the Daily Telegraph and Guardian have damaged their brand values through over-enthusiastic adoption of new media - "Thirsty" Will Lewis' twitters being only of use to staff back at the office (his regular updates from various shindigs letting them get on with their job safe in the knowledge that he won't be back to stick his oar in for some time yet).
Presence per se on pull-media (Twitter, RSS, Facebook, etc.) won't put off loyalists in itself - as pull-media they can be ignored. Push-media are another thing entirely as they waste time, and crucially they can be delivering an inappropriate message to the receiver (e.g. that the brand they considered exclusive is now appearing at all sorts of scummy mainstream events).
More important still is misuse of the new media. A search of the [url]Marketing Profs|http://www.mpdailyfix.com/[/url} archives will show up a stream of horror stories. Classic scenarios include:
- Failing to understand how WoM works, particularly in internet forums
- Failing to realise that customers may not actually like you that much.
- Not being able to take criticism.
Bloggers in particular cause real problems. Companies fail to understand that they are both independent and full of themselves. Fake it, and you'll eventually be found out. Take them on and you'll lose (or at best score a Pyhrric Victory).
New media is a 2-way street. As well as telling, you have to listen (and act on what they tell you). You must have a support system to hear and act on rumours & comments coming in (and in the case of bloggers go out and find who's talking about you). All the success stories revolve around brands listening to the customers and commentators.
Presence per se on pull-media (Twitter, RSS, Facebook, etc.) won't put off loyalists in itself - as pull-media they can be ignored. Push-media are another thing entirely as they waste time, and crucially they can be delivering an inappropriate message to the receiver (e.g. that the brand they considered exclusive is now appearing at all sorts of scummy mainstream events).
More important still is misuse of the new media. A search of the [url]Marketing Profs|http://www.mpdailyfix.com/[/url} archives will show up a stream of horror stories. Classic scenarios include:
- Failing to understand how WoM works, particularly in internet forums
- Failing to realise that customers may not actually like you that much.
- Not being able to take criticism.
Bloggers in particular cause real problems. Companies fail to understand that they are both independent and full of themselves. Fake it, and you'll eventually be found out. Take them on and you'll lose (or at best score a Pyhrric Victory).
New media is a 2-way street. As well as telling, you have to listen (and act on what they tell you). You must have a support system to hear and act on rumours & comments coming in (and in the case of bloggers go out and find who's talking about you). All the success stories revolve around brands listening to the customers and commentators.
Steamer said:
I was more than a little shocked when I found out one my favorite brands started out bad - let alone turned bad:
HugoBoss - little did I know who one of his most famous clients was!! (for the others that didnt know either - he had a funny moustache and was a tad xenophobic)
This guy?HugoBoss - little did I know who one of his most famous clients was!! (for the others that didnt know either - he had a funny moustache and was a tad xenophobic)
Pigeon said:
Steamer said:
I was more than a little shocked when I found out one my favorite brands started out bad - let alone turned bad:
HugoBoss - little did I know who one of his most famous clients was!! (for the others that didnt know either - he had a funny moustache and was a tad xenophobic)
This guy?HugoBoss - little did I know who one of his most famous clients was!! (for the others that didnt know either - he had a funny moustache and was a tad xenophobic)
I believe HB also had a hand in designing the SS uniform which is probably why it was so distinctive compared to that worn by the grunts of other nations at the time, and still evokes sinister undertones today. Perhaps the SS were therefore the ultimate evil "brand"...
Interesting topic
I'm a 'fan' of one brand on my Facebook account - they're only a veggie/meat/fish/dairy box scheme (although a national one I think), and I'm a fan because they send interesting bits out now and again. Huggy stuff about their farmers and the animals, plus links to any TV documentaries that they/their farmers have been involved in.
I was a customer before they had a Facebook presence, but having a FB presence wouldn't have put me off. I was happy to be associated with the brand, because I think the service they provide is excellent - I've used them for a long time and have never ever had any problems (except buying some crazily priced, but awful tasting houmous which I could have made for about 60p in 2 minutes flat, but that's just sour grapes from me for being lazy).
I see that on FB along side the huge marketing aspect, they are also providing me with a smidge of insight into what goes on behind the scenes, which helps give a better impression of the company. They don't update their page every five minutes (which would be very irritating) although they did post this as an update earlier which made me want to reconsider having them associated with my FB account, although not stop using their service:
"A few of us went to see The End of the Line premiere Monday evening...a great film about the impact of overfishing on our oceans…we really recommend seeing it to fully understand the critical issues. We're glad to say all of our fish is from sustainable sources, of course. You can find out more and see the trailer here, http://endoftheline.com/, and the official cinema release is tomorrow night."
It pissed me off because a) it is overly preachy b) cross selling a film I would never go and see, and assumes that I want to understand in detail the over fishing problem. It assumes that I as a customer of theirs I am some tofu weaving lentilist, when really I use them because their products are great, I like the way they do business, and it's damned convenient for me to have them delivered.
I don't know whether any of the other brands I like have a presence on Facebook, I couldn't really care less if they do - I wouldn't want to publicly align myself with any of them - it sounds like it's a bit willy waving? Presumably the low rent brands would have no fans, and the prestige brands would have thousands of fans that could never afford any of their products (except maybe a keyring).
Twitter however, I just don't get. Why would I want to be spammed by any company with marketing in that way? I can't understand how any individual could benefit, so whilst having a Twitter tag on their website wouldn't put me off the brand directly, I would never click that link.
Perhaps it's just for the young 'uns?
I'm a 'fan' of one brand on my Facebook account - they're only a veggie/meat/fish/dairy box scheme (although a national one I think), and I'm a fan because they send interesting bits out now and again. Huggy stuff about their farmers and the animals, plus links to any TV documentaries that they/their farmers have been involved in.
I was a customer before they had a Facebook presence, but having a FB presence wouldn't have put me off. I was happy to be associated with the brand, because I think the service they provide is excellent - I've used them for a long time and have never ever had any problems (except buying some crazily priced, but awful tasting houmous which I could have made for about 60p in 2 minutes flat, but that's just sour grapes from me for being lazy).
I see that on FB along side the huge marketing aspect, they are also providing me with a smidge of insight into what goes on behind the scenes, which helps give a better impression of the company. They don't update their page every five minutes (which would be very irritating) although they did post this as an update earlier which made me want to reconsider having them associated with my FB account, although not stop using their service:
"A few of us went to see The End of the Line premiere Monday evening...a great film about the impact of overfishing on our oceans…we really recommend seeing it to fully understand the critical issues. We're glad to say all of our fish is from sustainable sources, of course. You can find out more and see the trailer here, http://endoftheline.com/, and the official cinema release is tomorrow night."
It pissed me off because a) it is overly preachy b) cross selling a film I would never go and see, and assumes that I want to understand in detail the over fishing problem. It assumes that I as a customer of theirs I am some tofu weaving lentilist, when really I use them because their products are great, I like the way they do business, and it's damned convenient for me to have them delivered.
I don't know whether any of the other brands I like have a presence on Facebook, I couldn't really care less if they do - I wouldn't want to publicly align myself with any of them - it sounds like it's a bit willy waving? Presumably the low rent brands would have no fans, and the prestige brands would have thousands of fans that could never afford any of their products (except maybe a keyring).
Twitter however, I just don't get. Why would I want to be spammed by any company with marketing in that way? I can't understand how any individual could benefit, so whilst having a Twitter tag on their website wouldn't put me off the brand directly, I would never click that link.
Perhaps it's just for the young 'uns?
PS I bough my Miele vacuum cleaner for £5, second hand, six years ago when I was broke and needed one that weekend because my family were coming to stay and my previous one had died). It's still going strong, and I would no hesitate to replace it. I have just checked their website, they are not on either Facebook or Twitter, but do have a seasonal email newsletter which I have not signed up for. I can't imagine how dull a blog/email/wall post/twitter would be about a household electrics company.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff