When YOUR brands go bad.

[parakitaMol.]

How do you feel when something you like. YOUR brand, goes bad. Becomes too common, or chav.

I remember a friend saying she used to like Bench but now it's everywhere she really hates it and gave all her Bench stuff to charity. And recently another mate said he used to like Superdry but now it's on the back of every gel haired - alcopop drinking tt in the country.

So, I'm interested if changes in popularity or how a brand behaves alters your feelings towards things. Like your favourite track being used for a Tampax advert or a band you discovered getting to number 1 (does that count anymore?)... you know.

More specifically, (for Twitter and Facebook haters) if a brand you liked had a Twitter account or Facebook Fan Page presence - could it potentially put you off the brand?

[parakitaMol.]

Plotloss said:

The undesirables have hijacked pretty much everything that was at one point nice.

Yes, I agree. There are things I have burned and smashed. Oakleys for one.

Being a Twitter-Hater - I would HATE it if certain things felt they were right for Twitter. I would have to reconsider my loyalty.

I am specifically interested in niche or luxury brands - for example; If someone with a Valextra briefcase heard that "you could keep up to date with news from Valextra via Twitter" - they would be forced to burn the Valextra.

I need to know if I'm not the only one who would hate MY things to go on Twitter etc

[parakitaMol.]

rfn said:

I don't buy branded clothing, primarily because my money goes on other things.

It doesn't worry me one bit .

Edited by rfn on Wednesday 10th June 14:30

Its not about clothing. It is about anything with a niche market or (non mass) identity.... that suddenly goes out to masses... or associates itself with something you hate - like a TV advert or something.

Edited by parakitaMol. on Wednesday 10th June 14:37

[parakitaMol.]

Romanymagic said:

GKP said:

Bench? Superdry? Valextra?

Never heard of any of them, so I guess I'm safe from being concerned about other 'fashionable' stuff!


/old git/

same here, but curiosity is going to end up forcing me to google the names so that perhaps I can become exclusive amongst my peers!

You need to read the post examples more carefully.

Bench and Superdry are NOT generally regarded as exclusive.

[parakitaMol.]

Famous Graham said:

Being a somewhat shallow individual, for me it's all about appearance, or image, I suppose. I would be aware of how people evaluated me if they saw me wearing/using/whatever something that had gone "downhill".

For example, I have a Burberry coat that I bought almost 20 years ago. Plain black wool raincoat thing, no "traditional" Burberry pattern or anything. I have no problem wearing it, and if anyone sees the label, then I just make a joke about it.

However, if I'd been inclined to have something in that pattern prior to it going all chav, then I would have ditched it well before now.

Hmm..not sure that makes much sense, or is very clear.

Yes it is Graham. Thanks. Your Burberry coat example is exactly what I meant - when the Brand went all 'Daniella Westbrook + baby in Burberry' - unexpectedly for them because they hadn't PR engineered it - I guess they've still appreciated the uplift in sales - not sure how their strategy reacted to the shift in demographic though....

[parakitaMol.]

Nolar Dog said:

I would have bought (for example)my Valextra because it represented the most suitable option for my needs/wants.
Not because it was exclusive or otherwise.

I would continue to make purchases in the same way and not be influenced by this ttter nonsense.

Ha ha ha...

Now Ms Dog this isn't really true is it?, this is exatly what my OH argues about his Valextra 3 in 1 and all other handmade leather goods (which lie boxed, one in every colour, in his attic). Which is utter rubbish. A Lidl bag with strong handles would transport his documents from home to work. Likewise with my Mulberry bags. They aren't the best bag to carry my purse at all - I just like them better than cheap st because, yes they are made better with nicer leather - but the reality is that I'm a brand snob - and I am fine about that. I wouldn't like them going common on ttter though

[parakitaMol.]

V8mate said:

Having spent many hours of my youth immersed in the wonderful sounds of the Velvet Underground, I could not believe that the BBC murdered 'Perfect Day' with a load of idiot pop stars.

Punch in the stomach - felt like part of me had been robbed.

Iggy Pop advertising fking insurance made me utterly LIVID!

[parakitaMol.]

Nolar Dog said:

parakitaMol. said:

Nolar Dog said:

I would have bought (for example)my Valextra because it represented the most suitable option for my needs/wants.
Not because it was exclusive or otherwise.

I would continue to make purchases in the same way and not be influenced by this ttter nonsense.

Ha ha ha...

Now Ms Dog this isn't really true is it?, this is exatly what my OH argues about his Valextra 3 in 1 and all other handmade leather goods (which lie boxed, one in every colour, in his attic). Which is utter rubbish. A Lidl bag with strong handles would transport his documents from home to work.

You've missed my point.

I used Valextra as an example.

However I don't own one because they don't best suit my needs ergo I haven't bought one.

Ohhhhh sorry, I misread that as yours. Anyway, my point was that I am sure that we all make excuses based on need - when we're actually talking about aspirational desires.

Do you want a Valexra briefcase anyway? I am making him sell the ttting ridiculous thing.

[parakitaMol.]

Vagabond said:

The thing is everyone is image driven, we are all so concerned about portraying a certain image because we're taught it's the thing to do, and having something that is perceived as being exclusive as a brand associates you with that brands more expensive offerings, it's the halo effect...

Actually we're not really taught it, identity is a key part of early development - it just extends into adulthood and manifests itself in these other things.

Vagabond said:

I cant think of many brands that have maintained their exclusivity, I would imagine very few of us would even know about those brands as they dont advertise or even bother trying to appeal to anyone but their loyal customers..

I am sure they do advertise or PR - but it may not be particularly visible to most people.

[parakitaMol.]

drivin_me_nuts said:

Bentley is an interesting one. From the aroma of fine tanins and leather polishes to the odour of stale football boots in a matter of a few years.

Creates a conflict between both aching desire and revulsion at yesterdays cold doner kebab simultaneously.

This is exactly what I was trying to understand.

I want to know also - that if an exclusive brand associated itself with something that had negative implications to the current consumers (ie putting itself on Facebook - sponsoring a TV show, using a track on a cheesy advert etc) - could that damage it - do people withdraw? or do they really not care. I withdraw. I am very easily turned off a brand by association.

[parakitaMol.]

SkinnyBoy said:

I see where the OP is coming from, I hate seeing some pleb or cretin wearing something I had exclusively. I do like certain brands, but hate overly branded products, to me they just shout fake or market. I do like quality and revel in the little details that set a quality item apart from the norm.

Often this isn't the journey or market that the brand intended - take the Burberry example.

Actually it's more for professional reasons that I am trying to understand the dynamics that apply - and how sensitive people are to associations and partnerships that brands make with each other - or advertising channels.

[parakitaMol.]

Aowhs102][rant said:

My Spyder skiing jacket...

[/rant]

You are right. Worn only by spastics and s.

They wear every single Spyder branded item thats available too.

[parakitaMol.]

Miss Pitstop said:

and might help the OP in understanding brand behaviour.

I have read it, thanks - it's actually quite a light and easily digestable book really written for a more mainstrieam audience - and others such as Blink, Freakonomics etc - they are all quite good if you just want a readable overview.. I'm not sure Marketing theory textbooks would ever reach the bestsellers lists in WHSmiths!

I am currently interested in the potentially negative impacts that brands might accidentally make by creating associations and presence within the Social Networking medium. Everyone has jumped on the Social Networks bandwagon and I'm not so keen - unless its specifically relevant for the consumers of that brand - ie one of my 6 current brands is a youth brand which the likes of Facebook are particularly relevant. However I might have the opportunity to work with a very niche and high value service - and they are keen to deepen their presence extensively within the social networks. Therefore I'm looking at that area specifically. Some are more relevant than others. I want to know if people who are particularly vocal about their dislike of Twitter etc would find themselves put off if they saw a 'Find us on Twitter' button on a webpage of that brand for example.

[parakitaMol.]

V8mate said:

parakitaMol. said:

I want to know if people who are particularly vocal about their dislike of Twitter etc would find themselves put off if they saw a 'Find us on Twitter' button on a webpage of that brand for example.

I'm very vocal about my dislike of Twitter.

As far as I'm concerned, it's for people who don't have enough to do each day and relies on people actually giving a toss about what someone else is up to.

So, whilst I saw a dash toward it by every lentalist and his mentor, no-one actually gives a damn what they're up to. I have to actively network to get work, but given that no-one cares what I'm doing (why would they?) it is an irrelevant forum for me.

However, I do see two opportunities for the format.

Firstly, for people or brands who have 'made it'. You might want to follow Jonathan Ross or Demi Moore in the same way as you'd buy 'Hello' or 'Heat' each week. Effectively you get news about people instantly rather than waiting for publishing day. There is, of course, a real risk in this kind of 'news' however. Too many people who read 'Heat' etc will believe anything they are told, and Twitter delivers to them the message the 'celeb' wants them to hear (probably PR-cleansed), rather than an expose, positively or negatively 'spun' by the media.
Similarly, for brands (whether product or 'creatives', e.g. a band) which are already in the public eye and have a 'following', there's a ready-made market of people wanting instant news. This allows cheap and instantaneous marketing.

Secondly, there is, of course, the viral opportunities to launch 'something new'; however this does rely on plenty of people having plenty more people in their ttworks (a twitter network?). And this then goes back to whether anyone gives a damn about what anyone else is doing.

What will make Twitter work, in time, is the 'collector' factor. Just like Myspace and then Facebook, young people can't help but 'collect' each other and, with the increasing usage/availability of 3G/always on mobile phone connectivity, Twitter will effectively become the new 'send to all contacts' text messaging service.

But I still hate it. Probably because of all the life coaches and other pot-plant sellers who have bombarded me with requests to 'connect'

There are huge opportunities... that's well documented already with numerous case studies and discussion and goes without saying - that's not what I'm interested in though.

So you're a hater and you're unlikely to join. Like me.

But might you be put off a brand you had previously held in high esteem as being 'slick', 'sophisticated', 'clean', 'high value', 'exclusive', 'niche', etc... joined Twitter and had Twitter logos on it's brand materials such as it's website?

It's the power of negative effect I am more interested in gathering opinions on.

If someone I hate, like Jim Carrey said his best band was Metallica then I'd have to smash all their CDs and I'd instantly hate them. For ever. They'd be ruined.

Kind of like that.

[parakitaMol.]

ukwill said:

This thread smacks of snobbishness (imo).

If you're so shallow that you would stop buying a brand simply because someone else/some other demographic chooses to, then that says a fair bit about you.

It might sound like that to you Will but it's real and it happens. In more ways than the literal examples above.

"I used to love that song till they used it on that toilet paper advert"

And if your line of work means that you are soley responsible for a brand or product and it's success and profitability - then it's something you need to understand and avoid.

The examples used - were in order to provoke discussion.

[parakitaMol.]

Romanymagic said:

Reading through some of the posts and now understanding where ParakitaMol is coming from with her original post I am going to come from a different angle - the perspective from a brand's point of view.

As someone has already mentioned previously a product brand cannot be waiting on just a certain demographic especially in these troubled times.

I suspect that if a brand wanted to maximise it's sales then if utilising a site such as Twitter to achieve those sales, well you would wouldn't you?

If I suggested to my shareholders that we don't do something that could maximise the sales of our product because it may tarnish that brand's overall repuation, I guarantee that those shareholders would still push to go ahead, rather than lose potential business.

Thanks Romany - that's exactly the issue. Except it's not so much reaching new markets with the likes of Twitter - that would be used to re-inforce existing relationships - the problem lies in understanding the % of people who HATE Twitter (like me) being potentially turned off....

This can be particularly useful with service brands rather than products - where word of mouth recommendation is vital because there aren't products to sample, touch and feel.

Its an interesting discussion. Thanks.

[parakitaMol.]

drivin_me_nuts said:

The notion of exclusivity is rather alluring.

Private memmbers clubs (the olde school ones, not the ones designed to facilitate the polishing of your knob), by invitation only( not credit cards... or airline style 'executive clubs' )

All have that mystery factor that makes them so much more desirable.

But wasn't it the late great and rather wonderful Groucho Marx who said


'I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.'

Thank you - this is exactly the type of niche 'service' sector that I am interested in.

pedantlewis said:

A brand associating with Twitter is not the same as a brand associating with the Burberry Cap Mafia.

It could be though. Any potential association should be considered carefully. Of course I see the potential, despite hating it personally I have a social network presence for my Youth brand - because that is what they want.

[parakitaMol.]

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.

[parakitaMol.]

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.

I totally agree with that though, brands earn their positions through customer experiences. I onyl buy specific brands of a number of items because I have had good experiences with them and there is a level of trust with them, I believe they have earned their right to charge more and Ill pay it.


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

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.

[parakitaMol.]

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.

Did I? Am I? I bought a Dyson because we originally bought a Panasonic (iirc) cyclone hoover for about £40 - that failed after about 5mths. When I went back into the market I decided to pay more for the perceived quality that Dyson offered.

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?

Don't take it so seriously Will. There's no shame in it... I think they look a damn sight more attractive than those frightening and tacky 'Henry' things. You made a wise purchase - There's no doubt they are a good product.... but at the time of purchase you wouldn't have known that for sure so there's other things that persuaded you initially - that was what I meant. And now you're loyal. So they have achieved their aims and everyone is happy.