The Brand Age • Hacker News Board

Re: The Brand Age

#131

Post by KaiserPro » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:11 PM UTC

armchairhacker wrote: post #65

benleejamin wrote: post #42

I don't think the Brand Age is as bleak as this essay suggests. Branding is not inherently unproductive, nor is it guaranteed to produce worse watches. They may be larger and less accurate , but consumers still (evidently) find value in the brand. A Grand Seiko or a Nomos or a Patek is perhaps now even more interesting & identity-productive than a watch was in the 60s. As technologists I think we're prone to dismissi…

What I got from the essay: "brand is the only way to beat competition when you can't significantly beat them on quality". It's basically the market suffering from success. You can buy a cheap quality watch today. For some product types there is no better alternative, like ISPs. But I'd argue this is because of monopoly, which is different from brand. Most monopolies (like ISPs) usually have negative brands, and there…

Apart from the issue is omega (swatch group) has 3x the turnover of patek.

The other part of the story is swatch is also quite successful at the shit tier watches as well.

So this article misses the point really.

Re: The Brand Age

#132

Post by georgemcbay » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #120

georgemcbay wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's see Paul Allen's card" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlYH-hmxOqc

I wonder if it's intentional that they all say "Aquisitions", with no "c". As for fonts etc: https://hobancards.com/blogs/thoughts-and-curiosities/americ...

They all have the same phone number too.

This could be explained away by them working for the same place and assuming to contact them you call the same switchboard and ask for the person, but even back in the 90s it would have been strange for wall street "Vice Presidents" (even if it was somewhat of a ceremonial title) to not have their own unique business number.

Also, Paul Allen giving his card to someone else with the same contact number for the purposes of being in touch to plan to play squash doesn't make much sense unless you get meta and assume Paul Allen was aware this had no practical value and just wanted to ego-drop the card.

Re: The Brand Age

#133

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:15 PM UTC

> Now they cost a lot because brands spend a lot on advertising and use tricks to limit supply, and what the buyer gets in return is an expensive status symbol.

Sounds a hell of a lot like the diamond industry. Also, the top fashion houses, but both industries are taking a drubbing from artificial competition (artificial diamonds, and knockoffs, of various stripes).

I'm a believer in branding. I worked for many years, for a company with a "top-shelf" brand, and saw what it took, to maintain. But it takes a huge amount of discipline and "silly" stuff. Brand damage can come from a million different directions. I have found very few people are willing to do what it takes to maintain a top brand.

For quite a while, there have been "brand-only" products, like Von Dutch, or Life Is Good™. They are the two-dollar hat, with the twenty-dollar logo. Like Izod Lacoste or Members Only, in the last century.

Re: The Brand Age

#134

Post by iamwil » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:15 PM UTC

I kept thinking that he'd eventually compare it to writing software by hand, and how we're at the end of one golden age. But he never did. So I wonder what the impetus for the essay was.

Re: The Brand Age

#135

Post by KaiserPro » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:16 PM UTC

I'm still not really clear on what the point PG is driving at.

However swatch group(omega was force merged in the 80s to form the swatch group) has 3x the turnover of Patek.

More over Swatch caters to both high end and the poors + kids. So brand is.. good? so long as you only cater for the rich? I'm not getting that really.

Re: The Brand Age

#136

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:19 PM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #14

" Because at Patek he'd encounter the most extreme brand age phenomenon: artificial scarcity. You can't just buy a Nautilus. You have to spend years proving your loyalty first by buying your way through multiple tiers of other models, and then spend years on a waiting list. " Strange game, the only winning move is not to play. I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?) and, of course, there are lines outside "luxury"…

> Casios

I've got three Oceanus watches (Casio's boutique brand). I never wear them, anymore, because of Apple Watch.

I brought a couple of them in Japan. There, the G-Shock brand is very popular. They sell G-Shock watches for ridiculously (to Americans, who are used to cheap G-Shocks) high prices.

Re: The Brand Age

#137

Post by keybored » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:22 PM UTC

garethsprice wrote: post #114

jgrahamc wrote: post #14

" Because at Patek he'd encounter the most extreme brand age phenomenon: artificial scarcity. You can't just buy a Nautilus. You have to spend years proving your loyalty first by buying your way through multiple tiers of other models, and then spend years on a waiting list. " Strange game, the only winning move is not to play. I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?) and, of course, there are lines outside "luxury"…

Humans are status-seeking creatures, and status is expressed through signaling. If you're rich and so are the people around you, money alone ceases to be a differentiator. Ultra-luxury brands appeal to this by adding hoops that money alone can't clear: time, loyalty, relationships. The signal shifts from "I can afford this" to "I was invited to spend my money here." Lines outside Louis Vuitton are more down-market, a…

I know I’m being sold something when someone declares the science of human nature.

Re: The Brand Age

#138

Post by fragmede » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #102

davidw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economists have a term for these kinds of things where the demand rises as prices rise: Veblen goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

Buying unnecessary expensive stuff is one thing. But it's hard to understand why anybody would want to display that total loyalty to a brand signal.

It taps into a very primordial "I'm better than you" urge some people need.

Re: The Brand Age

#139

Post by observationist » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:24 PM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #14

" Because at Patek he'd encounter the most extreme brand age phenomenon: artificial scarcity. You can't just buy a Nautilus. You have to spend years proving your loyalty first by buying your way through multiple tiers of other models, and then spend years on a waiting list. " Strange game, the only winning move is not to play. I've heard other brands do this (Ferrari?) and, of course, there are lines outside "luxury"…

It's exclusivity and sales schticks. Artificial scarcity, social status, conspicuous consumption. Same things that drive influencers to rent limos, pose on other people's private jets, pretend to buy bottles in clubs, flash fake cash, wear bling.

From a birds-eye view it's less a hedonistic treadmill and more a feeding frenzy.

It's a game you can play, but for the life of me, I cannot comprehend why you'd want to, there are so many other better things in life.

>>> Why bother?

Exactly - go give someone you love a hug, that's worth infinitely more than flexing an expensive watch.

Re: The Brand Age

#140

Post by zem » Thu, Mar 05, 2026, 10:25 PM UTC

> Jaeger-LeCoultre's web site says that one of their current collections "takes its inspiration from the classic designs of the golden age of watchmaking." In saying this they're implicitly saying something that present-day watchmakers all know but rarely come so close to saying outright: whatever age we're in now, it's not the golden age.

not sure what tfa is trying to say here, but this is far from being an indictment of the current age. the term "golden age" is (from what I've seen) usually used for the time when an industry or field was taking the leap from niche to mainstream, and in the process defining some of the things that would later come to be considered characteristic. by that token, of course the golden age of watchmaking is not today - the field has already gone mainstream and indeed does retain a lot of the characteristic features that the golden age innovated upon and defined.