Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Brand Age

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 403 posts

Re: The Brand Age

#141

Post by observationist »

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…

>>> ...PG writing an essay about being too smart for fancy watches

Stealthy, like a submarine.

Re: The Brand Age

#142

Post by animal_spirits »

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.

"There is only sex. Everything is sex" - Robert California

Re: The Brand Age

#143

Post by fragmede »

candiddevmike wrote: post #85
kridsdale1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone with $(80,00-250,000) (which is a lot of you) can buy a Nautilus today[1]. This status-through-martyrdom ritual to get it from retail at MSRP is utterly bizarre. [1] https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/nautilus--mod106.htm

More and more I realize I am completely obvlious to all of the class signaling happening here. I couldn't imagine spending that much on anything, let alone a watch. And I certainly wouldn't think someone wearing that did, either. I feel bad for the folks who pick up on stuff like this, that must be a heavy weight to bear constantly comparing yourself to other people.

I dunno, I'd probably spend that much on a house.

Re: The Brand Age

#144

Post by Herring »

He's omitting the most important bit. Data from the OECD shows highly unequal societies tend to be more status-obsessed, leading to higher spending on "positional goods" (items bought to signal status). These economies often have higher advertising expenditures (as a percentage of GDP) to fuel that competition. Inequality is quite corrosive in many ways, including leading to fascism.

Re: The Brand Age

#145

Post by coldtea »

jvanderbot wrote: post #113
coldtea wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he talks about status signalling. They might pass the time doing those things, but not as a mere passtime or hobby, like if they were sewing or playing CoD. Unlike those, doing them and telling about doing them serves a specific social purpose.

I'm not arguing with you - you have a valid point. But I don't view hobbies as that separate from status signals within the hobbying group . Oh you play games? What games? Did you beat it? etc etc. Esoteric knowledge/practices here are status signls (Oh you reached shattered planet without xyz??). That starts to sound a lot like "Oh you aquired a lambo XYZ without usual steps abc" and that's a really fun convo in the…

>But I don't view hobbies as that separate from status signals within the hobbying group.

The difference though is that this is not meant to serve "within the hobbying group".

They serves the status signal purpose when showing them to "laymen" and other rich people in general, not necessarily to other expensive car buyers or luxury watch buyers.

In other words, the, typically quiet, flaunting, is done to people otherwise uninterested about the specific ting, that nonetheless recognize the exclusivity and the knowledge that it's a subtle signal of "elevated taste" and that they belong to the tasteful-rich club.

Re: The Brand Age

#146

Post by thimkerbell »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #133

> 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…

How do "big brands" deal with efforts pretty clearly (but deniably) aimed at sabotaging their brand? Besides the ebay approach.

Re: The Brand Age

#147

Post by dtn »

renewiltord wrote: post #123
Traster wrote: post #97

>That's not why brand age watches look strange. Brand age watches look strange because they have no practical function. Their function is to express brand, and while that is certainly a constraint, it's not the clean kind of constraint that generates good things. The constraints imposed by brand ultimately depend on some of the worst features of human psychology. So when you have a world defined only by brand, it's g…

To everyone else who reads this and thinks to themselves "Man, this guy has a refined palate that PG doesn't have. PG can't appreciate beauty", go take a look at the Nautilus yourself https://glennbradford.com/products/patek-philippe-nautilus-0... It looks like an Aliexpress Timex.

Where do you think the Aliexpress Timex designs came from?

Re: The Brand Age

#148

Post by titanomachy »

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…

He’s probably also too rich for fancy watches to actually be a useful signal of wealth amongst his peers.

Re: The Brand Age

#149

Post by canpan »

Maybe the phone market is still in its golden age? It's a wonder you can get the best phone in the world for only a little over $1000. And everyone can buy it. Online without a line.

Comparing with luxury watches which cost a magnitude or two more and are beaten in precision by a $10 casio.

I guess the thing to watch out for is technical stagnation and "good enough"? Uh..

Re: The Brand Age

#150

Post by cue_the_strings »

renewiltord wrote: post #123
Traster wrote: post #97

>That's not why brand age watches look strange. Brand age watches look strange because they have no practical function. Their function is to express brand, and while that is certainly a constraint, it's not the clean kind of constraint that generates good things. The constraints imposed by brand ultimately depend on some of the worst features of human psychology. So when you have a world defined only by brand, it's g…

To everyone else who reads this and thinks to themselves "Man, this guy has a refined palate that PG doesn't have. PG can't appreciate beauty", go take a look at the Nautilus yourself https://glennbradford.com/products/patek-philippe-nautilus-0... It looks like an Aliexpress Timex.

I was not expecting it to be this ugly.
Post reply on HN