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

211–220 of 403 posts

Re: The Brand Age

#211

Post by theturtletalks »

Essay's very insightful, but it misses a big distinction. Watches are straight-up B2C consumer luxury. Once the real engineering edge vanished brand and scarcity could carry everything forever. Buyers pay extra precisely because it's status jewelry that doesn't need to improve year after year.

Most software especially SaaS like Salesforce or Shopify is B2B infrastructure. Brand loyalty there is way thinner and more fragile. Businesses don't pick tools to feel cool or exclusive. They pick what actually runs the operation better keeps their data safe and doesn't screw them long-term. Unlike a finished watch you own outright, software is a live service. You never know if tomorrow they'll yank a feature you rely on, hide it behind a new paywall, churn the UI, or jack up prices to please shareholders. Enshittification is brutal in this space because companies have to keep growing revenue forever. Open-source or self-hosted options keep winning ground for exactly that reason. True ownership and predictability beat any brand when it's your P&L on the line.

Re: The Brand Age

#212

Post by alexpotato »

I've been reading Rory Sutherland's book Alchemy and it's full of fascinating insights about marketing/branding etc

Case in point:

- company was testing out their mail based fundraising drive

- they randomly tested cheap vs expensive envelopes, regular envelopers vs side opening envelopes etc for how people could send back a check

- they found that expensive envelopes beat cheap and side envelopes beat top loading

The part that was fascinating is that many folks would think "what difference does it make what kind of envelope you use?". Sutherland points out that putting a check for a large amount in a cheap envelope somehow feels "wrong" even if people can't verbalize this.

Another example is how in the 1950s many food engineers were obsessed with the idea of "food nutrient pills" and how they would replace cooking and eating out in restaurants. While it's true that things like Soylent and Huel made inroads with the tech crowd, most people still love going out to restaurants. The point being b/c eating out isn't only about eating: it's also about taking your wife out for your anniversary or meeting your siblings who are visiting from abroad.

I mention this b/c the HN crowd tends to be very logical/rational (including myself) and this book was a real eye opener around how people actually make decisions.

0 - https://amzn.to/3Plf65m

Re: The Brand Age

#213

Post by contingencies »

I agree with the premise, and note well: food has just finished its Brand Age. The combination of dark kitchens and last mile delivery has shown clearly that consumers have little loyalty to brands and simply want convenience at a reasonable cost. From this lens, nearly the entire QSR industry which dominates food particularly in America is about to tank, and indeed many of them already lost 30-80% value in 2025 (Sweetgreen, Krispy Kreme, JITB, Cava, Shake Shack, Portillo's), but the new reality isn't yet priced in. The vast majority of them operate on a brand and franchisee model meaning they're structurally incapable of exiting the paradigm. We're about to use automation exploit that: zero brand investment, 100% CVP. Now seeking capital partners for at-scale GTM. https://infinite-food.com/

Re: The Brand Age

#214

Post by Nursie »

d_burfoot wrote: post #50

Interesting historical anecdote: the Swiss became the world's best watchmakers because, in Protestant Geneva under the leadership of John Calvin, jewelry was banned as ostentation. But you were allowed to wear a watch - it was important to get to church and work on time - so people starting wearing expensive watches instead of jewelry.

Interesting. It's my understanding that in a similar vein, one of the reasons Belgium got so good at making tasty, stronger beers because wine and spirits were banned in the past.

It's not quite 'necessity' being the mother of invention, but perhaps desire.

Re: The Brand Age

#215

Post by socalgal2 »

I actually dislike most "branding", by which I mean, I dislike when the name/logo of the brand is on the product itself. I get that puts me in the minority.

For me, partly because I don't want to be seen as showing off and partly because I feel like if you want me to advertise your brand then you should be paying me, not the me paying you.

And, once noticed, it's on so many products I wish it wasn't. The sink in my bathroom says "Sterling" as does my toilet. The saddles (seats) on my two bicycles have their name on them. So do the front forks on one. One that's most silly to me, the tires have huge branding but the actual useful info, what pressure they need, is nearly impossible to read without perfect lighting and then me taking a photo and zooming in.

My phone holder, basket holder, rear racks, and pannier are all branded. My toaster oven, rice cooker, electric kettle, stove, refrigerator, even the garbage disposal has it's name stamped into the top visible part. All my casual shoes have a visible exposed tag at a minimum. Fortunately dress shoes don't but I rarely have a chance to wear those.

My computer case, my monitor, my hub, my KVM, my laptop holder, my headphones, my mouse, they're all advertising their brand at me.

I'd be fine if it's in some hidden area (inside the fridge, under the rice cooker, under the laptop holder, etc...) but ultimately I'd prefer no branding. But, there just aren't any choices. Most people either want to show off the brand they bought or they don't care. Few are like me that would prefer no visible branding. And so you can't get unbranded things (or I can't)

Re: The Brand Age

#216

Post by majormajor »

elevatortrim wrote: post #173
chadash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple clearly positions themselves as a premium product. There is some luxury element to it to (e.g., my friends will look down on me if I have an android), but it's not really the same as a true luxury product where brand is the main thing you are paying for. If you offered to sell me a macbook for 25% cheapr on condition that I remove the branding, I'd be happy to do so. I'm not a watch person, but I suspect that m…

Actually most watch collectors do not wear their most expensive watches, they have daily or travel watches to wear that carry less risk. Also, watches are status symbols to a really narrow niche. Vast majority of people cannot name a non-Rolex expensive watch and would assume Seiko (and maybe Tissot) are the best watches after Rolex, followed by Swatch (and maybe Timex).

I don't think either of these points change the fact that if you bought a Rolex (or IWC or whatever) that someone slipped you out the side door of the factory, identical in every way except missing the logos, for a substantial discount, it would not be nearly as valuable or prestigious in your collection as a genuine one that other collectors would want. How much would a serious collector splash out on an unofficial - and very unspecial - version of a 100k watch?

I'd do that in a heartbeat for a MacBook, though. Same as with any other consumer good.

Apple is competing in the "premium fit and finish" product space, not the "luxury good" space, so the brand is significantly less of a factor of the value for their devices than it is for Rolex, IWC, etc.

And despite the essay linked here—which seems like a lot of words spilled on a fairly mundane history lesson—I don't think "luxury goods are driven by name value" is anything new. Goes back to the wealthy being patrons of the arts for hundreds, thousands of years... They wanted their name associated with those works, and they wanted those works to be famous. Status all the way down. "When telling the time became ubiquitous, the luxury goods part of the watch market became an increasingly large part of it" is uninteresting.

Re: The Brand Age

#217

Post by otterley »

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…

> If you're rich and so are the people around you, money alone ceases to be a differentiator.

You could differentiate based on your personality. It costs nothing at all, and is far more interesting than a trinket.

Strive to be Warren Buffet, not Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos.

Re: The Brand Age

#218

Post by majormajor »

dworks wrote: post #125
chadash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple clearly positions themselves as a premium product. There is some luxury element to it to (e.g., my friends will look down on me if I have an android), but it's not really the same as a true luxury product where brand is the main thing you are paying for. If you offered to sell me a macbook for 25% cheapr on condition that I remove the branding, I'd be happy to do so. I'm not a watch person, but I suspect that m…

My main point can be put a little more clearly: it is not just that we are willing to pay for the brand experience and the marketing that builds it, but we actively want to pay for it. Macbook Neo customers want Apple to put out creative product marketing videos, they believe it is part of the offer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3SIKAmPXY4

Is there data to prove or disprove this?

I haven't given a shit about Apple marketing since I was a teenager, and I have bought many Apple products since then. If they could turn their marketing spend into a discount on the price instead I'd happily pay less. (Of course, this would reduce their sales, so it wouldn't work that way, but I'm not in it for the videos I've never watched.)

Obviously I'm aware they still have their fanatics, but how much of their sales is that really?

Re: The Brand Age

#219

Post by widowlark »

dworks wrote: post #125
chadash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple clearly positions themselves as a premium product. There is some luxury element to it to (e.g., my friends will look down on me if I have an android), but it's not really the same as a true luxury product where brand is the main thing you are paying for. If you offered to sell me a macbook for 25% cheapr on condition that I remove the branding, I'd be happy to do so. I'm not a watch person, but I suspect that m…

My main point can be put a little more clearly: it is not just that we are willing to pay for the brand experience and the marketing that builds it, but we actively want to pay for it. Macbook Neo customers want Apple to put out creative product marketing videos, they believe it is part of the offer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3SIKAmPXY4

I have to disagree - I have seen the video, and I also have ordered the product, but the marketing isn't what sold me, and I don't see any evidence that the marketing is what is responsible for people's desire of the product. It's affordable in a world where all prices are increasing everywhere. That's my theory on why people want this product.

Re: The Brand Age

#220

Post by widowlark »

elevatortrim wrote: post #173
chadash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple clearly positions themselves as a premium product. There is some luxury element to it to (e.g., my friends will look down on me if I have an android), but it's not really the same as a true luxury product where brand is the main thing you are paying for. If you offered to sell me a macbook for 25% cheapr on condition that I remove the branding, I'd be happy to do so. I'm not a watch person, but I suspect that m…

Actually most watch collectors do not wear their most expensive watches, they have daily or travel watches to wear that carry less risk. Also, watches are status symbols to a really narrow niche. Vast majority of people cannot name a non-Rolex expensive watch and would assume Seiko (and maybe Tissot) are the best watches after Rolex, followed by Swatch (and maybe Timex).

Casio is the best watch brand in the world. This is measurable - most features, battery life, versatility, utility, and durability for the lowest possible price. It's an objective truth. Given this, other watch brands have had to differentiate, and since they cannot compete on pure functionality alone, they offer luxury or, as pg points out, brand identity as a differentiatior.
Post reply on HN