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

371–380 of 403 posts

Re: The Brand Age

#371

Post by widowlark »

danielparsons wrote: post #257
widowlark wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

innovation has stagnated because businesses have driven us to stagnation. Very few businesses provide any real value - the ones that do are running circles around everyone else - given the lack of ability, businesses turns to other, less useful methods of prying our money away from us and largely succeed because consumers are gullible and malleable.

ah the classic "most people are mere sheep, unlike us Great Minds"

apologies if my comment came off this way, it was not intended. I think all consumers (myself included!) are vulnerable to being swayed by commercial propaganda

Re: The Brand Age

#372

Post by zahlman »

benrutter wrote: post #274

I liked reading this essay, but, I get the same vibe as a lot of PG essays. Which is, great writing and really intelligent thinking on an interesting subject, but without really being aware of ther stuff people have previously said/thought on the topic. For instance: > Brand is what's left when the substantive differences between products disappear. I think, for better and worse, brands are a lot more than that. Bran…

> Which is, great writing and really intelligent thinking on an interesting subject, but without really being aware of ther stuff people have previously said/thought on the topic.

This seems likely accurate; but you know, I enjoy reading intelligent people work things out from first principles in their own voice.

Re: The Brand Age

#373

Post by elevatortrim »

majormajor wrote: post #216
elevatortrim wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’d do that in a heartbeat for IWC!

There are of course people who buy Rolexes or whatever for the brand. There are probably more people who buy Mac Books for the logo.

But most people are rational. Most people would pay that much money for a watch only if it does not impact their finances in a meaningful way, but within that, they would want to buy the highest quality they can. And for some people that means an IWC, Omega, Longines, or whatever. If they could buy the same quality from a less known brand, they would. Lots of people buy Grand Seikos at Rolex prices. I buy normal Seikos at $300. We all pay for the quality we can afford.

Brand is important because it is an insurance that you are not being scammed. Besides that, it is not the main factor let alone “era defining” as the article is trying to make it out.

Re: The Brand Age

#374

Post by wan23 »

rudderdev wrote: post #261

I never understood the demand for luxury watch businesses. From what I have heard, it is widely used as a tool to transfer value (read $$ laundering). I do not know how prominent it is but if so then we might want to look at it from the utility perspective (to achieve that goal) than the "brand" story.

With the exception of a few brands that have the artificial scarcity that PG wrote about here, pre-owned watches have the same kind of value decline that pre-owned cars do. If you are ever in the market for a nice watch that is actually available at retail, you should probably buy it used instead.

Re: The Brand Age

#375

Post by unholiness »

w10-1 wrote: post #366

Respectfully disagree - using PG's own wisdom. 1. You don't find a golden age by looking for interesting problems. You find it by solving customer problems, even if they're boring. 2. Luxury watches, or anything luxury or fashion, are almost by definition using brand for status signaling. That's a business where you don't control your destiny but jump in front of the crowd. The most important thing about brand is tha…

He's definitely conflating two things: watches changed from utilities to fashion items, and watchmakers changed from engineering to branding. In this example, the one change caused the other, but it's just one example. It's no excuse to paint all of branding with the same brush and ignore how, say, Milwaukee's branding provides a valuable signal of real utility.

I think it's tempting to be equally dismissive of branding and fashion because they are both forms of virtue signaling and therefore have all its perversions. However, they're operating on different actors. Branding is virtue signaling by companies to its customers. Fashion is virtue signaling by customers to other people.

Re: The Brand Age

#377

Post by sadhplatte »

benrutter wrote: post #274

I liked reading this essay, but, I get the same vibe as a lot of PG essays. Which is, great writing and really intelligent thinking on an interesting subject, but without really being aware of ther stuff people have previously said/thought on the topic. For instance: > Brand is what's left when the substantive differences between products disappear. I think, for better and worse, brands are a lot more than that. Bran…

PG’s idea here is that when substantive differences disappear between products, brand is what’s left, not that brand is defined by the absence of these differences.

Re: The Brand Age

#378

Post by m463 »

alexpotato wrote: post #330
benrutter wrote: post #274

I liked reading this essay, but, I get the same vibe as a lot of PG essays. Which is, great writing and really intelligent thinking on an interesting subject, but without really being aware of ther stuff people have previously said/thought on the topic. For instance: > Brand is what's left when the substantive differences between products disappear. I think, for better and worse, brands are a lot more than that. Bran…

> I think, for better and worse, brands are a lot more than that. There is a great quote about this: "For things that are visible to other people when you use them, there are many brands. e.g clothes, cars, watches, skis, furniture etc For things that are not visible, there are much fewer brands e.g. underwear.

does it apply to restaurants?

I thought lots of restaurants behind-the-scenes either got food from external suppliers either in part or all the way to ghost kitchens.

Re: The Brand Age

#379

Post by matheusmoreira »

unholiness wrote: post #375
w10-1 wrote: post #366

Respectfully disagree - using PG's own wisdom. 1. You don't find a golden age by looking for interesting problems. You find it by solving customer problems, even if they're boring. 2. Luxury watches, or anything luxury or fashion, are almost by definition using brand for status signaling. That's a business where you don't control your destiny but jump in front of the crowd. The most important thing about brand is tha…

He's definitely conflating two things: watches changed from utilities to fashion items, and watchmakers changed from engineering to branding. In this example, the one change caused the other, but it's just one example. It's no excuse to paint all of branding with the same brush and ignore how, say, Milwaukee's branding provides a valuable signal of real utility. I think it's tempting to be equally dismissive of brand…

Aren't luxury swiss watches extremely well engineered though? They seem to be really well made. It gets to the point they turn into family heirlooms.

In an age of planned obsolescence, cost reduction and cheap materials, something that's known for being well made has a lot of value.

Re: The Brand Age

#380

Post by boisterousness »

alexpotato wrote: post #330
benrutter wrote: post #274

I liked reading this essay, but, I get the same vibe as a lot of PG essays. Which is, great writing and really intelligent thinking on an interesting subject, but without really being aware of ther stuff people have previously said/thought on the topic. For instance: > Brand is what's left when the substantive differences between products disappear. I think, for better and worse, brands are a lot more than that. Bran…

> I think, for better and worse, brands are a lot more than that. There is a great quote about this: "For things that are visible to other people when you use them, there are many brands. e.g clothes, cars, watches, skis, furniture etc For things that are not visible, there are much fewer brands e.g. underwear.

> For things that are not visible, there are much fewer brands e.g. underwear.

Personal care products - shampoos, soaps, lotions

Nutritional supplements

are counterexamples

Post reply on HN