6 Sep
2001
6 Sep
'01
8:06 p.m.
On 06-Sep-2001 Stan Sieler wrote:
Re:
The "logic" of branding works the other way around. All pants are the
same (or nearly) but folks will fork out the big bucks to get ones with
little Tommy flag on them. Same with shoes. Same with cigarettes. When
you can't compete on features or penis size^W^Wgigahertz then it's
either price, quality and branding. Lower prices cut profits, quality is a
feature (that many folks like to omit) so that leaves you branding.
Note that I distinctly dislike branding and the sillness it creates
(paging the new "bettle").
-Philip
As for brand names, I think they will come more
and more to mean
_everything_. After all it has happened with cars it will happen
Did you mean: _nothing_, not _everything_?
Your arguments argued in favor of *nothing*, after all!
No doubt the auto industry had a very similar
time of it and
today cars are largely identical except for things like body
styling and number of cup holders. So what used to be special
and unique, is now common and mundane.
I.e., the brand name doesn't mean anything ("common, mundane"
and not longer "unique").
In that case, I agree...brand names in computers have come to mean
nothing, well ... perhaps less than that: there are a few that have
become negative. I.e., I won't buy an HP PC ... they're too
idiosynractic. I'd much rather buy a generic PC, where I can
get the information about the motherboard, chipset, etc., and don't
have to fight software that's got oddball spyware pre-installed for me,
or that requires a software key from HP to reinstall.