|
|
|
|
|
|
by mmaunder
919 days ago
|
|
|
I think you think that price is directly proportional to quality. It's not. Luxury goods are made luxury through a process of branding, pricing, and scarcity. Rolex is an excellent case study. They've been sponsoring athletes since the early 20th century when they sponsored Mercedes Gleitze to wear an Oyster around her neck when she swam the channel. You'll continue to notice the brand at F1, premier golfing events, and so on. And when it comes to purchasing, you literally can't walk into a Rolex dealer and buy a Submariner, for example, because they are made artificially scarce. If you were able to buy a sub, you'd buy it at around $13K and then immediately be able to sell it for around $18K or more. Rolex own the luxury category when it comes to conferring value on the brand and its products. So if you can't even buy a Submariner, what the hell is the strategy? They have a much larger range of second and third-tier watches that they'll sell you then and there and once you have a "relationship" with them, they might hook you up with something worth far more on the used market the moment you buy it. It's just a big fat hustle that relies on some specific psychological triggers. It relies on what Cialdini would call "social proof", meaning that others think it's cool so you think it's cool. It also relies on scarcity conferring value on something that would otherwise be valueless. It relies on our innate desire to hero-worship, as a species, which is where sponsorship comes in. So back to the comment I'm replying to: No, thinking that a luxury brand is simply quality at a high price is far too simplistic a world-view. You can buy great quality at a very reasonable price, and if you don't have time you can employ a professional shopper. But it's not about that. It's about laziness and signaling. |
|
|
None of this is about the product itself.