The Reality of Replica Products. And other interesting things. Alert, long post :)

[fannsx]

I hear you, but marketing is what I am referring to. Not R&D. A brand doesn't add any value to a final product, but it is, however, a cost that "irrationally" influences peoples' behavior. I'm NOT arguing that brands are worthless (far from it) in the current IP protected system, which isn't going away. Just that IP rights can create value for assets that shouldn't otherwise exist. Like the Rolex brand. BTW, I have one, and the real value of the thing is about 50 bucks -- the other 3950 is brand related. A Timex Ironman is a better product.

I still think branding has its value. It is a symbol of quality, reliability, collectable value, resell value, or any other reason why such a product is worth what it charges. If it wasn't worth it, then you would not have bought it. It is that simple. You have a Rolex, that means you thought it was worth buying. I don't have one, because I don't treasure it like you do.
BTW, sorry I called you a telemarketer, but that was on your public file.

Toyota, Honda means reliability and value. That was passed on to Acura and Lexus. And they charge a premium for that name. People still buy them. The peace of mind that your car will not break down 2miles( happened to me when I bought my Chrysler a few years ago) from the dealership is worth the premium.

 

[fannsx]

Re: The Reality of Replica Products. And other interesting things. Alert, long post

Stick-e-rice
Thanks for your discussion on Buddiism. My mom was a buddist. So I am some what familiar with its origin. I have a Chinese background, so much of my teachings were based on it too.
Some make sense, some don't. But overall, I think it is a good way to see life and the world. Can I follow it to the last word, I don't think so , at least not at this stage of my life.

 

[rickysals]

I hear you, but marketing is what I am referring to. Not R&D. A brand doesn't add any value to a final product, but it is, however, a cost that "irrationally" influences peoples' behavior. I'm NOT arguing that brands are worthless (far from it) in the current IP protected system, which isn't going away. Just that IP rights can create value for assets that shouldn't otherwise exist. Like the Rolex brand. BTW, I have one, and the real value of the thing is about 50 bucks -- the other 3950 is brand related. A Timex Ironman is a better product.

Originally I only read your first sentence, and moved on... but your third sentence made me interested enough to repost.

A brand adds enormous value to a product. A brand often IS the product. Branding, true branding... not this bullshit overpaid underinformed executives call branding... is so important to a product. In a world where most products and services have more competitors than ever, where each product can do 90% of the next... something has to discern between them. Branding is one aspect that will help make your product stick in someone's head over the competitors.

In my opinion developing a brand is more important than the building your company is in... and is why I can justify companies like Xerox spending $8 Million on such things.

Luxury brands can be more debatable, because they often can have enormous prices for seemingly similar products (Rolex, Ferrari, Gucci) but usually a combination of high-end materials, high-end engineering and high-end design (both industrial and graphic) can "justify" the prices.

Branding is one of the reasons why I'll have a job someday. :biggrin:

--

as far as the IP systems you're refering to, I really don't know what you mean by them so I dont know about that