Why are people obssessed by halo marketing and branding...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

...when it comes to many items??

Things like cameras,phones,computer and computer components brands,cars,hi-fi,etc??

Sure,if a specific model is good get it,but are people that naive that just because a company makes an expensive high end model which is decent,the whole range is great??

There are plenty of situations I have seen where people will buy a low end model of one company, even though it has poorer build quality and specs, when compared to a model of a company which does not make as expensive gear,but has probably much better lower budget models.

Then they tend to get more people to get that same brand,and pushing them away from other potentially better suited options too!

The worst thing is that are all probably made in similar factories anyway(or in a number of cases,the same ones).

Is it due to champagne tastes but beer money syndrome??

Or is due to some herd mentality??

Sense of superiority?? I see the latter especially with cameras and cars.

It seems all rather weird at times.

[kalniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand

[santa claus]

It seems all rather weird at times.

People are weird.

[TheAnimus]

In a nutshell. Kalniel simple said it. Brand is about making people emotional.

If you were objective about things, virtually no one would buy half the things they purchase. Some of the more loyal ones are Condoms and Tampons and such. I like to think I am smarter than that, but ultimately I have found myself in the situation of yeah I don't care if its the number 1 in the US, I know I can trust durex. We form a habbit or even a relationship with brand.

Cars are an interesting one, a friend of mine questioned why I have a DS3 because its Citroen and apparently I earn more money than that. People apparently form pre-conceptions about brand and how it defines the user.

Cameras are a great example, Canon have churned out yet another round of really crap for still photo bodies lately. No matter how you measure them objectively, the sensor is poor, the price tag is high. Yet people fawn all over them, because of the power of the brand and the halo effect of seeing all these pro people with £10k kit that has the same name. You associate that you are living that life.

It also comes to form one of the strange effects in economics, segregated pricing. You have many customers, all of which have different abilities to pay. You don't simply want to sell it at £100 per unit, when you've got customers who can afford £500. You also have some that can only afford £80.

The Airlines are masters at this. If you can afford £2k for your ticket to Hong Kong you can get some truly great service, but odds are you are only going to be able to afford £600. So you are stuck in the crap end. Yet all the marketing, all the symbology of the brand has made you feel better. Heck, maybe you are even allowed to be Bronze tier with your BA membership, letting you have the tiniest of tastes of what it is like for those better off people. Meanwhile, this also drives those who might otherwise look elsewhere (say fly Cathay, which imsho is more comfy in economy) to stretch their budget. They want the brand, but they don't like the lower offering, so bizzarely people pay more for the more premium offering from the same brand... Even though they wouldn't have bought it otherwise. They negatively associate another brand at a lower price point. The Canon 700D is crap, I'd better stretch for the 70D, the cheaper Nikon / Pentax offerings must be crap, because they cost less.

People are really weird, but they all behave like this on mass, hence why the system has emerged to exploit it.

If you think Cameras and Cars are bad. Have a look at the relative higher margin items! (Razors, Condoms, Tampons, Pharams etc)

[Saracen]

.... but are people that naive ....??

IMHO, and it's just an opinion, but .... yup.

That's certainly part of it. Champagne taste and beer budget is part, too. After all, most people will never, EVER have the champagne budget for real luxury items, like cars, watches, etc. Wealthy people pay more for a watch, on a whim, than most people can afford for a car, ona multi-year payment plan.

People like nice things. Some people like to be seen to have what looks like a luxury item, but can't afford it .... though sometimes, only at a cursory glance, by someone that has no idea what the "proper" thing looks like. For instance, there are cheap Rolex (or other high end brands) fakes, that won't stand up to more than a cursory inspection, but there are expensive ( for a fake) copies that are pretty darn convincing.

So, if people will buy fakes because they want to pose, they'll certainly buy low-end product from a company that makes high end product, either because they're trying to impress someone else, or because they want to 'feel good' themseves.

So, taking an exampke from ancient history, the only reason I can think of by people would buy a Porsche 924 is that they wanted to drive (and be seen to, and be able to claim to) drive a Porsche, but couldn't afford a "proper" one.

Of course, many high-end companies won't produce low-end variants precisely because it devalues the brand. Personally, if I gave a hoot what other people think, no way would I buy a Rolex, precisely because most people would assume "fake". In reality, I wouldn't buy a Rolex because I've yet too see one I like. Or rather, that I like for me. They aren't my taste. I'd rather wear an "elegant" £100 Skagen, than a £3000, but "clunky" Rolex.

So yeah, for some people, it's naivety in that if it comes from a brand that does high end, it must be "good", even if it's budget-priced. For others, it's about ego, or self-image, or pose value.

[santa claus]

So yeah, for some people, it's nativity in that if it comes from a brand that does high end, it must be "good", even if it's budget-priced. For others, it's about ego, or self-image, or pose value.

Did Jesus wear a Rolex mummy ? (sorry, I'm in that sort of mood)

[Saracen]

....

Cameras are a great example, Canon have churned out yet another round of really crap for still photo bodies lately. No matter how you measure them objectively, the sensor is poor, the price tag is high. Yet people fawn all over them, because of the power of the brand and the halo effect of seeing all these pro people with £10k kit that has the same name. You associate that you are living that life.

It also comes to form one of the strange effects in economics, segregated pricing. ....

The Airlines are masters at this. If you can afford £2k for your ticket to Hong Kong you can get some truly great service, but odds are you are only going to be able to afford £600. So you are stuck in the crap end. Yet all the marketing, all the symbology of the brand has made you feel better. Heck, maybe you are even allowed to be Bronze tier with your BA membership, letting you have the tiniest of tastes of what it is like for those better off people. Meanwhile, this also drives those who might otherwise look elsewhere (say fly Cathay, which imsho is more comfy in economy) to stretch their budget. They want the brand, but they don't like the lower offering, so bizzarely people pay more for the more premium offering from the same brand... Even though they wouldn't have bought it otherwise. They negatively associate another brand at a lower price point. The Canon 700D is crap, I'd better stretch for the 70D, the cheaper Nikon / Pentax offerings must be crap, because they cost less.

....

I'd dispute that, at least in relation to cameras. For a latge part of the buyers, the issue is a bit different.

My next camera, subject to what I find when I play with it, will be a 70D.

Why? Because for all practical purposes, I'm locked in, and changing brands would be VERY expensive. To start with, it'd mean changing macro lenses and flash. The macro flash is about £750, and last time I looked, Pentax didn't even do a version of one of the lenses. So, no matter how good the latest Pentax, Nikon or whatever body is, I'm going Canon, because I'm not prepared to sell up and replace the entire system.

Besides, the relative differences in performancd of this or that SLR body aren't important enough to me to care. The 70D, or even the 60D, have features that justify me upgrading, probably, but even the higher Canon bodies don't, FOR ME, warrant the price. The 70D level is good enough for my needs. It isn't that I want a 5DMk3 but can't afford it. It's that I don't want one, period.

It woukd therefore be a mistake to assume that everyone that buys a budget model of a brand of anything wants a top model but can't afford it, or buys because of the reputation of top-end models. I bought into Canon, oh, 20+ years ago, because THEN, the mid-range body and lenses did what I needed, and having tried Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, etc, I preferred the Canon. I didn't even look at the high-priced pro end of the range, on any of them. Oh, and that was before DSLR's existed.

[Saracen]

Did Jesus wear a Rolex mummy ? (sorry, I'm in that sort of mood)

Argh. Flaming auto-spelling.

That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it like ..... erm .... glue to a blanket.

Original post corrected.

And no, I have it on good authority that he wore a Swatch.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

On the camera issue,what if you don't have a legacy set of lenses?? You get people looking down on anything but Canon or Nikon. You have people wanting to buy a general pupose dSLR camera and then you get a brigade of people saying anything other than Canikon has no lenses,and will probably be not around in five years. Then there is the whole obsession about the 35MM frame sensors even though it is not relevant to most people in the first place.

[kalniel]

Brand is about a lot of things, as pointed out. I think trust is probably an important one - whether that's trust in quality, reliability, fashion or whatever. When you find an author that you like (or is recommended by a friend etc.) then you're more likely to buy a different book of theirs, because you have some faith that you'll also enjoy this other book. Same if you have a trust butcher, or handyman etc. Brand could be an extension of the same kind of values - you're not just trusting the butcher, but the butcher's son/daughter as well, or perhaps the chain that the butcher has put his/her name to etc. because you have some belief that the things you liked about the butcher in the first place will apply to the things he/she endorses.

Halo products, be that a graphics card, or prize cut of beef, demonstrate something about that brand that is to be admired, and knowing that they have that skill, you are more likely to want something else produced by someone who knows what they are doing.

[TheAnimus]

I'd dispute that, at least in relation to cameras. For a latge part of the buyers, the issue is a bit different.

Ah but you are not the kind of person we are talking about. I can't find any good reliable statistics on it, but I've heard before that the majority of DSLRs are only ever used with the lenses which they are purchased with (kit).

My point is that brands use segmented pricing to maximise their profit. They can also rely on human nature, in marketing they say you either sell lust or fear. They use the lust of your life being closer to theirs. No different to every advert of some impossibly beautiful person who is using the device. Subconsciously we associate the two.

I was trying to draw an example, right now, I think it is fair to say, anyone who just buys a 'kit' of a DSLR, who buys Canon below the 5D, didn't do their homework.

[wasabi]

20 percent, the big names are unlikely to produce something really awful as they have more to lose than no-namers. If you don't have time to research, go with the brand name.

10 percent. Resale value. A VW holds value in a way a Dacia never will.

70 percent. Money can buy social prestige. We're a social animal and perceived wealth / status is important. Even if it makes bad sense economically.

[wasabi]

Ah but you are not the kind of person we are talking about. I can't find any good reliable statistics on it, but I've heard before that the majority of DSLRs are only ever used with the lenses which they are purchased with (kit).

Friends of the wife came over from Germany to say with us during the Olympics. They bought a flashy Canon DSLR specifically to take pictures of the action.... didn't work out too well Mostly they just copied files off my wife's £125 point and shoot to take home.

[Saracen]

On the camera issue,what if you don't have a legacy set of lenses?? You get people looking down on anything but Canon or Nikon. You have people wanting to buy a general pupose dSLR camera and then you get a brigade of people saying anything other than Canikon has no lenses,and will probably be not around in five years. Then there is the whole obsession about the 35MM frame sensors even though it is not relevant to most people in the first place.

Up to a point, I'd agree. Up to a point.

Partly, though, that represents better marketing by Canon and Nikon .... which one could also argue represents the case with Rolex, which might not be a first class watch brand but sure as hell is a world-leading marketing job.

I could also make the same point about Canon's L lenses being white .... or rather, most of them being white, or red ring, or both. Why? Well for a start, it stands out. But it doesn't make the lens work any better, and I have to assume that anyone (or most) that buys an L lens doesn't need white paint to remind them.

And .... IMHO, Pentax bollixed the marketing right royally in the early days of DSLR's. They overcharged, for far too long, and could have and probably should have taken a fair chunk of the market. But they held prices too high, too long, and missed the boat. A friend of mine was a Pentax user, had been for years, and waited patiently for them to wise up and compete, and eventually gave up, sold up, went Canon and for similar reasons to me (but not macro) still is.

[Saracen]

Ah but you are not the kind of person we are talking about. I can't find any good reliable statistics on it, but I've heard before that the majority of DSLRs are only ever used with the lenses which they are purchased with (kit).

My point is that brands use segmented pricing to maximise their profit. They can also rely on human nature, in marketing they say you either sell lust or fear. They use the lust of your life being closer to theirs. No different to every advert of some impossibly beautiful person who is using the device. Subconsciously we associate the two.

I was trying to draw an example, right now, I think it is fair to say, anyone who just buys a 'kit' of a DSLR, who buys Canon below the 5D, didn't do their homework.

Well, kits have their uses .... especially if the 'kit' lens is a 24-105L. Though, clearly, that's higher up the kit range. They also might be a good starting point for people that intend to upgrade, as funds permit. It gives you a base to start from. Though, personally, I'd suggest a body only, and one of several lenses depending on quite what the need was, maybe just the 50mm 1.8.

I would agree, as you sort-of suggested, that anyone that buys a kit DSLR and never does add to the kit probably shouldn't have bought a DSLR in the first place. Compact maybe, bridge maybe, but not DSLR.

I also wonder how it's possible to get reliable stats on who only ever uses the kit lens .... and why.

[DanceswithUnix]

At least that is just cameras and cars, some people vote by party brand. Secret ballot means no prestige or stigma for how you voted, but I think people just don't like the effort of informed decision.