What about the "designer" label compels consumers to spend ridiculous amounts of money on clothes and accessories? Or, did it happen the other way around; did the "designer" status originate from the price tag? A "designer" brand isn't really the correct term; society implies a limited selection of praised designers, when in reality, every piece of clothing was designed by a designer. The difference here is whether the name can be recognized, and more so, that the name is associated with certain qualities.
Louis Vuitton, Vera Wang, Jimmy Choo. These are a few of the designers who warrant the "designer" status in the public's eye. While in many cases, these designer's do offer a higher quality product, there are plenty of "no name" designers with just as nice of products at half the price. It seems, however, even if the physical quality is the same, many consumers would still pay $400 for the Louis Vuitton handbag instead of $120 for the nameless leather bag at a local boutique. Part of the product is the name plastered all over the product. So when the consumer purchases a Louis Vuitton bag, they are not only giving their money, they are also serving as free advertising (less than free actually; they paid for it). Brilliant! At least from the perspective of the ritzy designers. Advertising, money, and a hold on the market simply by using their name. The "no names" don't have the name to boost their product's value, which makes it difficult to get recognition.
Some already known names try to use the same tactics, but the name is everything. For example, Paris Hilton's show line will never amount to the status of Jimmy Choo and his shoes. Paris Hilton has a name to boast, but due to her rather racy scandals, her name isn't associated with quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment