←back to thread

252 points nivethan | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bigyabai ◴[] No.44393404[source]
> We were fascinated with the Apple store in the mall because it was essentially an interactive luxury goods store where they'd let you actually grasp all the luxury goods with your teenager hands.

The secret being, of course, that they're not actually luxury goods. Like many things at the mall, it's a high-margin doodad sold to people in the proverbial impulse aisle of life. Dippin' Dots, knock-off watches, Build-A-Bear workshop - all in same vein of "looks expensive but is cheap to make" no different from the iPod.

I think the American shopping mall is one of the things that helped me contextualize Apple's brand identity. Apple does good marking in isolation or on a screen, SF Pro looks very stunning and the Apple logo is chic and simple. But so is the Cartier logo. And the Rolex storefront. Or any of the other genuinely valuable things sold at malls. It's the marketing that people respond to, not the value of a good.

replies(6): >>44419066 #>>44419098 #>>44419210 #>>44419219 #>>44419440 #>>44423092 #
1. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.44419219[source]
> SF Pro looks very stunning and the Apple logo is chic and simple. But so is the Cartier logo. And the Rolex storefront. Or any of the other genuinely valuable things sold at malls.

If you're against the idea of selling things that are cheap to make at high prices by relying on branding, you might not want to call Cartier or Rolex products "genuinely valuable". Jewelry is not fundamentally expensive.

replies(1): >>44425215 #
2. agos ◴[] No.44425215[source]
It had been a while since I worked in a business adjacent to jewelry, but at the time the notion was that for a brand like Cartier or Tiffany, the precious metal/stones account for 10% of the selling price.
replies(1): >>44426834 #
3. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.44426834[source]
What was the business adjacent to jewelry?