Why Do brands become "in" or "out"?

[Ginevra]

I'm just musing about this. I have never been much of a trend follower and cannot be induced to buy something (especially something more expensive than other choices of the same item) on the basis of brand alone, unless it is because I know something about this brand is superior to others I have used. (For example, I have bought expensive brand-name sunglasses for many years because I like the optical quality and my vision field looks different through cheap sunglasses.) It would even be true to say it annoys me when a brand becomes ubiquitous and it makes me less likely to buy that brand (unless I have a very good reason to), because I just don't want to be a robot blindly obeying whatever "they" say is the IN brand.

 

Which leads me to my question. Who is the "they" who decides this anyway? Why does a brand gain momentum (sometimes illogically) such that "everybody" accepts the idea that this is the cool brand to have? Conversly, why does it turn? Why and how does a brand gain negative momentum such that people start seeing it as undesirable or "out?"

 

I guess a follow-up question is to ask if you personally often follow trending brands or not, or are actively anti-brand to some extent?

[Guest]

The Man. Obviously. :laugh:  

 

:::casts shade at The Man::: :glare:

 

I guess a follow-up question is to ask if you personally often follow trending brands or not, or are actively anti-brand to some extent?

 

 

No to both. I go with what works for me, as far as I can afford to do so. That sometimes DOES mean on-trend stuff because it becomes ubiquitous (thinking like our new wild-side blender here), but not always. And less so with online shopping of course.

[KungFuPanda]

Because there is money to be made in the fashion industry and people get bored without variety?

[Miss Peregrine]

I think a brand shops itself to celebrities and pays to be worn.

[HomeAgain]

It depends.  The simple answer is devaluation.

 

Example - Hollister.  While trendy 10 years ago, it's not as clearly defining the market for teens nowadays.  They just don't value brand name as much as generations between 1980 and 2000.  They are looking for clothes that meet the definition of who they are, not the other way around.  Thrift shops aren't as scary (thanks to Macklemore) and bargains are good.  They're into electronics as something that is more worthy than a full closet of clothes.

Following that thought, though, a brand can devalue itself.  It can choose to not be as defined (like scatterbrained Gap), or create an off-brand - the Loft, Mizrahi for Target, Crazy 8..why pay more for the same company's thing?  Or why bother shopping there if you never know what you'll get.  Or the brand tries to offer the right price, but value goes down (like Land's End) due to changes in manufacturing.

Sometimes, it's just an over-saturated market.  People get tired of seeing the same thing and look for something new to fill the void, ignoring what is plentiful.

 

 

[Guest]

I think a brand shops itself to celebrities and pays to be worn.

True, but I don't think this is always the case.

[TechWife]

Marketing. That is all. 

[kewb]

Marketing. That is all.

Exactly.

[Guest]

It depends. The simple answer is devaluation.

 

Example - Hollister. While trendy 10 years ago, it's not as clearly defining the market for teens nowadays. They just don't value brand name as much as generations between 1980 and 2000. They are looking for clothes that meet the definition of who they are, not the other way around. Thrift shops aren't as scary (thanks to Macklemore) and bargains are good. They're into electronics as something that is more worthy than a full closet of clothes.

 

Following that thought, though, a brand can devalue itself. It can choose to not be as defined (like scatterbrained Gap), or create an off-brand - the Loft, Mizrahi for Target, Crazy 8..why pay more for the same company's thing? Or why bother shopping there if you never know what you'll get. Or the brand tries to offer the right price, but value goes down (like Land's End) due to changes in manufacturing.

 

Sometimes, it's just an over-saturated market. People get tired of seeing the same thing and look for something new to fill the void, ignoring what is plentiful.

What is Macklemore?

 

I feel like I still see a lot of kids (and their parents!) who are hyper-loyal to branding and want the "cool" brand, even if it is many times more expensive than an equally suitable item of a different brand. It seems to me that there are "pockets" of affluence and brand hyper-consciousness in my state. Homeschoolers seem largely unaffected by branding and some brands that are ubiquitous at a nearby high school are barely represented at all by the homeschool teens at co-op.

[Bluegoat]

I think one way is simply the way the brand is presented or advertised captured something that is appealing to people at this moment.  It might be something about the product itself, like the way people found those new apple computers so exciting when they came out - they were so much happier than the typical PCs.  Often it seems to have nothing to do with the product and everything to do with the associations.  Somehow they allow people to fulfill a vision of themselves - they see themselves as the kind of person who would have something like that. 

 

Sometimes also there are many products that could be popular, but they don't come to people's attention.  Someone just has to take it up - a celebrity or trend-setter - and then it becomes a thing.  nd some areas, like fashion or home decor, manage this sort of thing deliberatly in order to keep sales up.  Everyone has to dumb flares for skinny jeans or white appliances for stainless steel.

 

I tend by nature to want to avoid trends, but I try very hard not to be reactionary about it.  I feel that its good to have competition in the marketplace so I try and promote that when possible, and I try to use whatever is available made or at least sold in small locally owned shops.  And there are brands I buy for silly reasons, like the borax with the picture f the kid on it, because I like to look at the box in my laundry room.

 

But a lot of the time, alternate products are just about branding and defining oneself by consuming just as much as the more mainstream products are.  (I've noticed this to no end with infant stuff especially - the granola hippy-moms are often just as product focused as any others, they declare their allegiance with wood toys and amber teething necklaces.)  Consumerism loves it when they can make money off of people who are trying to opt out of the marketplace, so you can get all your counter-cultural paraphernalia in the shop right next to the one that the majority uses.

 

So - I don't know - maybe just not paying attention is the best way to avoid being influenced by it all.

[Guest]

Marketing. That is all.

Why is it sometimes so successful, though? So, why does "everybody" agree that a NorthFace jacket is worth more money and is more in style, though it might cost quite a lot more money and not look appreciably unique?

[Word Nerd]

Commercials don't work on me like they seem to on others. I may remember a commercial, but that doesn't mean I'll remember the company that made it unless the name is in the jingle or otherwise prominently mentioned. I'm fine with generic for most things, but when I am loyal to a particular brand it's because it tastes better or works better for me. I couldn't care less what's in or out. I've never been trendy. I'm not anti-brand as much as I just don't think the brand matters in many cases.

[HomeAgain]

LOL  Quill, this is Macklemore -

It says clean, there's still mild oaths.

I think something important is that students in high school and below are more susceptible to marketing and the need to fit in.  They start defining themselves about the time they get their own jobs, and decide the expense isn't worth it.  My kid waited during the whole Beats craze.  He wasn't impressed by the value for the price, and now a lot of his friends have ditched them, too. 

I don't think homeschoolers are exactly immune to this, they just value different things.  There's a bit of bandwagonning with new curriculum, no? ;) Or the kids want the toy that distracts a co-op class, or Lyra and Prismacolor are the go-to for art supplies...


ETA: I don't think many homeschoolers are as touched by many commercials, too.  We do netflix nearly exclusively.  My little one didn't understand what a commercial was when he finally saw one.  He thought it was a new show.  We take more time to make learning opportunities, too - no, you can't have that cereal that is all marshmallows.  Let's do an experiment on the effects of simple and complex carbs on the body instead so you see why!

[Chess Dad]

This is an interesting question.

 

I remember when I was in Middle School, many years ago, and the teacher asked a similar question to the class. "Does the consumer control the market or does the market control the consumer?"  I laughed and said, "of course, the consumer controls the market", but now that I'm in my 50's I'm not so sure.  I now believe businesses spend millions on swaying our views and they are very effective at doing so.  The internet tracks your searches and tailors your ads to get you to purchase the items you are interested in.  We all could think of many examples of this.  Growing up I remember several items that were pushed and sold big, like Parachute Pants, Pet Rock, etc....and I look back at those items and laugh.  Crazy how people get manipulated into thinking something is cool thru marketing.  

 

:patriot:

 

 

[justasque]

What is Macklemore?

 

...

 

 

Note - language alert.

 

(ETA - I see a PP beat me to it!)

[Guest]

What is Macklemore?

 

I feel like I still see a lot of kids (and their parents!) who are hyper-loyal to branding and want the "cool" brand, even if it is many times more expensive than an equally suitable item of a different brand. It seems to me that there are "pockets" of affluence and brand hyper-consciousness in my state. Homeschoolers seem largely unaffected by branding and some brands that are ubiquitous at a nearby high school are barely represented at all by the homeschool teens at co-op.

 

I dunno. The people that got on the waldorf marketing train early on seem to have a pretty good racket going for themselves.

[Guest]

Why is it sometimes so successful, though? So, why does "everybody" agree that a NorthFace jacket is worth more money and is more in style, though it might cost quite a lot more money and not look appreciably unique?

 

Uniqueness isn't necessarily valued by all people at all times.

[kewb]

Why is it sometimes so successful, though? So, why does "everybody" agree that a NorthFace jacket is worth more money and is more in style, though it might cost quite a lot more money and not look appreciably unique?

 

The asnwer is still marketing.  Some brands are just better at it. 

[MercyA]

I confess to an irrational dislike of whatever is currently popular. I love my Vera Bradley purses because they are well-made, vegan, perfectly sized, full of pockets, and readily available on eBay. It bugs me that they are so popular. I'm not sure why. Maybe I don't want people to think I bought them *because* they're popular? Maybe I don't want people to think I paid full price for them? Maybe I'm just a reverse-snob?

 

Anyway, if someone knows where I can buy something very similar to the cargo sling for $35 or less, let me know.  :blush:   

[justasque]

What is Macklemore?

 

I feel like I still see a lot of kids (and their parents!) who are hyper-loyal to branding and want the "cool" brand, even if it is many times more expensive than an equally suitable item of a different brand. It seems to me that there are "pockets" of affluence and brand hyper-consciousness in my state. Homeschoolers seem largely unaffected by branding and some brands that are ubiquitous at a nearby high school are barely represented at all by the homeschool teens at co-op.

 

 

Why is it sometimes so successful, though? So, why does "everybody" agree that a NorthFace jacket is worth more money and is more in style, though it might cost quite a lot more money and not look appreciably unique?

 

I think sometimes a company starts with items of really good quality, then if they catch on, broadens their product line to include items at a lower price point, which of course means lower quality.  Those who were buying for the quality move on to whatever smaller company steps in to fill the void, and the first company then has to aim squarely at the lower quality market to stay afloat.

 

North Face, for example, a high-end technical outdoor-sport brand, became widely popular for their Denali jackets.  They are well-made and *seriously* warm - but the warmth comes from the quality name-brand fabric with which they are made.  Shoppers (especially teens) often aren't aware of what makes the jacket a quality item (e.g. Polarfleece 300 fabric), so they can't tell the difference between the Denali and a similar-looking lower-end item.  Knock-offs and fakes come on the market, sucking up some of the teen dollars, so NF decides to get some of this market share by putting out their own downmarket items.  Now, they've diluted the brand - shoppers who knew the brand was quality but didn't know why can't tell if a NF is worth the price -- whether it will do the job of keeping the wearer warm.  

 

We've had some (second-hand) NF coats and they were *loaded* with features that simply cost more to manufacture - highly technical name-brand fabrics, features like pit zips and built-in detachable nose-wiping cloths, and tons of pockets.  These coats were well worth their $300+ original price, but not every buyer is looking for that level of feature-heavy coat, not every buyer would recognize what they are getting for the high price, and of course not every buyer has the $300 to begin with.  

 

I also think that now we are two generations into women who do not sew their own clothes, fewer buyers have the awareness needed to detect a lack of features/details, inferior fabrics, and shoddy workmanship.  Because shoppers may not have the skills to evaluate the quality of an item before buying, they rely on name brands to indicate quality.  People who have more money than time, in particular, may go this route; homeschoolers tend to have more time than money thus may be less likely to rely solely on brand to determine quality.  (Of course, homeschoolers also tend to have a healthy hand-me-down chain of supply, so may do significantly less shopping than other families.  In addition, homeschoolers aren't seeing the same people every day (so less need for variety) and many stay-at-home moms aren't needing to "dress for success".)

[LucyStoner]

Thrift shops have been trendy in a certain crowd in my area for a long time. Macklemore's song capitalized on a popular thing here and certainly didn't make it popular here. Macklemore, as much as I do like his music, is also a great marketing case study.

 

Quill as for why and how marketing works, that is simultaneously ridiculously simple and crazily complex. Generally big business is following the start of a trend, not manufacturing it. They spend big bucks trying to find the people with their finger on the pulse of what is trendy.

[Word Nerd]

The asnwer is still marketing.  Some brands are just better at it. 

 

Some products genuinely are better than others, and some companies have better customer service. (I think that's part of marketing too.)

[Jane in NC]

Here is a specific that I think has changed over time:  Coach bags.

 

I am of a generation that remembers when Coach made simple, good quality leather bags in NY.  A Coach bag was something that would last for years if not decades.  In my opinion, many Coach bags today look like glorified diaper bags sold at outrageous prices. Apparently selling a good quality product that did not need replacement is no longer a way to make money.  How sad.  So Coach remarketed itself with lots of ever changing styles, moved factories overseas and created a cheaper version for outlets--since outlet shopping is a popular hobby.

 

Responding to Word Nerd, customer service is huge for me.  When I am buying clothes, I want a clerk who will give me an alternate size or color.  I don't want to have to wade through racks or stacks to find things.  Customer service was once taken for granted.  Now it is part of the branding thing, I think.

 

 

[Guest]

I confess to an irrational dislike of whatever is currently popular. I love my Vera Bradley purses because they are well-made, vegan, perfectly sized, full of pockets, and readily available on eBay. It bugs me that they are so popular. I'm not sure why. Maybe I don't want people to think I bought them *because* they're popular? Maybe I don't want people to think I paid full price for them? Maybe I'm just a reverse-snob?

 

Anyway, if someone knows where I can buy something very similar to the cargo sling for $35 or less, let me know. :blush:

I know; I tend to do this too. I bought Alex & Ani bracelets before I knew it was a "thing." Now I am annoyed because they will be "out" at some point - if indeed they are even still "in" - and I don't want my neat bracelts to become uncool!

 

I think I am a reverse-snob too!

[Guest]

I think sometimes a company starts with items of really good quality, then if they catch on, broadens their product line to include items at a lower price point, which of course means lower quality. Those who were buying for the quality move on to whatever smaller company steps in to fill the void, and the first company then has to aim squarely at the lower quality market to stay afloat.

 

North Face, for example, a high-end technical outdoor-sport brand, became widely popular for their Denali jackets. They are well-made and *seriously* warm - but the warmth comes from the quality name-brand fabric with which they are made. Shoppers (especially teens) often aren't aware of what makes the jacket a quality item (e.g. Polarfleece 300 fabric), so they can't tell the difference between the Denali and a similar-looking lower-end item. Knock-offs and fakes come on the market, sucking up some of the teen dollars, so NF decides to get some of this market share by putting out their own downmarket items. Now, they've diluted the brand - shoppers who knew the brand was quality but didn't know why can't tell if a NF is worth the price -- whether it will do the job of keeping the wearer warm.

 

We've had some (second-hand) NF coats and they were *loaded* with features that simply cost more to manufacture - highly technical name-brand fabrics, features like pit zips and built-in detachable nose-wiping cloths, and tons of pockets. These coats were well worth their $300+ original price, but not every buyer is looking for that level of feature-heavy coat, not every buyer would recognize what they are getting for the high price, and of course not every buyer has the $300 to begin with.

 

I also think that now we are two generations into women who do not sew their own clothes, fewer buyers have the awareness needed to detect a lack of features/details, inferior fabrics, and shoddy workmanship. Because shoppers may not have the skills to evaluate the quality of an item before buying, they rely on name brands to indicate quality. People who have more money than time, in particular, may go this route; homeschoolers tend to have more time than money thus may be less likely to rely solely on brand to determine quality. (Of course, homeschoolers also tend to have a healthy hand-me-down chain of supply, so may do significantly less shopping than other families. In addition, homeschoolers aren't seeing the same people every day (so less need for variety) and many stay-at-home moms aren't needing to "dress for success".)

I would say that is a very astute summary.

[KungFuPanda]

Sometimes I think it's because poor and middle class people want what rich people have. There's this belief that 'stuff' will increase your social worth, so people clamor to own the popular thing or look. Rich people, however, don't WANT to look like poor people, so they seek out the NEXT trend and move on. Businesses supply all of this demand and try to stay on top of these trends.

 

It seems exhausting and futile to fogies like me who aren't really interested in fashion, but some people, and a LOT of young people are genuinely interested in keeping current and will spend money to do so.

[KungFuPanda]

Here is a specific that I think has changed over time: Coach bags.

 

I am of a generation that remembers when Coach made simple, good quality leather bags in NY. A Coach bag was something that would last for years if not decades. In my opinion, many Coach bags today look like glorified diaper bags sold at outrageous prices. Apparently selling a good quality product that did not need replacement is no longer a way to make money. How sad. So Coach remarketed itself with lots of ever changing styles, moved factories overseas and created a cheaper version for outlets--since outlet shopping is a popular hobby.

 

Responding to Word Nerd, customer service is huge for me. When I am buying clothes, I want a clerk who will give me an alternate size or color. I don't want to have to wade through racks or stacks to find things. Customer service was once taken for granted. Now it is part of the branding thing, I think.

Wait. I only ever buy cheap bags and they always last a few years before they fall apart. I was under the impression that these expensive bags would routinely last at least a decade, if not the life of the user.

[Jane in NC]

But even if you are not interested in fashion or trends, they do influence purchases.  Colors trend.  There might be a year when you are looking for a navy skirt but cannot find one if navy is "out".

 

About those bags:  I can't report on the new Coach bags.  My wallet is a Coach that is at least 20 years old and has been in continuous use. It is showing wear but is still going strong.  As is the old Coach purse that I occasionally pull out of the closet.  I'll admit that I now prefer small, multi-pocketed handbags so I have not subjected this Coach purse to constant wear.  It is about fifteen years old. 

 

I don't think most handbag buyers today are looking for a bag that will last a decade simply because the trends will change.  But obviously the name on the bag matters to many.

[creekland]

Ditto with marketing.  One of my classes back in college (many moons ago) was all about marketing and how it works.  Not much has changed really.  Product placement in media, s_x, eye appeal, shortages... they all still apply

 

Especially after having had that class, no, I don't buy Brand Names "just because."  We buy what we want and sometimes that includes quality - esp with our hiking and outdoor gear.  If we don't need quality, then I tend to go inexpensive, BUT with considering where something is made.  Local is worth more to me.

[T'smom]

Why is it sometimes so successful, though? So, why does "everybody" agree that a NorthFace jacket is worth more money and is more in style, though it might cost quite a lot more money and not look appreciably unique?

A couple of years ago I needed a new coat, so I bought one. Two weeks later, I saw the prettiest NorthFace coat! Of course, I didn't buy it, because I already had one. I usually avoid buying the "cool" thing, but this coat was so pretty, I kept thinking about it and finally went back to the store just to find out it was gone. Dh knew how much I liked it, so he tracked one down online and bought it for me. I am actually still a little self-conscious about the brand- I guess I don't want people to think I bought something because it was the "in" thing. But I LOVE the coat. It is ridiculously warm, but at the same time, it's not bulky at all. And it is this beautiful teal color. People are always commenting on it.

[Tsuga]

Sometimes I think it's because poor and middle class people want what rich people have. There's this belief that 'stuff' will increase your social worth, so people clamor to own the popular thing or look. Rich people, however, don't WANT to look like poor people, so they seek out the NEXT trend and move on. Businesses supply all of this demand and try to stay on top of these trends.

 

It seems exhausting and futile to fogies like me who aren't really interested in fashion, but some people, and a LOT of young people are genuinely interested in keeping current and will spend money to do so.

 

Yeah, I think it's about differentiating one's  self according to social status. The brands that cost more or which require more knowledge will always be "in" among teens.

 

With children, it's a little different. They don't differentiate as much by social class especially not in the younger grades. So while Hanna Andersson was really in style among the moms I know (and it is really, really charming and soft and I love it), the kids seemed to prefer pure sparkly Wal-Mart crap. No offense but I think some of those tee shirts were made from recycled pop bottles and toilet paper, they were so scratchy. Not that we didn't own any, but they just weren't as cool in the mom crowd. Because moms knew what would last longer, what spoke of classic style and charming pictures, what would hand down, what was soft and let's be honest: what cost money or at least time hunting it down on eBay.

 

In high school it's the kids who decide. In the some circles, the epitome of cool is what you can only get in the city, independent of your parents. Thrift shopping. Grunge. Rebellion. Then there are the "preps". What is cool and in in one group can be out in another group. It depends on the group/tribal values.

 

In my group, the only thing you wanted new were Doc Martens, which are still "in" among that tribe. Theater / band geeks. But there are plenty of kids who think Doc Martens aren't in, you know?

[Debbi in Texas]

I heard a florist say that "they" can predict 10 years out what will be in style as far as home decor and colors.

 

That is scary-wonder what else "they" are telling us.

[creekland]

In my group, the only thing you wanted new were Doc Martens, which are still "in" among that tribe. Theater / band geeks. But there are plenty of kids who think Doc Martens aren't in, you know?

 

Then there are those of us who would have to google to know what Doc Martens are...

 

My guys took after hubby and I with not caring about brand names.  I once asked middle son which pair of jeans he liked better after having him try them on.  He looked and me and told me, "They're both jeans!  Why does it matter!  Buy whatever is cheapest."  Some of his college peers have worked on trying to teach him what's in style, but they haven't succeeded with much.

[LMD]

In my group, the only thing you wanted new were Doc Martens, which are still "in" among that tribe. Theater / band geeks. But there are plenty of kids who think Doc Martens aren't in, you know?

Docs are the epitome of cool. Always and forever.

 

*says the 90's-teen who still owns, regularly wears and <3's her docs*

[creekland]

*says the 90's-teen 

 

Some of you really make me feel old... and not just with brand names! :glare:   :lol:

[KrissiK]

Read "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. He addresses that question!

[SamanthaCarter]

I haven't read through the thread, so maybe this has already been said, but I think it works a little bit like an economic immune system. The preference sort of spreads throughout a population in the same way a virus does. Small at first because only a few people are exposed. But as more people are exposed to the product, through savvy marketing and/or because celebrities with wide exposure like the product, more people are drawn in. But at the same time, the population is developing an immunity. Some of those who picked it up near the beginning or height of popularity lose interest, either because they realize it isn't as good as they though, or because it's become SO popular, or because they have short attention spans.  Whatever the reason is, people start dropping it and the preference plummets if the popular folks no longer like it or if the product is deemed inferior in some way. 

 

That's how I see it. 

[fdrinca]

Ditto Tipping Point recommendation.

 

There are people for whom their entire job is to hang out with could-be trendmakers and figure out what will be the next "organic" trend. (By "organic" I mean spontaneous - not defined by a multinational corporation interested in cheapest production techniques and fast fashion.) It's different from the cyclical nature of fashion trends. 

 

It's a much easier process with Instagram and Snapchat.

 

I read a great book (or long-format article?) about this process several years ago, when it was just starting to change from company insiders on the streets with skateboarders to people in offices subscribing to IG/FB feeds. Of course, the name escapes me :( The process is essentially what we did in high school, which was to see what the "cool" kids did and then copy them. What was particularly interesting about the process was that the trends weren't started by cool kids, though - they were responsible for tipping a trend to the mainstream, but not for starting it. (Although maybe it's the same thing?)

[Little Women]

I have read that there actually is a group of people in the fashion industry who get together and determine what the color scheme will be for the upcoming season.