3 ms·
>For consumers, to whom shopping experiences matter as much, or more, than products, mass merchants are bringing nothing to the table. I’m not sure if it’s jus
by navbaker 9y ago
>For consumers, to whom shopping experiences matter as much, or more, than products, mass merchants are bringing nothing to the table.
I’m not sure if it’s just me not being a hyper brand-conscious teenager anymore or if I’m just out of touch, but out of this whole nauseating article, this statement was (to me) the most ridiculous. When I need or want a product, I don’t give two shits about the shopping experience other than did I find the product in a convenient manner and was it priced low enough for me to afford it.
I’m ignorant of the economics at work here. Is there really money to be gained by abandoning a strategy of lower prices but wide availability for one of more expensive and harder to access?
- lucio 9y agoYes. A lot of money, but its really hard to get there. Think of brands like Luis-Vuitton, Bentley, Burj-Al-Arab. https://conversionxl.com/blog/product-pricing-strategies-and-techniques/ https://conversionxl.com/blog/product-pricing-strategies-and...
- Noos 9y agoThose brands never had wide availability to start with, and are straddling the line between commodity and bespoke goods. Nike really is a mass maker of commodity shoes; they have a slightly better brand cachet, but the audience for sneakers is a lot more mainstream and wouldn't support that kind of positioning. A similar example would be in MP3 players. Remember Neil Young's Pono? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service) That's trying a higher scale of positioning, but failed.
- navbaker 9y agoI guess that’s what I was trying to get at. I understand how brands like Gucci get away with ludicrous pricing and positioning themselves as exclusive, but I have a harder time understanding why this is a good strategy for a company like Nike.
- navbaker 9y agoGreat link, thank you!