6 ms·

I'm not trying to target you per se, but you did give an anecdote about it. Gucci is pure name. Their quality is better than average, but the price is nowhere

I'm not trying to target you per se, but you did give an anecdote about it. Gucci is pure name. Their quality is better than average, but the price is nowhere reasonably higher than the average quality. Frankly, the money is wasted because someone stroked your ego with powerful psychology and manipulation. This is only slightly different than catering to "whales" the free-to-play markets, but just with a bit more customer service. Most "popular" products are the same way. They paid celebs to carry their product, or use their product. Frankly, who cares? The celebs are being paid, whereas you pay. If you have your name on my stuff, then I'm advertising your brand. You either gave it to me as swag, or you're paying me for it. The last choice, is it's a nonprofit and you're doing advertising to help them. Aside that, you're paying for the benefit of bolstering and proving their name further. Nope nope, and nope. Concierges? Sure, I understand having hand-holding assistance. Some people do need that, as many of us in IT are well aware of. But there is a difference between "I'm not sure if that would work for you", versus "You just look stunning with that hat on. That hat just works exceptionally with you! And that parfum - oh so elegant! (add more unintended shit to buy)"

andrewjl 9y ago
"add more unintended shit to buy" What exactly is wrong with that? A good portion of people who shop at a place like Gucci that don't do it for the utility and value for money, so neither of those two standards will apply to them.
- yason 9y ago
  I think they do but not in the ordinary way. The only way to give people the signal "I have a five-thousand dollar bag" is to go buy a five-thousand dollar bag. The value is not in the bag but in the message of owning (and being able to own) one, addressed to a certain audience that is very sensitive to these signals and that also matters in your life. I'm sure Gucci bags have opened doors that other bags with a fraction of the price haven't so there's utility value, too. It just fits with goals and with social behaviour that isn't very common in regular people, not to mention engineers.
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    > with goals and with social behaviour that isn't very common in regular people, not to mention engineers. You think using brands to signal status isn't normal? You might consider counting cars with no badges, or going to a coffee shop and counting the literally glowing logos. As for engineers, have you never seen a sticker-bombed laptop? Never had colleagues who wear the conference shirt or carry the conference bag? What about collegiate hoodies? It's not a judgement on you if you truly don't care about brands or status signaling in any arena, but surely you recognize it's the rule not the exception.
    - hueving 9y ago
      None of those are apt comparisons because people don't pay for the brand signaling. Laptop stickers and conference shirts are free or dirt cheap. The logos you see in a coffee shop on electronics are side effects of purchasing the product. I would still buy an MBP without the lighted apple on the back because I'm buying it for it's utility and quality. Nobody would buy a Gucci bag without the logo. Social signaling through brands is not as common as you would like to believe. This can be seen by how many people buy clothes that are close to cost (Gap, Walmart, etc).
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Walmart has a lot of good basic clothes but a lot of people -- even people who aren't particularly rich -- just wouldn't dream of buying clothes there because it has blue-collar associations. This is really just one element of the rich tapestry of signals a person gives you as to their social class (clothes and language are probably the most distinctive and immediately noticeable signifiers).
        hueving 9y ago
        Meh, that's not my experience with middle class folks. The only complaints I would hear about Walmart stuff is bad fits, etc. I think you're referring to upper middle class people, which is a much smaller portion of the population.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  The "Add more unintended shit to buy" was in parentheses as how the salesperson approaches the whale. The problem I'm trying to show with that, is that they hunt the whales the same way free-to-play Lootboxes work. Gucci is a "lootbox", because you never know how you'll enjoy your purchase! Many of us consider things like lootboxes, extensive psychological manipulation, facebook running 'studies', and many other phenomena that revolve around unwilling subjects. It's horrible to cheat those lower classes with EA's (and others) lootboxes, or free-to-play that equates more money = winning. But when I highlight similar actions being done at "rich people stores", people come up to defend their.. right to use those tools.
  - andrewjl 9y ago
    Agree with you there.
ekianjo 9y ago
> If you have your name on my stuff, then I'm advertising your brand. You could say the exact same thing for folks who have an Apple product prominently featuring the Apple logo.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  You can, but there is no alternative so what choice do people have?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    You could not buy an Apple, and I'll bet a lot of people specifically do like the logo.
Godel_unicode 9y ago
This comes across as pretty judgemental and ironically given it's "let me open your eyes" tone, misses the point entirely. The money isn't wasted, it has accomplished it's twin goals; proving that the wearer is part of the group which knows about and can afford Gucci, and having an enjoyable shopping experience. The fact that you appear to not care about signals of social standing (or rather, of standing in that group; assiduously avoiding logos is it's own signal) doesn't make them any less real. Did you gloss over the part where GP points out they are fully aware of, and even enjoy and seek out, the experience of shopping there? Why do you say it's a waste then?
- Nullabillity 9y ago
  > The money isn't wasted, it has accomplished it's twin goals; proving that the wearer is part of the group which knows about and can afford Gucci So you've shown other conmen that you're an easy mark with lots of money. Congratulations...?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I would not spend my money that way, but it's not a con. The purchaser is not misled about what he is buying.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      I would argue that, yes, dillondoyle is being misled about what he is buying. And he even admits the remorse of the situation: "That's the magic. I always go in with one specific item in mind that I researched online but never leave with just one thing..." There's intent that he's going after a single item that he researched and came to a decision. But extensive use of psychological tricks somehow weasels in extra things. Call it a mark of a salesman. Call it being taken for a mark. But it does have the distinct feel of something not wholesome.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        I usually end up buying things in the supermarket I didn't explicitly intend to buy, and obviously the supermarket is set up in a way to encourage such impulse purchases, but I would not describe it as a scam. I am not reading any regret into that post.
username8884547 9y ago
>>Gucci is pure name. Their quality is better than average, but the price is nowhere reasonably higher than the average quality. Frankly, the money is wasted because someone stroked your ego with powerful psychology and manipulation. Do you realize that USA alone has over 10 million millionaires? And maybe 100 million can afford (by sacrificing for a few months) one or a few things from Gucci. Why not buy something really cool? You might die tomorrow so why not enjoy a bit of your money today. And, no, items from Gucci, D&G or Coach aren't the sane as knockoffs. On the other hand, you can buy used clothes for a few dollars or get them for free...
- hueving 9y ago
  Do you realize that many of those millionaires have gotten to that position by saving and studiously contributing to a retirement account/mortgage payment while on a regular income? A significant portion of those would never even think about spending money at Gucci. Gucci's clientele are the 5m+ crowd and people obsessed with social signaling.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    There's a happy medium somewhere between blowing all your money on frivolities and never enjoying any of it. I wear a lot of clothes from Walmart, but I spent $2k on my PC when I built it and I'm driving a car that, while reasonable within my budget, is more expensive than something like a Camry. I can easily imagine someone else going with a cheaper car and computer but preferring fancy clothes and accessories.
  - username8884547 9y ago
    >>A significant portion of those would never even think about spending money at Gucci. and a "significant" portion apparently do. This money thing is weird...at some point you realize that you actually can afford x, y, and z. So you start enjoying it.
    - hueving 9y ago
      No you don't. Just because some people waste money on something doesn't mean everyone or even a majority does. If meth dealers were legal, they would be positioned right next to Gucci stores. The markup is similar and the utility is about the same.
flarg 9y ago
Just to share anecdotes ... My wife has had two Coach bags and the quality really shows after several years of daily use and no marks of wear and tear. It's not all branding.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Gucci is a pretty different class from Coach, isn't it? I think the difference between a $50 handbag and a $300 handbag is likely much more noticeable than the difference between a $300 handbag and a $3000 handbag.
dillondoyle 9y ago
That's why I say buy into their illusion in the first sentence! But also I love Alexandro Michelle and his aesthetic. Sure my Gucci cords probably aren't as sturdy as my Patagonia, but the Gucci ones come with some cool embroidery and are tailored specifically.

andrewjl 9y ago

"add more unintended shit to buy" What exactly is wrong with that? A good portion of people who shop at a place like Gucci that don't do it for the utility and value for money, so neither of those two standards will apply to them.

yason 9y ago
I think they do but not in the ordinary way. The only way to give people the signal "I have a five-thousand dollar bag" is to go buy a five-thousand dollar bag. The value is not in the bag but in the message of owning (and being able to own) one, addressed to a certain audience that is very sensitive to these signals and that also matters in your life. I'm sure Gucci bags have opened doors that other bags with a fraction of the price haven't so there's utility value, too. It just fits with goals and with social behaviour that isn't very common in regular people, not to mention engineers.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  > with goals and with social behaviour that isn't very common in regular people, not to mention engineers. You think using brands to signal status isn't normal? You might consider counting cars with no badges, or going to a coffee shop and counting the literally glowing logos. As for engineers, have you never seen a sticker-bombed laptop? Never had colleagues who wear the conference shirt or carry the conference bag? What about collegiate hoodies? It's not a judgement on you if you truly don't care about brands or status signaling in any arena, but surely you recognize it's the rule not the exception.
  - hueving 9y ago
    None of those are apt comparisons because people don't pay for the brand signaling. Laptop stickers and conference shirts are free or dirt cheap. The logos you see in a coffee shop on electronics are side effects of purchasing the product. I would still buy an MBP without the lighted apple on the back because I'm buying it for it's utility and quality. Nobody would buy a Gucci bag without the logo. Social signaling through brands is not as common as you would like to believe. This can be seen by how many people buy clothes that are close to cost (Gap, Walmart, etc).
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Walmart has a lot of good basic clothes but a lot of people -- even people who aren't particularly rich -- just wouldn't dream of buying clothes there because it has blue-collar associations. This is really just one element of the rich tapestry of signals a person gives you as to their social class (clothes and language are probably the most distinctive and immediately noticeable signifiers).
      - hueving 9y ago
        Meh, that's not my experience with middle class folks. The only complaints I would hear about Walmart stuff is bad fits, etc. I think you're referring to upper middle class people, which is a much smaller portion of the population.
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
The "Add more unintended shit to buy" was in parentheses as how the salesperson approaches the whale. The problem I'm trying to show with that, is that they hunt the whales the same way free-to-play Lootboxes work. Gucci is a "lootbox", because you never know how you'll enjoy your purchase! Many of us consider things like lootboxes, extensive psychological manipulation, facebook running 'studies', and many other phenomena that revolve around unwilling subjects. It's horrible to cheat those lower classes with EA's (and others) lootboxes, or free-to-play that equates more money = winning. But when I highlight similar actions being done at "rich people stores", people come up to defend their.. right to use those tools.
- andrewjl 9y ago
  Agree with you there.

ekianjo 9y ago

> If you have your name on my stuff, then I'm advertising your brand. You could say the exact same thing for folks who have an Apple product prominently featuring the Apple logo.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
You can, but there is no alternative so what choice do people have?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  You could not buy an Apple, and I'll bet a lot of people specifically do like the logo.

Godel_unicode 9y ago

This comes across as pretty judgemental and ironically given it's "let me open your eyes" tone, misses the point entirely. The money isn't wasted, it has accomplished it's twin goals; proving that the wearer is part of the group which knows about and can afford Gucci, and having an enjoyable shopping experience. The fact that you appear to not care about signals of social standing (or rather, of standing in that group; assiduously avoiding logos is it's own signal) doesn't make them any less real. Did you gloss over the part where GP points out they are fully aware of, and even enjoy and seek out, the experience of shopping there? Why do you say it's a waste then?

Nullabillity 9y ago
> The money isn't wasted, it has accomplished it's twin goals; proving that the wearer is part of the group which knows about and can afford Gucci So you've shown other conmen that you're an easy mark with lots of money. Congratulations...?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I would not spend my money that way, but it's not a con. The purchaser is not misled about what he is buying.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    I would argue that, yes, dillondoyle is being misled about what he is buying. And he even admits the remorse of the situation: "That's the magic. I always go in with one specific item in mind that I researched online but never leave with just one thing..." There's intent that he's going after a single item that he researched and came to a decision. But extensive use of psychological tricks somehow weasels in extra things. Call it a mark of a salesman. Call it being taken for a mark. But it does have the distinct feel of something not wholesome.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I usually end up buying things in the supermarket I didn't explicitly intend to buy, and obviously the supermarket is set up in a way to encourage such impulse purchases, but I would not describe it as a scam. I am not reading any regret into that post.

username8884547 9y ago

>>Gucci is pure name. Their quality is better than average, but the price is nowhere reasonably higher than the average quality. Frankly, the money is wasted because someone stroked your ego with powerful psychology and manipulation. Do you realize that USA alone has over 10 million millionaires? And maybe 100 million can afford (by sacrificing for a few months) one or a few things from Gucci. Why not buy something really cool? You might die tomorrow so why not enjoy a bit of your money today. And, no, items from Gucci, D&G or Coach aren't the sane as knockoffs. On the other hand, you can buy used clothes for a few dollars or get them for free...

hueving 9y ago
Do you realize that many of those millionaires have gotten to that position by saving and studiously contributing to a retirement account/mortgage payment while on a regular income? A significant portion of those would never even think about spending money at Gucci. Gucci's clientele are the 5m+ crowd and people obsessed with social signaling.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  There's a happy medium somewhere between blowing all your money on frivolities and never enjoying any of it. I wear a lot of clothes from Walmart, but I spent $2k on my PC when I built it and I'm driving a car that, while reasonable within my budget, is more expensive than something like a Camry. I can easily imagine someone else going with a cheaper car and computer but preferring fancy clothes and accessories.
- username8884547 9y ago
  >>A significant portion of those would never even think about spending money at Gucci. and a "significant" portion apparently do. This money thing is weird...at some point you realize that you actually can afford x, y, and z. So you start enjoying it.
  - hueving 9y ago
    No you don't. Just because some people waste money on something doesn't mean everyone or even a majority does. If meth dealers were legal, they would be positioned right next to Gucci stores. The markup is similar and the utility is about the same.

flarg 9y ago

Just to share anecdotes ... My wife has had two Coach bags and the quality really shows after several years of daily use and no marks of wear and tear. It's not all branding.

emodendroket 9y ago
Gucci is a pretty different class from Coach, isn't it? I think the difference between a $50 handbag and a $300 handbag is likely much more noticeable than the difference between a $300 handbag and a $3000 handbag.

dillondoyle 9y ago

That's why I say buy into their illusion in the first sentence! But also I love Alexandro Michelle and his aesthetic. Sure my Gucci cords probably aren't as sturdy as my Patagonia, but the Gucci ones come with some cool embroidery and are tailored specifically.