10 ms·

How Premium Mediocre Conquered Fashion

88 points by technobabble 8y ago

draw_down 8y ago
The banner at the top of the page proclaims: Become a BoF Professional Get members-only exclusive content and unlimited access to articles. Probably just a coincidence.
narrator 8y ago
The logo/brand obsession that they talk about in this article really annoys me. I went into REI to try and buy a jacket recently and could not get anything without an unremovable brand name on the front of it. Underwear without a brand name readable from across the room on the waistband is also difficult to find in stores.
- Hoasi 8y ago
  People paying a premium to advertise a brand is a bit like people giving away content and personal data for free to free online platforms.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand. I went to a wedding recently, and someone who is not wealthy asked what the VSL logo on other womens’ purses was. It was actually YSL, for yves saint lauren, but this just illustrated to me that some people do notice. On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable. At the end of the day, we’re all animals, and there is a lot of social signaling going on.
    - Hoasi 8y ago
      > Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand. That's usually the case from the wearer's perspective, and for the brand, it is killing two birds with one stone.
    - dazc 8y ago
      'Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand.' People wearing Ferrari baseball caps, for instance, is probably an extreme of this?
      - narag 8y ago
        It feels pathetic unless you also own a car of the same brand.
        hatmatrix 8y ago
        Can you not just be a fan? You don't have to own the Oreoles to wear their ball cap.
        narag 8y ago
        No idea who or what are those. Anyway, yes, you can be just a fan. My comment was meant for people that thinks that a Ferrari hat is a sign of status.
    - dagw 8y ago
      On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable I was in a Louis Vuitton flagship store recently and noticed that, roughly speaking, the cheaper the bags the bigger the logo. Their _really_ expensive suitcases only and a tiny LV monogram stamped into the leather on a couple of spots.
- ftio 8y ago
  Check out Uniqlo! I have extreme aversion toward advertising a brand on my body. Uniqlo has nice basic clothes with zero logos on them.
  - tvanantwerp 8y ago
    I'll second Uniqlo. I'm also very happy with the quality for the price. Probably half my clothes are from there now.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      They also invent textiles for their target markets, i.e. Apple style vertical integration.
- Buldak 8y ago
  I'm the same way, but it has struck me that this is a kind of inverse brand fixation. If I were indifferent to brands, I wouldn't mind that my clothes happen to advertise them, but I do. I think on some level I view highly visible brands as crass, which is to say that a lack of branding is itself a class or status signifier.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    Tailored shirts also rarely have logos embroidered on them.
mlacks 8y ago
I'm typing this out from a laptop I keep in a Coach laptop case. I only have it because it was a gift from a friend. His mother works at Coach and frequently gifts her son "premium mediocre" items such as card holders and nylon bags such as my laptop bag. His closet has Coach-branded wallets literally spilling out of it. I'm very grateful for the laptop bad. It was an unsolicited present when I mentioned I was in the market for one, however when I went to his home to receive it, I couldn't help but feel disappointed in the feel of it. On one hand, its very subtle. I prefer Coach products over something like LVMH or GUCCI because the labeling isn't in your face. And the Coach leather duffel I paid 800 for in 2013 is still with me in excellent condition after 6 years and 10 countries of daily use. On the other hand, this is not worth 115USD. Its simply a laptop sized sleeve with a zipper, some padding, and and the official seal with a serial number. No straps, no additional pockets. I guess in some instances you really do pay for the privilege of the name.
- seem_2211 8y ago
  The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting. From a clothing point of view, the worst thing that premium mediocre does is break the relationship between price = quality, which as a consumer is just depressing.
  - vitaflo 8y ago
    >The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting. I noticed this when looking at Mercedes-Benz vehicles. Their most expensive car (the $200k Maybach) has a very small, subtle hood ornament. Their other cars have those huge MB backlit emblems in the grill. I took this to mean that at a certain level of wealth you don't need to show off a brand to prove your worth.
abnry 8y ago
Most of clothing sales are based on branding, not quality, and buying a certain brand means buying into a certain image you want of yourself. People will avoid WalMart like the plague because they don't want to be "someone who gets their clothes at WalMart," not because their jeans are too crummy for them to wear.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Design is a real factor, and the difference in design between what you get at wallmart, and what is offered by 'premium luxury' is clear. The article may be upside down: "Luxury" is the real hustle, because they are selling you 'good design' that is 'inaccessible' to others, i.e. the 'inaccessibility' is the key point. "Tory Burch" may actually be selling you really great design. But it's affordable and accessible. Nothing wrong with that, although it's probably positioned as less accessible than otherwise. It's all misleading because this is a category in every consumer product and has been for a long time. Even in finance and private wealth management. It's a segment in the marketing mix like anything else. The King of this segment though by far is Apple: they sell you aspiration and a hint of exclusivity without actually being exclusive. But remember: + Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure. + Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere. + Premium Economy in flights is worth a lot if you get bigger seats without the service. No hustle there - it's what I want, it's the best thing. I think where it gets ridiculous is when there's are seriously overpriced items, like the $200 keychains etc.. That's so sad.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    > + Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure. Including the measures of people who both couldn't identify Tory Burch, and have never shopped for clothes at Walmart. That's how branding works. > + Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere. There were coffee shops everywhere in the US before Starbucks. The trend migrated from the Pacific Northwesterners who created a coffee culture so the rain wouldn't make them kill themselves, and then that coffee culture collided with the urban leftover memories of 50s Beat coffee culture, back-to-nature hippie tea culture, and europhile intellectual coffee culture (a lot of tables had inlaid chessboards.) This was homogenized by the aggressive expansion of Starbucks, starting in the Pacific Northwest again, wiping out most of the variations that we used to enjoy. And I lived in places like Northwest Arkansas and Mississippi at the time, so this is not a big-city perspective.
bartread 8y ago
The end of the article hints at it, but I think this stuff really represents the "high end" of the fast fashion cycle. You got the logo, and you spent enough money to feel like you've bought something premium, but actually it's low quality, disposable tat. I'm vaguely aware of a lot of this simply due to working with a tracking product for fashion brands, but where I'm really aware of it is with watches, which are a bit of a hobby for me. Notably, brands such as MVMT, Vincero, Daniel Wellington, and Michael Kors, take the cheapest of the cheap quartz movements, case them up - particularly with MVMT and Vincero - in cheap, generic cases, with straps made of the lowest quality materials, slap their logo on, do a ton of fantastic social media marketing, and then chuck on a ridiculous markup to charge sometimes hundreds of dollars or pounds for these effectively disposable time-pieces. MVMT in particular have come in for a lot of flak recently, because people have started calling them out on the fact that you can buy the exact same watch, minus the MVMT logo, on Alibaba for $5 as opposed to $100. Still, overall these brands are absolutely killing it, and aren't having a great effect on more established brands that produce higher quality timepieces. These are brands that offer objectively better products, but aren't nearly as savvy with their marketing: Timex, Seiko, Orient, Citizen, Tissot, Inox, Hamilton, Zeppelin, Junkers, Junghans, and the list goes on. None of these specialise in luxury watches, but in the same price range as the fashion brands they do offer good watches, many extremely stylish, that will last for decades. Premium mediocre might also be the reason that TAG Heuer get such short shrift amongst watch aficionados. They're nominally a luxury brand, and they certainly do make some decent timepieces. For example, the Monaco is a classic and - for a horology geek - their high end chronographs are seriously impressive (and way the hell above my price range). Nevertheless, you really get ripped off on TAG's entry level quartz pieces. These are still kind of pricey, but the quality isn't there. For example, they will cheerfully charge you well north of £1000 for a quartz Aquaracer with a misaligned second hand. Not OK, but a lot of people buy into it because it makes a TAG Heuer attainable.
- dmreedy 8y ago
  What's interesting about brands like MVMT and Daniel Wellington in particular is that it's not like they ever produced actual 'quality' stuff. Unlike a lot of the brands in the article, where the 'premium mediocre' stuff is a kind of brand dilution from prohibitively expensive luxury stuff, MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap the illusion of being quality without ever having had to put up the work for it. I guess it's made possible by some combination of what traditionally makes for a quality watch being somewhat opaque to a non-geek consumer (not that it's hard, it's just not something most people feel like spending time learning about), and the traditional definition of quality of watches moving away from functional timekeeping and towards fashion accessory (you can see this with Rolex too, as they start to move up-market). This in contrast to TAG Heuer, which is much closer I think to the article's subject. Before TAG bought them, Heuer produced a number of absolute classics (such as the Monaco you mention) that they're only just getting back around to continuing now, with the current theme of vintage styling being hip again (something I am, don't get me wrong, grateful for!). But to your point, for a while, TAG tried to get by on brand alone, and sold a lot of relatively low-quality stuff at almost-luxury prices. There is a possible means, however, by which this kind of process drives the genuine premium market. Some set of customers who buy a DW are gonna wear it and love it for a week, and then start to get pissed off as they find out that the cheap plating rubs off, or the applied indicies aren't applied so well and are rattling around under the crystal now, or that it loses 30 seconds a day. They'll start learning about actual quality differentiators, maybe geek out a bit if they are that type, be bothered they blew $300 on a $5 watch, but maybe next time around they buy a Tissot, or a Seiko. And then an Omega after that. And it's possible I guess that the number of people who go through this process is larger than if there were no such 'premium mediocre' market at all?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jiveturkey 8y ago
it’s called mid market
- hatmatrix 8y ago
  I was thinking something like that too, but I don't think it's the same ("mid market" being defined by size of business, though I think I've heard it colloquially used to describe middle price tag). "Premium mediocre" specifically emphasizes the discrepancy between product quality vs. branding and price tag.
motohagiography 8y ago
As a former (or perhaps just occasional) style writer who has put a great deal of thought into what peoples decisions about what they wear actually mean, 20 years ago the author's "premium mediocre," used to be called "aspirational products." These were the keychains, perfumes, and ballcaps with astronomical margins that made the real money on the other side of the business, which was their loss leading spectacle (haute couture, etc.) You can't afford a DeHavilland Beaver airplane, but you can buy this saddle stitched wallet as a symbol to remind you of the image of one. The aspirational products matter because they give us information about peoples true desires. It's a leading indicator for culture and politics. Even the Cambridge Analytica scandal was started by someone who was able to link peoples political leanings to the brands they chose. (I'd link the article but it's behind the FT paywall.) When someone gets up in the morning, the things they choose to wear are an expression of what team they think they are on, what tribe they think they are a part of, who they think their main stakeholders are, and what kind of incentives motivate them. In business, that's about all you need to know about someone. Given this, I get the impression fashion, business and culture are not the main field of the author of this op-ed.
- roymurdock 8y ago
  i encourage you to read the original piece that coined the term: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-life-of-maya-millennial/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-l... the reach and scale of social media and how brands can interact (or not) with their followers has really changed the marketing game, and i think premium mediocre combines this insight with the poor economic prospects of the millenial generation "Premium mediocrity is the story of Maya Millennial, laughing alone with her salad. She’s just not a millionaire…yet. She just doesn’t have a mansion…yet. She just doesn’t drive a Tesla…yet." strongly implied is the fact that she never will have any of these increasingly mediocre/disposable goods, and that she will be happy to consume increasingly premium but increasingly mediocre asipirational products for the rest of her life because she will never be productive enough to earn close to what her parents earn to afford true quality goods but also maybe this isn't an intrinsically bad thing and just a sign of a more disposable/fleeting relationship with houses, cars, etc. (which is bad on further reflection, does not bode well for the environment)
burger_moon 8y ago
What's interesting to me is how big and accessible the fake market has gotten for luxury brand clothes and shoes. I remember when you'd buy fake Jordans and Coach purses out of trunks. Now you just go on Taobao and you can buy fakes that are completely indiscernible from the real items and costs $20. There's even user reviews for fakes that compare them to the real items like Amazon reviews so you having buying confidence from certain sellers that quality is high. For a lot of people it's more about repping the right brands than it is about having authentic items. This of course has consequences for the real brands who potentially lose sales to fakes, but from what I can tell it's similar to people who pirate movies, they only watch it because it's free, but wouldn't buy the dvd or see it in the theaters otherwise.
- userbinator 8y ago
  Now you just go on Taobao and you can buy fakes that are completely indiscernible from the real items and costs $20. If you realise that a lot of the time the fakes come from the same factories and use the exact same materials as the real products, then this makes a lot of sense --- the only difference is where/how it's sold, and whether the original brand owner gets its huge profit.
- chillacy 8y ago
  There's even a subreddit now: https://www.reddit.com/r/FashionReps https://www.reddit.com/r/FashionReps The term they use is "Fashion Replica"
Geekette 8y ago
"Brands are giving the masses the illusion that they are consuming luxury, when in reality they are doing nothing of the sort, argues Eugene Rabkin." This approach to serving the midmarket has been around for a long time, especially in the consumer goods sector. Very lucrative indeed because the margins are so much higher when you charge premium for a mediocre product that cost correspondingly little to make. A good example is the Victoria's Secret underwear brand. It produces mediocre products but pumps huge money into marketing itself as a luxury brand. Worked well in N. America where until recently, there was little variety of underwear brands available. I've also noticed over time that European fashion products tend to have a higher quality threshold even at the lower ends. I attribute part of it to the region having longer history with haute couture (high-end luxury), which in turn established higher quality expectations for the aspirational and lower end brands, as well as more choices of brands including within the underwear sector.
coleifer 8y ago
Some people are literally ignorant of luxury brands. My bougie sisters-in-law are locked in a competition to outdo one another with Kate spade bags, Michael Kors watches, etc., and have no idea that these aren't the height of luxury. Here in Topeka, they are (where 100k gets you a nice 3br home). Me? I'll stick to my brand name athleisure thank you very much.
- dehrmann 8y ago
  If only they knew the Spade in Kate Spade is because she was married to David Spade's brother. Nothing says "luxury" like "Joe Dirt."
- plausibilities 8y ago
  Meanwhile, socialites on the coasts strut around decked out in shit like Hermes, Guiseppe Zanotti, and Patek Phillipe.
natvod 8y ago
People buy based on recognizable brand names because it signals you're able to afford something in that price range and know "what's cool". What's interesting is that some luxury brands's true high end lines are not really profitable (example: haute couture) and are actually supported by the brand's entry level "premium mediocre" products like canvas bags, perfumes, etc. In a way, the true luxury products acts as a marketing expense to bolster brand cachet, so their entry level products are coveted by the masses as status symbols.
Zanni 8y ago
While I agree with the basic premise of the article (disparaging low-quality goods attached to premium brands), I take exception to two of the examples: Starbucks and premium economy airline seats. I regularly upgrade to premium economy when I fly for the very real benefits of 1) earlier boarding, ensuring convenient overhead access to my carry-on luggage and 2) extra legroom; I find it's impossible to open and use a laptop with today's shallow seat pitch configurations unless you upgrade. As for Starbucks, I'm paying a premium (but not much, as a tea drinker) for the amenities: air-conditioning, clean bathrooms, quality furniture. Too many local coffee shops lack these basics.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Economy Plus seating seems a lot more utilitarian. Also Acela on the Amtrak. There's a market for things that give a bit more convenience and comfort relative to what those buying solely on price are getting. While not providing a product that's significantly higher cost and price--especially to the point where paying for it becomes an issue even for many business travelers.
  - around_here 8y ago
    The issue here is that they're cutting away from what was actually the standard before in order to create something "premium". What used to be "economy" is now "premium economy" with a price hike, and now "economy" is something that was made deliberately worse.
    - Zanni 8y ago
      That's an issue, true. And it's a frustrating state of affairs. But it's not in keeping with the theme of the article. I think the author is hinting at the idea that "premium" economy is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, and that people who pay for it are being suckered into paying for pseudo-prestige because of the "premium" label. But unlike the other examples they cite, premium economy is actually better.
      - 8y ago
Nasrudith 8y ago
There is so much wrong with this article it isn't funny. The lack of self awareness is enough that Eugene could flunk a Turing test and would be complained about as lousy writing if he was placed in a movie. The whole damn point of the Fashion Industry is to fabricate an experience of luxury and exclusivity in the first place! Otherwise they would just be commodity textiles with a far smaller margin - the ones any early developing country can produce with a little bit of investment. Then there is the frankly incoherent bashing of millennials for not spending money on the "real high end" while complaining about them splurging and calling them entitled. Look do you want them to buy your overpriced crap or to join the list of victim entitled industries "killed by millennials"? From a guy who feels entitled to profits at a large mark up, and setting the standards of taste for everbody. Who feels the place of the customer is to serve the merchant. Talk about projecting like IMAX.... As for why the fashion signaling niche has been taken up by logoed commodities: tt is the economy stupid. It is no wonder people are going for an accessible "high end" when essential expenses and debts related to them are high. People splurge a bit for mental health - done within their means it can be healthy even. Plus even those who are better off can get dirty looks for conspicious consumption outside a sufficently matched setting - and not even in an envious sour grapes way like "I would totally get a Tesla/Buggaratti if I could afford it." but "What kind of asshole spends $50k on a handbag when even $500 is overkill? That is more than my car!".
wisdomoftheages 8y ago
This reminded me of a classic essay on how a lot of "luxury" branding is meant to appeal, not to the true elite (the kind of people who are born with seven or more figures in a trust fund and / or live off capital gains), but to the aspirations of professional-class strivers (lawyers, doctors, advertising directors, software engineers, etc.): https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_...
- reidjs 8y ago
  That was a really interesting read. I embarrassingly have never thought deeply about how marketing or branding works to manipulate the viewer in very subtle ways. I think I’m starting to understand why some serious money is put towards advertising budgets.
  - o_____________o 8y ago
    Do yourself a favor and watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
    - reidjs 8y ago
      Hey thanks! I actually found it on youtube if anyone else is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
kochikame 8y ago
I have to take issue with the inclusion of "craft beer" in the list of examples of "premium mediocre" at the top of the article. There is certainly "fake" craft beer, made by the macro beverage companies that is designed to basically trick people into shelling out more because they believe they are buying into some premium category. It's classic aspirational stuff all built around marketing. But then... well, there's all the REAL craft beer, which is (for want of a better word) crafted, made with care, creativity and in an environment of independence and experimentation. This stuff is genuinely good, or can be (sometimes experiments fail and this is fine), and like indie movements in music, art and literature deserves to be celebrated as an authentic expression of human endeavor. So don't buy Goose, buy Revolution. Don't buy Elysian, buy New Glory. Go see what your local brewery is making. Better still, make some yourself and see how you like it. Don't order "$25 signature burgers" from those places with all the trappings of the hipster movement but are actually owned by investment banks, order them from your local places that're actually doing it for themselves. It's not that hard to tell the difference usually. I guess I agree with the article in the final analysis because I hate to see big companies ripping the genuine creativity out of grassroots/artisanal scenes and turning it into a shadow of itself for profit.
- seliopou 8y ago
  “Craft beer” as far as I can tell just means overhopped. There’s nothing crafty about it beside swindling people into overpaying for something that tastes like acetone smells. So I think this article was spot on by including it.
  - eveningcoffee 8y ago
    Regardless of its taste, craft beer movement started as class root movement by beer enthusiasts to make more individual beer in small quantities and has been very experimental (in places where it flourishes) and has produced really unique tastes and flavours. So the GP is correct. See also https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths I think that the main issue is the knowledge about the real value is very hard to obtain and this gives the marketeers an upper hand to flood the marked with the fake information.
DenisM 8y ago
Ok, so if you can't rely on the price to signify quality, what can you rely on? Where does one go to purchase a pair of shoes that will endure? The best I came up with so far is using Wirecutter reviews. This way I discovered, for instance, where to buy treat-quality bedding and towels, but it doesn't cover anywhere near the spectrum of things that I need. Sometimes I find something good and they stop making it a year later.
- bartread 8y ago
  > Where does one go to purchase a pair of shoes that will endure? There are some fairly strong indicators in the construction of a pair of shoes that bear witness to quality (or not): an upper stitched to the sole is generally better than one that is glued, for example.
  - ValentineC 8y ago
    Adding on: I believe the keyword to look for is usually known as a "Goodyear welt".
  - around_here 8y ago
    Where are you getting runners stitched to the sole?
tsunamifury 8y ago
On the other hand, genuinely premium brands like Brunello Cucinelli stay quiet and do provide high quality, but at a price no one can afford. For those in the know, the namesake CEO is in tight with the Silicon Valley power players. Mark Zuckerberg trademark hoodies are made by Brunello, as are most of the Apple, Salesforce, and various other major tech companies wardrobes. Unlike what this writer believes, even billionaires signal, but it’s far more subtle.

88 points by technobabble 8y ago

The banner at the top of the page proclaims: Become a BoF Professional Get members-only exclusive content and unlimited access to articles. Probably just a coincidence.

narrator 8y ago

The logo/brand obsession that they talk about in this article really annoys me. I went into REI to try and buy a jacket recently and could not get anything without an unremovable brand name on the front of it. Underwear without a brand name readable from across the room on the waistband is also difficult to find in stores.

Hoasi 8y ago
People paying a premium to advertise a brand is a bit like people giving away content and personal data for free to free online platforms.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand. I went to a wedding recently, and someone who is not wealthy asked what the VSL logo on other womens’ purses was. It was actually YSL, for yves saint lauren, but this just illustrated to me that some people do notice. On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable. At the end of the day, we’re all animals, and there is a lot of social signaling going on.
  - Hoasi 8y ago
    > Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand. That's usually the case from the wearer's perspective, and for the brand, it is killing two birds with one stone.
  - dazc 8y ago
    'Another possibility is people wanting to advertise that they can afford to wear the brand.' People wearing Ferrari baseball caps, for instance, is probably an extreme of this?
    - narag 8y ago
      It feels pathetic unless you also own a car of the same brand.
      - hatmatrix 8y ago
        Can you not just be a fan? You don't have to own the Oreoles to wear their ball cap.
        narag 8y ago
        No idea who or what are those. Anyway, yes, you can be just a fan. My comment was meant for people that thinks that a Ferrari hat is a sign of status.
  - dagw 8y ago
    On the other hand, in more wealthy circles, anything with logos would be considered undesirable I was in a Louis Vuitton flagship store recently and noticed that, roughly speaking, the cheaper the bags the bigger the logo. Their _really_ expensive suitcases only and a tiny LV monogram stamped into the leather on a couple of spots.
ftio 8y ago
Check out Uniqlo! I have extreme aversion toward advertising a brand on my body. Uniqlo has nice basic clothes with zero logos on them.
- tvanantwerp 8y ago
  I'll second Uniqlo. I'm also very happy with the quality for the price. Probably half my clothes are from there now.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    They also invent textiles for their target markets, i.e. Apple style vertical integration.
Buldak 8y ago
I'm the same way, but it has struck me that this is a kind of inverse brand fixation. If I were indifferent to brands, I wouldn't mind that my clothes happen to advertise them, but I do. I think on some level I view highly visible brands as crass, which is to say that a lack of branding is itself a class or status signifier.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Tailored shirts also rarely have logos embroidered on them.

mlacks 8y ago

I'm typing this out from a laptop I keep in a Coach laptop case. I only have it because it was a gift from a friend. His mother works at Coach and frequently gifts her son "premium mediocre" items such as card holders and nylon bags such as my laptop bag. His closet has Coach-branded wallets literally spilling out of it. I'm very grateful for the laptop bad. It was an unsolicited present when I mentioned I was in the market for one, however when I went to his home to receive it, I couldn't help but feel disappointed in the feel of it. On one hand, its very subtle. I prefer Coach products over something like LVMH or GUCCI because the labeling isn't in your face. And the Coach leather duffel I paid 800 for in 2013 is still with me in excellent condition after 6 years and 10 countries of daily use. On the other hand, this is not worth 115USD. Its simply a laptop sized sleeve with a zipper, some padding, and and the official seal with a serial number. No straps, no additional pockets. I guess in some instances you really do pay for the privilege of the name.

seem_2211 8y ago
The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting. From a clothing point of view, the worst thing that premium mediocre does is break the relationship between price = quality, which as a consumer is just depressing.
- vitaflo 8y ago
  >The cheap Gucci / LV stuff has the biggest logos. Their expensive stuff is generally quite subtle which is pretty interesting. I noticed this when looking at Mercedes-Benz vehicles. Their most expensive car (the $200k Maybach) has a very small, subtle hood ornament. Their other cars have those huge MB backlit emblems in the grill. I took this to mean that at a certain level of wealth you don't need to show off a brand to prove your worth.

abnry 8y ago

Most of clothing sales are based on branding, not quality, and buying a certain brand means buying into a certain image you want of yourself. People will avoid WalMart like the plague because they don't want to be "someone who gets their clothes at WalMart," not because their jeans are too crummy for them to wear.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Design is a real factor, and the difference in design between what you get at wallmart, and what is offered by 'premium luxury' is clear. The article may be upside down: "Luxury" is the real hustle, because they are selling you 'good design' that is 'inaccessible' to others, i.e. the 'inaccessibility' is the key point. "Tory Burch" may actually be selling you really great design. But it's affordable and accessible. Nothing wrong with that, although it's probably positioned as less accessible than otherwise. It's all misleading because this is a category in every consumer product and has been for a long time. Even in finance and private wealth management. It's a segment in the marketing mix like anything else. The King of this segment though by far is Apple: they sell you aspiration and a hint of exclusivity without actually being exclusive. But remember: + Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure. + Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere. + Premium Economy in flights is worth a lot if you get bigger seats without the service. No hustle there - it's what I want, it's the best thing. I think where it gets ridiculous is when there's are seriously overpriced items, like the $200 keychains etc.. That's so sad.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  > + Tory Burch stuff is a lot nicer than the stuff at Walmart by almost anyone's measure. Including the measures of people who both couldn't identify Tory Burch, and have never shopped for clothes at Walmart. That's how branding works. > + Before Starbucks, you couldn't get a cappuccino anywhere. There were coffee shops everywhere in the US before Starbucks. The trend migrated from the Pacific Northwesterners who created a coffee culture so the rain wouldn't make them kill themselves, and then that coffee culture collided with the urban leftover memories of 50s Beat coffee culture, back-to-nature hippie tea culture, and europhile intellectual coffee culture (a lot of tables had inlaid chessboards.) This was homogenized by the aggressive expansion of Starbucks, starting in the Pacific Northwest again, wiping out most of the variations that we used to enjoy. And I lived in places like Northwest Arkansas and Mississippi at the time, so this is not a big-city perspective.

bartread 8y ago

The end of the article hints at it, but I think this stuff really represents the "high end" of the fast fashion cycle. You got the logo, and you spent enough money to feel like you've bought something premium, but actually it's low quality, disposable tat. I'm vaguely aware of a lot of this simply due to working with a tracking product for fashion brands, but where I'm really aware of it is with watches, which are a bit of a hobby for me. Notably, brands such as MVMT, Vincero, Daniel Wellington, and Michael Kors, take the cheapest of the cheap quartz movements, case them up - particularly with MVMT and Vincero - in cheap, generic cases, with straps made of the lowest quality materials, slap their logo on, do a ton of fantastic social media marketing, and then chuck on a ridiculous markup to charge sometimes hundreds of dollars or pounds for these effectively disposable time-pieces. MVMT in particular have come in for a lot of flak recently, because people have started calling them out on the fact that you can buy the exact same watch, minus the MVMT logo, on Alibaba for $5 as opposed to $100. Still, overall these brands are absolutely killing it, and aren't having a great effect on more established brands that produce higher quality timepieces. These are brands that offer objectively better products, but aren't nearly as savvy with their marketing: Timex, Seiko, Orient, Citizen, Tissot, Inox, Hamilton, Zeppelin, Junkers, Junghans, and the list goes on. None of these specialise in luxury watches, but in the same price range as the fashion brands they do offer good watches, many extremely stylish, that will last for decades. Premium mediocre might also be the reason that TAG Heuer get such short shrift amongst watch aficionados. They're nominally a luxury brand, and they certainly do make some decent timepieces. For example, the Monaco is a classic and - for a horology geek - their high end chronographs are seriously impressive (and way the hell above my price range). Nevertheless, you really get ripped off on TAG's entry level quartz pieces. These are still kind of pricey, but the quality isn't there. For example, they will cheerfully charge you well north of £1000 for a quartz Aquaracer with a misaligned second hand. Not OK, but a lot of people buy into it because it makes a TAG Heuer attainable.

dmreedy 8y ago
What's interesting about brands like MVMT and Daniel Wellington in particular is that it's not like they ever produced actual 'quality' stuff. Unlike a lot of the brands in the article, where the 'premium mediocre' stuff is a kind of brand dilution from prohibitively expensive luxury stuff, MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap the illusion of being quality without ever having had to put up the work for it. I guess it's made possible by some combination of what traditionally makes for a quality watch being somewhat opaque to a non-geek consumer (not that it's hard, it's just not something most people feel like spending time learning about), and the traditional definition of quality of watches moving away from functional timekeeping and towards fashion accessory (you can see this with Rolex too, as they start to move up-market). This in contrast to TAG Heuer, which is much closer I think to the article's subject. Before TAG bought them, Heuer produced a number of absolute classics (such as the Monaco you mention) that they're only just getting back around to continuing now, with the current theme of vintage styling being hip again (something I am, don't get me wrong, grateful for!). But to your point, for a while, TAG tried to get by on brand alone, and sold a lot of relatively low-quality stuff at almost-luxury prices. There is a possible means, however, by which this kind of process drives the genuine premium market. Some set of customers who buy a DW are gonna wear it and love it for a week, and then start to get pissed off as they find out that the cheap plating rubs off, or the applied indicies aren't applied so well and are rattling around under the crystal now, or that it loses 30 seconds a day. They'll start learning about actual quality differentiators, maybe geek out a bit if they are that type, be bothered they blew $300 on a $5 watch, but maybe next time around they buy a Tissot, or a Seiko. And then an Omega after that. And it's possible I guess that the number of people who go through this process is larger than if there were no such 'premium mediocre' market at all?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jiveturkey 8y ago

it’s called mid market

hatmatrix 8y ago
I was thinking something like that too, but I don't think it's the same ("mid market" being defined by size of business, though I think I've heard it colloquially used to describe middle price tag). "Premium mediocre" specifically emphasizes the discrepancy between product quality vs. branding and price tag.

motohagiography 8y ago

As a former (or perhaps just occasional) style writer who has put a great deal of thought into what peoples decisions about what they wear actually mean, 20 years ago the author's "premium mediocre," used to be called "aspirational products." These were the keychains, perfumes, and ballcaps with astronomical margins that made the real money on the other side of the business, which was their loss leading spectacle (haute couture, etc.) You can't afford a DeHavilland Beaver airplane, but you can buy this saddle stitched wallet as a symbol to remind you of the image of one. The aspirational products matter because they give us information about peoples true desires. It's a leading indicator for culture and politics. Even the Cambridge Analytica scandal was started by someone who was able to link peoples political leanings to the brands they chose. (I'd link the article but it's behind the FT paywall.) When someone gets up in the morning, the things they choose to wear are an expression of what team they think they are on, what tribe they think they are a part of, who they think their main stakeholders are, and what kind of incentives motivate them. In business, that's about all you need to know about someone. Given this, I get the impression fashion, business and culture are not the main field of the author of this op-ed.

roymurdock 8y ago
i encourage you to read the original piece that coined the term: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-life-of-maya-millennial/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-l... the reach and scale of social media and how brands can interact (or not) with their followers has really changed the marketing game, and i think premium mediocre combines this insight with the poor economic prospects of the millenial generation "Premium mediocrity is the story of Maya Millennial, laughing alone with her salad. She’s just not a millionaire…yet. She just doesn’t have a mansion…yet. She just doesn’t drive a Tesla…yet." strongly implied is the fact that she never will have any of these increasingly mediocre/disposable goods, and that she will be happy to consume increasingly premium but increasingly mediocre asipirational products for the rest of her life because she will never be productive enough to earn close to what her parents earn to afford true quality goods but also maybe this isn't an intrinsically bad thing and just a sign of a more disposable/fleeting relationship with houses, cars, etc. (which is bad on further reflection, does not bode well for the environment)

burger_moon 8y ago

What's interesting to me is how big and accessible the fake market has gotten for luxury brand clothes and shoes. I remember when you'd buy fake Jordans and Coach purses out of trunks. Now you just go on Taobao and you can buy fakes that are completely indiscernible from the real items and costs $20. There's even user reviews for fakes that compare them to the real items like Amazon reviews so you having buying confidence from certain sellers that quality is high. For a lot of people it's more about repping the right brands than it is about having authentic items. This of course has consequences for the real brands who potentially lose sales to fakes, but from what I can tell it's similar to people who pirate movies, they only watch it because it's free, but wouldn't buy the dvd or see it in the theaters otherwise.

userbinator 8y ago
Now you just go on Taobao and you can buy fakes that are completely indiscernible from the real items and costs $20. If you realise that a lot of the time the fakes come from the same factories and use the exact same materials as the real products, then this makes a lot of sense --- the only difference is where/how it's sold, and whether the original brand owner gets its huge profit.
chillacy 8y ago
There's even a subreddit now: https://www.reddit.com/r/FashionReps https://www.reddit.com/r/FashionReps The term they use is "Fashion Replica"

Geekette 8y ago

"Brands are giving the masses the illusion that they are consuming luxury, when in reality they are doing nothing of the sort, argues Eugene Rabkin." This approach to serving the midmarket has been around for a long time, especially in the consumer goods sector. Very lucrative indeed because the margins are so much higher when you charge premium for a mediocre product that cost correspondingly little to make. A good example is the Victoria's Secret underwear brand. It produces mediocre products but pumps huge money into marketing itself as a luxury brand. Worked well in N. America where until recently, there was little variety of underwear brands available. I've also noticed over time that European fashion products tend to have a higher quality threshold even at the lower ends. I attribute part of it to the region having longer history with haute couture (high-end luxury), which in turn established higher quality expectations for the aspirational and lower end brands, as well as more choices of brands including within the underwear sector.

coleifer 8y ago

Some people are literally ignorant of luxury brands. My bougie sisters-in-law are locked in a competition to outdo one another with Kate spade bags, Michael Kors watches, etc., and have no idea that these aren't the height of luxury. Here in Topeka, they are (where 100k gets you a nice 3br home). Me? I'll stick to my brand name athleisure thank you very much.

dehrmann 8y ago
If only they knew the Spade in Kate Spade is because she was married to David Spade's brother. Nothing says "luxury" like "Joe Dirt."
plausibilities 8y ago
Meanwhile, socialites on the coasts strut around decked out in shit like Hermes, Guiseppe Zanotti, and Patek Phillipe.

natvod 8y ago

People buy based on recognizable brand names because it signals you're able to afford something in that price range and know "what's cool". What's interesting is that some luxury brands's true high end lines are not really profitable (example: haute couture) and are actually supported by the brand's entry level "premium mediocre" products like canvas bags, perfumes, etc. In a way, the true luxury products acts as a marketing expense to bolster brand cachet, so their entry level products are coveted by the masses as status symbols.

Zanni 8y ago

While I agree with the basic premise of the article (disparaging low-quality goods attached to premium brands), I take exception to two of the examples: Starbucks and premium economy airline seats. I regularly upgrade to premium economy when I fly for the very real benefits of 1) earlier boarding, ensuring convenient overhead access to my carry-on luggage and 2) extra legroom; I find it's impossible to open and use a laptop with today's shallow seat pitch configurations unless you upgrade. As for Starbucks, I'm paying a premium (but not much, as a tea drinker) for the amenities: air-conditioning, clean bathrooms, quality furniture. Too many local coffee shops lack these basics.

ghaff 8y ago
Economy Plus seating seems a lot more utilitarian. Also Acela on the Amtrak. There's a market for things that give a bit more convenience and comfort relative to what those buying solely on price are getting. While not providing a product that's significantly higher cost and price--especially to the point where paying for it becomes an issue even for many business travelers.
- around_here 8y ago
  The issue here is that they're cutting away from what was actually the standard before in order to create something "premium". What used to be "economy" is now "premium economy" with a price hike, and now "economy" is something that was made deliberately worse.
  - Zanni 8y ago
    That's an issue, true. And it's a frustrating state of affairs. But it's not in keeping with the theme of the article. I think the author is hinting at the idea that "premium" economy is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, and that people who pay for it are being suckered into paying for pseudo-prestige because of the "premium" label. But unlike the other examples they cite, premium economy is actually better.
    - 8y ago

Nasrudith 8y ago

There is so much wrong with this article it isn't funny. The lack of self awareness is enough that Eugene could flunk a Turing test and would be complained about as lousy writing if he was placed in a movie. The whole damn point of the Fashion Industry is to fabricate an experience of luxury and exclusivity in the first place! Otherwise they would just be commodity textiles with a far smaller margin - the ones any early developing country can produce with a little bit of investment. Then there is the frankly incoherent bashing of millennials for not spending money on the "real high end" while complaining about them splurging and calling them entitled. Look do you want them to buy your overpriced crap or to join the list of victim entitled industries "killed by millennials"? From a guy who feels entitled to profits at a large mark up, and setting the standards of taste for everbody. Who feels the place of the customer is to serve the merchant. Talk about projecting like IMAX.... As for why the fashion signaling niche has been taken up by logoed commodities: tt is the economy stupid. It is no wonder people are going for an accessible "high end" when essential expenses and debts related to them are high. People splurge a bit for mental health - done within their means it can be healthy even. Plus even those who are better off can get dirty looks for conspicious consumption outside a sufficently matched setting - and not even in an envious sour grapes way like "I would totally get a Tesla/Buggaratti if I could afford it." but "What kind of asshole spends $50k on a handbag when even $500 is overkill? That is more than my car!".

wisdomoftheages 8y ago

This reminded me of a classic essay on how a lot of "luxury" branding is meant to appeal, not to the true elite (the kind of people who are born with seven or more figures in a trust fund and / or live off capital gains), but to the aspirations of professional-class strivers (lawyers, doctors, advertising directors, software engineers, etc.): https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_...

reidjs 8y ago
That was a really interesting read. I embarrassingly have never thought deeply about how marketing or branding works to manipulate the viewer in very subtle ways. I think I’m starting to understand why some serious money is put towards advertising budgets.
- o_____________o 8y ago
  Do yourself a favor and watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
  - reidjs 8y ago
    Hey thanks! I actually found it on youtube if anyone else is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04

kochikame 8y ago

I have to take issue with the inclusion of "craft beer" in the list of examples of "premium mediocre" at the top of the article. There is certainly "fake" craft beer, made by the macro beverage companies that is designed to basically trick people into shelling out more because they believe they are buying into some premium category. It's classic aspirational stuff all built around marketing. But then... well, there's all the REAL craft beer, which is (for want of a better word) crafted, made with care, creativity and in an environment of independence and experimentation. This stuff is genuinely good, or can be (sometimes experiments fail and this is fine), and like indie movements in music, art and literature deserves to be celebrated as an authentic expression of human endeavor. So don't buy Goose, buy Revolution. Don't buy Elysian, buy New Glory. Go see what your local brewery is making. Better still, make some yourself and see how you like it. Don't order "$25 signature burgers" from those places with all the trappings of the hipster movement but are actually owned by investment banks, order them from your local places that're actually doing it for themselves. It's not that hard to tell the difference usually. I guess I agree with the article in the final analysis because I hate to see big companies ripping the genuine creativity out of grassroots/artisanal scenes and turning it into a shadow of itself for profit.

seliopou 8y ago
“Craft beer” as far as I can tell just means overhopped. There’s nothing crafty about it beside swindling people into overpaying for something that tastes like acetone smells. So I think this article was spot on by including it.
- eveningcoffee 8y ago
  Regardless of its taste, craft beer movement started as class root movement by beer enthusiasts to make more individual beer in small quantities and has been very experimental (in places where it flourishes) and has produced really unique tastes and flavours. So the GP is correct. See also https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths I think that the main issue is the knowledge about the real value is very hard to obtain and this gives the marketeers an upper hand to flood the marked with the fake information.

DenisM 8y ago

Ok, so if you can't rely on the price to signify quality, what can you rely on? Where does one go to purchase a pair of shoes that will endure? The best I came up with so far is using Wirecutter reviews. This way I discovered, for instance, where to buy treat-quality bedding and towels, but it doesn't cover anywhere near the spectrum of things that I need. Sometimes I find something good and they stop making it a year later.

bartread 8y ago
> Where does one go to purchase a pair of shoes that will endure? There are some fairly strong indicators in the construction of a pair of shoes that bear witness to quality (or not): an upper stitched to the sole is generally better than one that is glued, for example.
- ValentineC 8y ago
  Adding on: I believe the keyword to look for is usually known as a "Goodyear welt".
- around_here 8y ago
  Where are you getting runners stitched to the sole?

tsunamifury 8y ago

On the other hand, genuinely premium brands like Brunello Cucinelli stay quiet and do provide high quality, but at a price no one can afford. For those in the know, the namesake CEO is in tight with the Silicon Valley power players. Mark Zuckerberg trademark hoodies are made by Brunello, as are most of the Apple, Salesforce, and various other major tech companies wardrobes. Unlike what this writer believes, even billionaires signal, but it’s far more subtle.