Branding is the reason I bought my IPod.

It's the idea of being part of some kind of cool subculture. When I traveled to the mecca of culture (NYC) recently I saw IPods everywhere. Even though I didn't have it with me it made me feel good knowing I had one as soon as I got home I could also put on my white headphones.

All it is is just an MP3 player, so why did I spend $400 on that thing? It's about the brand.

Another argument of the amazing price point is the abundance of counterfeits you mention, not unlike the idea that shoplifting also drives the cost of goods up.

What about the designers, artists, musicians and even the corporate entities that own, distribute and would receive royalties for these goods? I don't think $700 is any more justified than a $10K watch. But purchasing these “nearly-original” copies has spawned a massive underground industry that strips the creators of their rights.

The desire to re-gift stolen or counterfeit items and finish your holiday list in one fell swoop is tempting indeed, but what if that hand bag, cd, or watch was your design? Are we part of the problem?

Hence my original purchase of my Swatch watches (Yes, I did wear two at one time). It was at the time, the watch to have if you were hip and cool.

And though it's not as hip as it once was, I still wear one (And just one). Which probably makes me less hip and cool but hey, ya know, I've got kids. And that's the coolest brand of all.

An interesting read for the holidays...

Ah, Christmas. It brings out the best in us. Think I don't recognize a little holiday freakout when i see one? David, I think you're experiencing what happens to me every time I leave my stupid island of greenery and go into the city. "Ahhhhh! Too much stuff! What's it all for? Why do people live this way?" etc. Relax, spend a little time perusing the LV store and soon—very soon—it will all seem normal. The ringing of jangly bells will recede into the background, Christmas carols will melt into your subconscious, and soon you will buy a $400 wallet (nearly half the price of the bag, after all).

You are getting sleepy ... very sleepy ...

Look again. Perhaps not so ugly after all.

i don't want to be an apologist for Canal Street, but in the case of fake-Vuitton bags, the counterfitting surreptitiously works in the favor of the creator.

It's safe to say that the vast majority of the fake bag purchasers would not (or could not) consider purchasing the real, $700 bag. Louis Vuitton does not loses as much sales as they would like you to believe.

The counterfit industry also helps fetishize the real item, which in turn allows Louis Vuitton to validate charging as much as they do for the item. The real bag becomes even more special and coveted because of the imitation.

By the way, the fake bag has become a trend in and of itself. In the New York Times last week, one of those "people on the street" style articles featured people who bought fake bags and altered them to make the fact that they were fake more noticeable. One woman actually painted the word FAKE on the bag. It's almost a type of consumer protest.

The same can't be said for the recording, movie, or font distribution industries. In those cases, you are talking about content-based product in which the "fake" and the "real" are identical poducts. The illegality in this case is more about distribution, not strictly lesser-quality knock-offs.

I do feel this conversation is getting old. The same argument can be made accross the board.

The Branding Law of Quality

Does the LV bag carry items better than the coach bag or the steven madden bag or even the 15 dollar bags women can buy at walmart - no

Does the Mont Blanc pen right better than the uniball pen sold at office depot -no

Does Coke taste better than Pepsi - not according to any taste test

The list can go on and on, the truth is that if the brand is smart enough and strong enough to doop people in to buying its product, then it deserves every penny it gets

> Walking Muffy on Park Avenue.

For which, of course, you need the $1,340.00 matching pet carrier.

My favorite gotta-have-it-Vuitton-craze is when they brought in Takashi Murakami's flowery patterns and printed it on top of the original pattern. LV has to be doing something right to create such demand. Superficial, but that's branding at its best. Or worst?

> Are we part of the problem?

Is that a rhetoric question?

> Does the Mont Blanc pen right better than the uniball pen sold at office depot?

No, but it lefts quite nicely. Sorry, couldn't help it.

The idea isn't going over very well with their Marketing Department, but I'm still trying to talk the folks at Elvis Presley Enterprises into launching an Elvis line of pharmaceuticals. That TCB lightening bolt logo on a Percodan has got to offer plenty of added intangible value.

And Tan, for the record, I do believe in Pixie Dust and Santa Claus.

To back up STEVE K arguement:

My fiance and I were in Paris about 2 months ago. While there we ran into a couple from Singapore. They asked us to go in and buy two LV wallets for them so they wouldn't have to pay taxes on them(they had already bought about ten). They seemed like nice people, so we helped them out. Later we found out that real LV products sell for two to three times as much in Singapore as they do in Europe or in the States. Counterfeit bags are sold in shops in singapore, driving up the price of the authentic bags

The counterfit industry also helps fetishize the real item

True enough - I've argued both points. The street buyers are generally not the Nordstrom ones out looking for a deal. On the surface American culture seems to ratchet consumerism up a few more notches. However, Prada hand bags on the streets of Italy run about the same price as the LV bags in NYC... but then again, maybe they are also there for the American tourists. The infringement issues are the ones that sting the most.

I think you can blame everything on MTV ;), but Daniel is right - Might as well ride the brandwave while its high.

Takashi Murakami's flowery patterns

Flat is where it's at.

So, what are you buying for seven hundred dollars?

Dave, LV is soo 1999! The reason the bags are so expensive is that French Union Labour is not cheap... Just kidding though, luxury has nothing to do with function and value as we all know.

Not that I'm an expert on bags or anything, but Mandarina Duck has some interesting stuff.

//. Let's face it ... as a society ... as an industry of designers ... as human beings ... we brand everything. we are all brand whores.

As much as I hate to admit it, everything I own either is a brand, or is derivative of a brand; made using other brands. And yes, I too pride myself on balancing between mainstream style and indie originality.

Music that is no longer good once it hits the radio or TRL.Thrift store clothing to look vintage. Urban outfitters to look like thrift store / Tokyo shiek. The BP gasoline I put in my American-made with-parts-from-Japan and German-engineered, Environmentally-friendly(ish) car. My morning cup of Earl Grey. My Diet soda with lunch.

My life is a web of one brand to another. Even my moment of original creation ... my design ... my art ... all made possible by Apple Computers, Adobe, Minolta ... down to my Pilot pen and my Moleskin sketch book.

My entire person is a collage of brands. My Dirty-South childhood, my Fine Art education, my West Coast vacations, my favorite Mies building, my studio job, My Wicker Park neighborhood, my Chicago nightlife. So what now?

Hello, my name is Gray and I am a Brand-oholic.

//.

It's safe to say that the vast majority of the fake bag purchasers would not (or could not) consider purchasing the real, $700 bag.

(Cue commertial)

Can't afford Louis Vittoun or Dolce & Gabbana's latest purses?

Do you want the latest fashion, but can't be seen with a Canal Street knock-off?

There's a business for every consumer need...

Bag Borrow or Steal will help you out! You can "borrow" the latest Gucci purse (for a monthly fee).

Categories are Tendsetter ($19.95 per mo.), Princess ($45.95 per mo.), or Diva ($99.95 per mo.) This will set you back $240-$1,200 annually. You will receive 1 purse a month, which you have selected from the website. Great if you are a slave to fashion but don't want to commit your savings for just one item.

So, what are you buying for seven hundred dollars?

I'd rather spent that money on a trip to France and have an experience; rather than purchase a LV bag that looks like (forgive me) a TURD!

I've secretly started working with the Louis Vuitton company to do sort of a cow head just like that AFLAC duck on their new line of LV patterns - talk about two threads working into one! Cow heads alternating with flowers and that LV logo: gold leaf on brown, of course. I think there were rumours of TV commercials using that Gilbert guy too! I'm not supposed to be blurting out corporate secrets, but since ya'll are discussing this....

Sorry David, not to split hairs, but I don't think this LV example is as much about Brand as it is about Fashion.

Branding is about creating familiarity and product relevance with consumers. Yes, it's also about creating desire, but I don't think your extreme example is really about branding per se.

Fashion can be defined as the style characteristic of the social elite. It's a prevailing style or custom, as in dress or behavior that's brand dependent, but is specific to things we wear and adorn as human beings.

To use your examples, "The NY Times" may be considered fashionable, but it's a newspaper brand. On the other hand, Louis Vuitton is a well-known brand, but its strength and power comes from its desirability as fashion. My point is that not all brands have the power of fashion.

IMHO.

The list can go on and on, the truth is that if the brand is smart enough and strong enough to doop people in to buying its product, then it deserves every penny it gets

-I guess that's the on-going question between designers today. Do we use our skills to produce a brand that ignites mass consumerism or do we allow ourselves to step back and notice that there are enough bags in the world already?

Thanks David for the fun post.

We don't brand anything. We build, typeset, assemble, produce, but we don't brand. We influence, argue, persuade, lure, but we don't brand.

The branding happens inside the heads of the people. They see, evaluate, and drop everything into little categories inside their heads. I imagine some tiny little buckets called "cool," "uncool," "bargain," "value," "popular" and "not-popular."

Think of the wisdom of Suess and his Sneeches.

Let me be ideallistic and say that if a product or service bases its "brand" on truth and reality, and they truly have something to offer the proverbial they, then the brand will grow in value and can be sold at a premium price. I personally buy into the Apple brand. And so far they haven't disappointed me. Nordstrom too — I expect to be treated like I'm important at Nordstrom — so far so good. I hypothesize that somewhere in history the $700 bag maker had something that was of true value to their customers. They made their customers happy — as that happiness grew and spread, the value of the brand increased in the heads of the customers. Now the friggin' things are $700.

Unfortunately brands based on happy customers are not always the case. I think of certain brands that promise they can make a person into a rugged cowboy, yet the truth is they just turn their trusting consumers into nicotine prisoners. Or companies that claim they love to see me smile, yet it seems more likely that they love to see me fat.

So when someone asks me to "brand" them I just dig for the truth. What is it about my client that will make customers happy? What expectation should I help my client set? If I can find those nuggets of info, I have good shot at making sure the brand that the public creates will be accurate and valuable. When a client comes to me and I can't find that nugget of truth or value I'll still take the job (I've gotta eat) but I try to get paid ASAP because I worry about how long they're going to last.

I don't think this LV example is as much about Brand as it is about Fashion.

Whatz the difference. Fashion is established by brands. The ipod has established itself as a strong brand, the strong brand increased sales, lots of people have ipods now, so it has become fashionable. This is the same with BMW, Gucci, Rolex, A&F, the list goes on and on.

The branding happens inside the heads of the people. They see, evaluate, and drop everything into little categories inside their heads. I imagine some tiny little buckets called "cool," "uncool," "bargain," "value," "popular" and "not-popular."

sheepstealer-what a great way to think about branding. I never thought of it like that. I guess the synopsis of branding is easy to understand when someone puts it into its simplest form.

well done!

I don't think this LV example is as much about Brand as it is about Fashion.

Whatz the difference.

Once again, we (as folks in the visual arts) all seem to have random definitions of the term 'brand'.

It makes conversations like this rather difficult as we all end up talking about different things even though we're all using the same word.

LV bag that looks like (forgive me) a TURD!

Ha, haaa, haaa...

So, what are you buying for seven hundred dollars?

Envy.

Branding is about creating familiarity and

product relevance with consumers. Yes, it's also

about creating desire, but I don't think your

extreme example is really about branding per se.

Fashion can be defined as the

style characteristic of the social elite.

It's a prevailing style or custom, as

in dress or behavior that's brand dependent,

but is specific to things we wear and

adorn as human beings.

I think Daniel B brought up an

interesting counter-point. Take for

example two pair of jeans, both

having the same style -the "stressed out" look.

One is from Gap.

One is from Diesel.

Both share the same style.

Yet, Diesel carrys a higher

social status than the Gap pair.

With the LV bag, there are tons

of other brands which make bags similar

in appearance & quality to LV.

However, LV carrys prominence because

they are considered more prestigious -the brand.

If you go to Kohls vs. Nordstrom,

they all carry the same kinds of fashions/styles..

Nordstrom carries better

brands than Kohls though...

I think this is what the discussion is all about.

Not Fashion, but the power of Brands

to command so much more $$ and status

over similar brands of the same style.

So who or what decides which

styles are going to be fashionable?

Sometimes Brands do..

Sometimes, a famous designer..

Other times the underground does...

Within a week,

EVERYBODY

looks like each other...

Social elitists in order to seperate

themselves from the common man, demand

the "better" brand.

That is why people shell out $700 bucks

for a $70 bag.

>Whatz the difference

There is a difference — the desire for the LV brand is a desire to be fashionable, and yes, that does apply to a number of brands, from BMW to iPods.

But that's not the motivating factor for all brands. Campbell's soup and Nabisco are brands that aren't about fashion or being fashionable. Neither is Ford, or Hershey's, or Cingular, or Unilever, or millions of other brands.

This general discussion about "the Power of Brands" has no purpose or clear resolution — I was attempting to define this particular example in a tighter perspective. In this case, we're all talking about a $700 purse, or in other words, a fashion product.

But if you don't or can't see the difference, then that's fine by me.

You know? I wasn't going to say anything, because I'm rather embarrased… I wanted to buy Bryony a fake LV bag at Canal Street, so when I paid for the bag they gave me a "brand new one" covered in a black plastic bag, I didn't look inside it because I get freaked out at these black market counterfeit places. When I got home, I noticed I was totally duped:

I love Photoshop.

Armin, good one. Last year called…

Tan, although this is a "fashion product," people don't buy it because of fashion. They buy it because of the associations that they make with the bag and that other people make with them. They"ll look established but not fashionable.

This general discussion about "the Power of Brands" has no purpose or clear resolution

You are right, and I too was focusing on this one, single product. What I find remarkable is that this is a highly sought after product which sells for a lot of money but is essentially ugly. That's amazing to me especially because this is a fashion product. Can you think of other examples of this phenomenon? (Food that tastes horrible yet is served at the most exclusive restaurant, etc.) That is the power of a brand.

What I find remarkable is that this is a highly sought after product which sells for a lot of money but is essentially ugly. That's amazing to me especially because this is a fashion product. Can you think of other examples of this phenomenon? (Food that tastes horrible yet is served at the most exclusive restaurant, etc.) That is the power of a brand.

Well, lets not confuse style with design (Oh go, am I really saying this?). In comparison, I personally find caviar (sp?) to be vile, but it is expensive and considered a delicacy by many.

I dont find the brown/gold as nearly repulsing as the black/muti-colored purses, but I dont find much wrong with the repititious nature of it. I claim no high-brow aesthetic in the fashion world, but I find a lot of runway shows to be ugly, stylistically. Does that mean they are poorly designed? Maybe, but a lot of "experts" in the fashion industry would disagree.

> Armin, good one. Last year called…

Oh yeah? The Jerk-store called, and they are running out of you. Yeah, yeah, I know… Lame joke, but it was right there…

Anyway. A good point has been raised about the fine line between good branding and sought-after fashion. There are many similarities between them, the most glaring is that both can imbue a sense of urging need, desire and some form odd trust: buying an iPod fulfills both fashion and brand.

>Tan, although this is a "fashion product," people don't buy it because of fashion.

Of course they do David. They don't buy it to eat it. They don't buy it as a financial service, or medicine, or a way to lose weight. They buy it as a fashion item, meaning that it's a brand that's worn or adorned that personifies expression and self-image.

I do hear what you're saying, and do agree to much extent. But with fashion, branding has its own unique set of perceptions, triggers, etc.

But enough about the damn bag —�let's talk about your other point of value perception.

>What I find remarkable is that this is a highly sought after product which sells for a lot of money but is essentially ugly. Can you think of other examples of this phenomenon?

I think Rolls-Royces and Bentleys are just hideous examples of automotive designs. Bloated, gaudy, Euro-trash boxes on wheels for a quarter of a million dollars...But I wouldn't say no if someone gave me one....

I'm trying to think of something other than fashion, but having a hard time.

Whatabout Julia Roberts? Does she fit this category?....

I recently spent 2 months in Japan--tokyo,kyoto,osaka, you name it, I was there. Funny thing is, Japanese people are the biggest fashion whores in the WORLD. They love Louis Vuitton too. But here is the catch. They pay, get this, 2 TIMES as much as we do for LV stuff. That's right, not just $700 Freakin' Dollars, $1400 Freaking Dollars (and I'm being fare with the conversion, it's probably more like $1800, more than 2x). Try that on for size.

But wait, theres more... Not just women cary these things, men, POSTAL WORKERS, EVERYBODY HAS A F***ING LOUIS VUITTON BAG IN JAPAN!!! It's crazy. Absolutely crazy.

Prestige is associated with just about everything. Whether it is the flashy Tag Heuer watch on your wrist, the $50 Billabong shirt on your back, or the $700 Louis Vuitton bag on your arm, if you have it then you stand a wider chance of being accepted. It is the same thing with housing: location, location, location. Prestige and popularity are all percieved to stem from these kind of things.

The richer you are, the better you dress, the posher your house, the better the suburb, the better person you must be.

Right?

My immediate response to that absorbent price tag is that it is yet again a prevalent reminder to the stark economic disparities in this county.

Louis Vuitton is connected to the luxury of travel, that is the essence of the brand. The modern day upgrade by Takashi Murakami is tandem to the commercialization of art � la 2000 New York City Cow Parade…

When market mechanisms dominate the process of creativity it destroys the integrity of the art. As much as I did love the work of Takashi (think of his wonderful balloons) his iconic style seems now in a state of decay less whimsical and more spoiled rotten.

LV once stood for innovation in travel—think about old world sea travel—the mayflower... Then think about luxury liners and steamer trunks... The gilded age of the titanic, sinking in the cold Atlantic…

The age of conspicuous consumption is yet upon us but as the public pendulum swings, it too shall soon befall us…

Long Live the Revolution!

Tan has made a few statements which need addressing:

> Branding is about creating familiarity and product relevance with consumers. Yes, it's also about creating desire, but I don't think your extreme example is really about branding per se.

Fashion can be defined as the style characteristic of the social elite. It's a prevailing style or custom, as in dress or behavior that's brand dependent, but is specific to things we wear and adorn as human beings.

then:

> But that's not the motivating factor for all brands. Campbell's soup and Nabisco are brands that aren't about fashion or being fashionable. Neither is Ford, or Hershey's, or Cingular, or Unilever, or millions of other brands.

This general discussion about "the Power of Brands" has no purpose or clear resolution — I was attempting to define this particular example in a tighter perspective. In this case, we're all talking about a $700 purse, or in other words, a fashion product.

Fashion is an area of signification; a way of indicating difference between people. And most importantly, it is a neutral activity in that anyone can engage in it regardless of social position. It can be as simple as letting your jeans hang half off your ass or as complex as haute couture.

Fashion is commonly thought of as being specific to clothing, but can also be used to describe all sorts of things — cars, frisbees, typefaces...

Fashion has a motivation, and in an abstract sense I suspect it's the same motivation behind branding. Fashion and branding are ways of addressing (and signifying) humanity's needs: socialization, security, companionship, growth... They help us determine who we want to be, how we want to live and our associations.

Branding and fashion could be considered languages. They have grammar, context, vocabulary and creativity. Their roles in society are as building blocks in the larger metalinguistic activity known as Culture, or as Barthes would say, Myth — described in this classic diagram from his Mythologies:

Branding has a role in fashion. Chances are good that Alexander McQueen's collections will never, ever look like Ralph Lauren's, and Martin Marigela probably isn't planning to do a tuxedo that looks like something Bill Blass would wear. Each of their collections will be different from season to season; but not too different.

Fashion has a role in branding. Coke's range of flavors addresses the whims of fashion, yet they dare not fiddle with the basic formula. The UPC comb-over looks more like 'today' than 'yesterday'. The demands of making one brand different than another — in a constantly changing marketplace — suggest that the winds of fashion blow through Interbrand just as strongly as they do through my studio.

I am quite amazed that two of the most active branding advocates, David and Tan, dismiss the Louis Vuitton brand as mere fashion. Is this the exception that proves the suspicions about branding?

If you go to the LVMH (the parent company) website, they state their brands goals as "to represent the most refined qualities of Western 'Art de Vivre' around the world. LVMH must continue to be synonymous with both elegance and creativity. Our products, and the cultural values they embody, blend tradition and innovation, and kindle dream and fantasy."

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable goal — and probably similar to Starbucks or BMW.

How do they achieve that goal? Well, if you read on:

> Group companies pay the closest attention to every detail and ensure the utter perfection of their products. They symbolize the nobility and perfection of traditional craftsmanship. Each and every one of the objects their customers buy and use exemplifies our brands' tradition of impeccable quality. Never should Group companies disappoint, but rather continue to surprise their customers with the quality, endurance, and finish of their products. They never compromise when it comes to product quality.

Their search for excellence go well beyond the simple quality of their products: it encompasses the layout and location of our stores, the display of the items they offer, their ability to make their customers feel welcome as soon as they enter our stores... All around them, their clients see nothing but quality.

I guess that explains the price tag.

Finally, I have to admonish all of you who are flabbergasted at the cost of a Louis Vuitton bag. They're designed by designers and made by craftsmen in a manner more artisinal than your average "LiveStrong" yellow bracelet. How can you so easily dismiss the value of an experienced leather tanner and still think you're not paid enough? The people who sew these bags, do so by hand. Does your printer print each sheet in the same way?

Respect for the design profession is established mutually — with our clients, the customer and with other professionals. We don't have to love everything they do; but begrudging the value of a service, which has been established on the open market, can come around and bite you in your droopy-jeaned ass.

a-F***ing-men

"I am quite amazed that two of the most active branding advocates, David and Tan, dismiss the Louis Vuitton brand as mere fashion."

Mark, I'm pretty sure that I did say, "although this is a "fashion product," people don't buy it because of fashion." and " Louis Vuitton is a great BRAND." Am I reading one of our statements incorrectly?

"Finally, I have to admonish all of you who are flabbergasted at the cost of a Louis Vuitton bag. They're designed by designers and made by craftsmen in a manner more artisinal than your average "LiveStrong" yellow bracelet. How can you so easily dismiss the value of an experienced leather tanner and still think you're not paid enough? The people who sew these bags, do so by hand. Does your printer print each sheet in the same way?"

Good point and I wasn't thinking about things in this way. $700 is actually quite reasonable in relation to what a designer charges for a finished piece. However, with great brands, you are paying for the associations as much as the product. Coming from your post of LVMH material:

• represent the most refined qualities of Western 'Art de Vivre' around the world

• synonymous with both elegance and creativity

• the cultural values they embody, blend tradition and innovation, and kindle dream and fantasy.

• They symbolize the nobility and perfection of traditional craftsmanship

• exemplifies our brands' tradition of impeccable quality

"Respect for the design profession is established mutually — with our clients, the customer and with other professionals. We don't have to love everything they do; but begrudging the value of a service, which has been established on the open market, can come around and bite you in your droopy-jeaned ass."

Is a LV bag a service?

My point does not dismiss the value of branding or expertise of professionals or material, it elevates them. Again, my point is that despite these bags being ugly, this is an extremely successful product due to a great brand. That brand includes the expectation of expert craftsmen and flawless materials in addition to all of the heritage and nobility associations. $700 bags are fine, lots of products are expensive. But hey, can it look nice too?

Hey, maybe I am wrong. It is possible. No one has yet said that they love these bags and they're absolutely gorgeous. Maybe I have bad taste and people do buy these for looks. It's possible, but sometimes brand carries most of the weight.

I love the Dallas Cowboys. I like hanging out with fellow Cowboys fans. I like buying the apparel and watching them play on TV and boy are those cheerleaders attractive. And although their players are world-class athletes and they have the best, most well respected coach in the game, they are a BAD team and they're not going to win any Super Bowls again for a while. On top of that, none of the current players were on the team when I initially became a fan. Ticket prices sure don't go down during losing seasons and the players don't get paid less. I still love the Cowboys. What's left besides the brand?

Ron H’s comment is:

Branding is the reason I bought my IPod.

It's the idea of being part of some kind of cool subculture. When I traveled to the mecca of culture (NYC) recently I saw IPods everywhere. Even though I didn't have it with me it made me feel good knowing I had one as soon as I got home I could also put on my white headphones.

All it is is just an MP3 player, so why did I spend $400 on that thing? It's about the brand.

Well... the branding sure helped convince me to buy an ipod, and I'm one of the pod people wandering the streets of NYC...but fundamentally, I bought it because it really is the BEST mp3 player out there, in terms of functionality, stability, features etc. I have yet to see a competitor come close.

It doesn't get much more luxurious then this. These are from my archive that I found at Wooster Collective some time ago.

Not just women cary these things, men, POSTAL WORKERS, EVERYBODY HAS A F***ING LOUIS VUITTON BAG IN JAPAN!!! It's crazy. Absolutely crazy.

sick as this is, it makes me think of early Native Americans who we see dipicted wearing one or two pieces of patriot army getup - wearing them incorrectly or from the wrong gender - and not caring because of what it is, what it means.

how terrible. you know, when i read these threads i feel so much smarter when i'm done... and then i saw those pictures. and i can sense the IQ points slipping... slipping...

you know what i think when i see these bags? there are children in rwanda who make their homes out of mud, and i consider buying the new apple iPod. pouring my meager resources into a brand that i "love."

every time i see one of those purses, i'm amazed that there's even a market AND a counterfit market for them. what a waste of resources. i mean, good craft is good craft, i'm sure the purses are good purses... but $700 is not the only cost we're talking about.

> Mark, I'm pretty sure that I did say, "although this is a "fashion product," people don't buy it because of fashion." and " Louis Vuitton is a great BRAND." Am I reading one of our statements incorrectly?

No you're not David. Am I reading this one incorrectly?

> Seven Hundred F***ing Dollars! People buy bags for seven hundred dollars?

You asked if the LV bag is a service — in a way, yes. LVMH supplies lifestyle products and specifically, Louis Vuitton sells clothing and other pieces of luggage.

David, looking nice in your eyes is irrelevant. The people who love the bags aren't likely to be trolling on a design blog, they're having lunch at the Regency. And I guess in a way, that helps clear up any controversy about whether the UPS logo is ugly or not... It ain't meant for us to like it.

Michael Surtees, that Escalade in LV drag is a rolling advertisement. I see the Escalade as hip-hop bling — at least here in NYC. Tommy Hillfiger was enormously successful in expanding his line into the black market; and LVMH would be derelict if they didn't do the same.

> every time i see one of those purses, i'm amazed that there's even a market AND a counterfit market for them. what a waste of resources. i mean, good craft is good craft, i'm sure the purses are good purses... but $700 is not the only cost we're talking about.

In the scope of things, I would guess that all the music CDs we listen to use up more natural resources than all the Louis Vuitton bags in the world. The manufacturing process for our computers probably pollutes worse than the one that makes champagne.

> Again, my point is that despite these bags being ugly

I thought judging design (fashion or whatever) on personal tastes — and that dreaded subjectivity — was not constructive. I better call Last Year back.

In the scope of things, I would guess that all the music CDs we listen to use up more natural resources than all the Louis Vuitton bags in the world.

good point - and makes iTunes that much better.

The manufacturing process for our computers probably pollutes worse than the one that makes champagne.

that may or may not be true, but i'd say that computers add more funtion and good to our society than a handmade purse. i'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you, but i'd say that particular example has a flawed premise when putting it back into the scope of the original argument.

don't take me too seriously, now. i'm just as guilty of this as anyone else. i'm not trying to preach - i was just sharing that that's what literally goes through my mind when i see a LV bag, or a hummer, or other needlessly overdone things.

M Kingsley Wrote:

"In the scope of things, I would guess that all the music CDs we listen to use up more natural resources than all the Louis Vuitton bags in the world. The manufacturing process for our computers probably pollutes worse than the one that makes champagne. "

All too true...the computer industry isnt even remotely green...

Next time you buy a new computer, you should consider the cost to the environment of the faster and more powerful chip in the box, say researchers.

A study by a team at the United Nations University in Tokyo has found that, weight for weight, the average computer chip does more harm to the environment than the car.

The manufacture of the tiny, wafer-thin slivers of silicon leaves behind a mountain of waste.

"In order to produce one memory chip that weighs two grams, the total amount of materials and fossil fuels required to make that chip is 1,400 grams. That's 700 times the weight of the original chip," said Dr Eric Williams.

bbc link

Mark — I didn't mean to dismiss LV's branding as mere fashion, because I recognize that branding plays a significant part of fashion, and vice-versa.

My original post was to state that fashion, and for that matter most luxury goods, have a unique relationship to branding that's different from food, services, or non-retail products and entities.

But everyone seemed to group branding into one big lump for the usual SU brand bashing party. Rhetorics like "the Power of Brand" gets thrown around, and before you know it, the crowd is ready to lynch anyone who pays retail and drives an SUV.

The value of high-priced fashion and luxury goods is brand dependent, but high brand awareness is not the sole trigger for purchase and valuation. In fact, some of the most expensive luxury items in the world — like jewelry, yachts, jets, etc. — have very low brand recognition. Those types of items are bought based on their individually perceived value, not the power of their brands.

And yes, cost is a relative thing. We gasp at a $700 purse when there are those that will gasp at a $70 purse.

Speaking of skewed pc brand values.

I've heard that most Toyota Prius buyer thinks they are making a F-you statement to every Hummer buyer with their purchase. The brand is embraced as an ecological beacon for others to follow.

But the fact is, Toyota sells the Prius at an enormous loss in order to raise their corporate CAFE standard. The CAFE standard measures fuel consumption across every car that a manufacturer makes and takes the average — and that average has to meet a federal standard for fuel efficiency or else the maker is subject to hefty fines and tariffs. So for every Prius that Toyota sells, they are able to sell a handful more of their SUVs like the Sequioa, LandCruiser, and 4Runner, and still meet CAFE standard. So in fact, every Prius sold makes possible the sale of several large SUVs.

How's that for twisted?

Another interesting note about the Prius: It's fuel consumption is actually higher (and performance poorer) than a small car with a diesel engine, like a Volkswagen Lupo. Of course, models like this are mostly only available in Europe.

For sake of this discussion regarding the value and place of branding / fashion (I won't distinguish the two and they are highly related). I will echo the sentiments of M. Kingsley stating that both brand and fashion seek to delineate products, services, and entities with connotations of their social, material attributes and qualities.

This is aside from a more personalized sensibility of aesthetic, Yes, Louis Vitton does speak to an old world extravagance that is clearly not popular amoungst the folks in this discussion. It would be incorrect to read its message as interpreted by the BoBo's, designistas, and product-as-actual-value realist/materialist/socialists. The heart of LV is truly the contemporary bourgeois / aristocrat crowd, and those pursuing after those values. Which may speak to forementioned "hip hop" nod to LV (for more, read Naomi Klein's No Logo where she speaks of the White fetishization of the black aesthetic and the black fetishization of white wealth).

While I cannot judge the value of the craftsmanship of the development and maintenance of the LV brand (I think Clayton describes it well, though I must respond, spoiled rotten... isn't that the point?) I can have a personal opinion in regards to it's value within my own perspective. That is a different discussion onto itself,

At last I must challenge M. Kingsley's notion of the fashion and brand as "open-market" democritization. Sure, folks subscribing to a millenial hip hop aesthetic can purchase a Gucci or LV, or bentley, right up next to his fellow consumer subscribing to perhaps a more bourgeous or aristocratic sensibility, but in what sense is that *truly* democritizing... on a social level... on a political level...

yes challenging market proven fashion and brand trends *can* get your rear end bitten... in this *one nation under the market* America (or world for the matter)... but the question might be, who is your rear serving while being or not being bitten...

hmmmmm.

> At last I must challenge M. Kingsley's notion of the fashion and brand as "open-market" democritization. Sure, folks subscribing to a millenial hip hop aesthetic can purchase a Gucci or LV, or bentley, right up next to his fellow consumer subscribing to perhaps a more bourgeous or aristocratic sensibility, but in what sense is that *truly* democritizing... on a social level... on a political level...

Ruben, you must have made your Marxism teacher very proud. Unfortunately, you're putting words in my mouth. All I was doing was sketching out how fashion and branding, as entities, function in comparison to each other and within culture as a whole. The exercise was merely descriptive and intended to clarify some muddy definitions in use.

Fashion is an area of signification which anyone can engage in, regardless of economic status. Tribesmen in New Guinea sometimes wear long reed sheaths (a couple feet long) over their penises, balding investment bankers drive Navigators — the means are different, but the signification of umm... 'compensation' is the same.

Branding is a method of engaging consumer emotions. The method is mainly a way of thinking about crafting a message. While it would certainly help to have a multi-million dollar ad budget behind you, I suspect that some hobo somewhere could eventually brand himself. Like fashion, it's an issue of creativity.

Money changes how you participate; but fashion and branding, as ideas, are neutral.

Issues of what such a method is (jury's still out for me), why you would want to brand something (aka critique of capitalism) or the sociological/political/environmental ramifications are different, less neutral, discussions.

The discussion about value was another topic — signified by the word "Finally" followed by a comma — addressing those who feel 700 dollars is too much for a bag.

If you work as a designer in America chances are quite high that you're working in a capitalist system. And unless you're independently wealthy, you probably need money. Carping about how expensive a 'designer' item is gets you nowhere except to make you look bitter and inhibit your potential earnings. It also undermines your own position as a design professional.

> yes challenging market proven fashion and brand trends *can* get your rear end bitten... in this *one nation under the market* America (or world for the matter)....

Once again you're (awkwardly) putting words in my mouth.

I know where you're coming from, and to some degree I share your idealistic tendencies. But the issue at hand is LVMH's ability to create desire. If we understand that, then perhaps it could be appropriated by the No Logo crowd.

In idealism-land, the future's always bright.

M thanks for indulging me with a reply, and of course none of this is personal. I agree with you wholeheartedly on all of above said points and if I seem idealistic and militantly at that, it is for sake of discourse. In particular this is a thought I might sit on for a while.

>gets you nowhere except to make you look bitter and inhibit your potential earnings. It also undermines your own position as a design professional.

you'll note that I specifically did not challenge the value of LV's craftsman ship and branding particularly because of your first point, however I had not thought at all about the second point in this statement.

Might we, not necessarily contest the value of the LV brand (for which the results are clearly proven), but challenge the notions that the brand rests on? Afterall, (and this was barely scratched in this discussion) doesn't LV's being well established with the fashionistas, their patronizing LV and nepotizing LV? or am I wrong?

If this is the case, what was it that LV as a brand do to tie itself so closely, was it the uniqueness of its aesthetic (nothing else can ever be LV? some in this forum would say... yeah LV is *special*)? Is it politics (how well it treats and maintain ties with its patrons).

Also, is the reaganomic (trickle down effect) of fashion carry with all consumer brands... branding in general...

> Might we, not necessarily contest the value of the LV brand ... ... but challenge the notions that the brand rests on? Afterall, ... ... doesn't LV's being well established with the fashionistas, their patronizing LV and nepotizing LV? or am I wrong?

Louis Vuitton created the flat-topped steamer trunk and predecessors for the soft luggage we have today — all were of high quality and were able to withstand the rigors of steamship travel. It's this commitment to innovation and craftsmanship which established the brand, not the pattern.

Unfortunately, LV's attempts to extend the brand through the pattern (adding a clothing line by Marc Jacobs, the Murakami coloration...) appear to me as a capitulation to simulacra. People seem to want the surface appearance rather than the qualities of a handmade product — best signified by http://www.livejournal.com/community/hot_fashion/2593220.html" target="_blank"> the David Lachappele photograph of a nude Lil' Kim, covered in a LV pattern. But then, I'm not the in-house branding maven, nor am I a customer.

On the flip side of the consumer equation, Ralph Nader had over 35 years of commitment and service as a public watchdog for the American public — a brand diminished during his bid for the Presidency. It's an interesting object lesson in how public perception can erode the power of a 'brand', even though the 'product' remains the same.

Maybe it's the old http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/mcluhanprojekt/hei%DFmedien2.htm" target="_blank"> McLuhan hot/cold equation... LV's ads are cool while Nader was too hot.

Mark - "Finally, I have to admonish all of you who are flabbergasted at the cost of a Louis Vuitton bag. They're designed by designers and made by craftsmen in a manner more artisinal than your average "LiveStrong" yellow bracelet. How can you so easily dismiss the value of an experienced leather tanner and still think you're not paid enough? The people who sew these bags, do so by hand. Does your printer print each sheet in the same way?

Respect for the design profession is established mutually — with our clients, the customer and with other professionals. We don't have to love everything they do; but begrudging the value of a service, which has been established on the open market, can come around and bite you in your droopy-jeaned ass."

Debbie - "a-F***ing-men"

Mark and Debbie,

I'm not dismissing the value of craftsmen, buy luxury brands are about association more than craft. How about the craftsmen (factory workers) that make $400 Dolce & Gabanna jeans? Or the bartender that hands me a $12 Heineken with attitude in an Ian Schrager hotel? Or the line cooks who make the food at a Wolfgang Puck Express? No, no I don't buy it.

And Respect? Really? Is that the conversation we're going to have when questioning a $700 bag? Should nothing be considered too expensive? Should all retail prices be considered reasonable simply because that's the price that the retailer promotes and people pay it? Questioning the cost or value of a good or service has nothing to do with respect. It is the basic, fundamental responsibility of free citizens in a free market. The fact that we make money in a semi-related market shouldn't preclude us from asking those questions. It's great that LV invented luggage as we know it 150 years ago, but c'mon.

Funny, after this thread, I went to buy my wife a purse for xmas at Coach for about $300 — and thought it was fairly priced in comparison. The stupid matching wallet on the other hand, was a tad overpriced dammit.

>It is the basic, fundamental responsibility of free citizens in a free market.

Let's be honest — this is all about guilt. Guilt over the fact that a purse can cost as much as a car in China. And that some people can afford it, maybe yourself. You just don't want to admit that.

Lose the guilt, and realize that wealth and value will always be a relative but disporportionate thing in our world. That's not the fault of branding.

a-F**ing-men

Sorry, couldn't let the bon mot pass.

David, I was referring to the "it looks like a turd" dog pile of comments — which are exactly the same kind of responses we hate to get from clients or consumers. As I said, "respect for the design profession is established mutually — with our clients, the customer and with other professionals. We don't have to love everything they do; but begrudging the value of a service, which has been established on the open market, can come around and bite you in your droopy-jeaned ass."

Haggling is a discussion about ability to afford something. The value of the item is not in question because someone in that discussion obviously wants it.

public perception can erode the power of a 'brand',

Isn't that, really, what makes a brand? Even a great product or service isn't necessarily a great brand unless it is embraced by the buying public.

It is the basic, fundamental responsibility of free citizens in a free market. (my emphasis added)

Truer words have not been spoken. Supply and demand. Frankly, a lot of this sounds more like personal taste than strategic branding. There are many people who covet a LV bag because it is fashionable, because it is very well made, or because Li'l Kim had the logo painted all over her body. Those who find it ugly or undesireable or too expensive simply don't purchase it. I fail to see the indictment of the branding/graphic design industry simply because we participate in developing LV's (or any other luxury good's) marketing communications.

That doesn't mean that I don't find designers blameless for perpetuating the brand game. It's been abused far too long and, frankly, I'm tired and bored of it. And yet it's what I do for a living. Frustrating at times, believe me. Part of my goal as a freelancer/sole-proprietor is to be able to accept and decline jobs based on whether I feel the company is worthwhile. Whether the product is for me or not is somewhat irrelevant. I'd take a job from LV even though I really have no desire for one of their bags. I'd be quite confident that I wasn't contributing to the decline of civilization.

Sorry; sorry: Sorry to all for offing the topic but: Mark—Sorry for coming in with this a week later but do you buy Roland Barthes’ whole second order signifier thing? Aren’t most new signifiers derived from other signs? Isn’t that, in fact, the way that communication works, even needs to work? Was his “myth” construct any more than an attempt to wish away an image he disapproved of without actually having to argue the real points? Wasn’t his claim that Marxists don’t engage in such underhanded signification laughable (at best)?

Gunnar, I was only a casual reader of Barthes until I saw Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible part 1 — which is the subject of his essay The Third Meaning. That essay features some thoughts on the Obtuse Meaning, one that conveys abstract emotion, signifiers without specific signifieds, and other kinds of theoretical claptrap. I thought much of it was either lost in translation or just flowery puffery... until Ivan the Terrible blew me away. Twenty years after first reading Barthes, I was finally able to begin to grasp what he was writing about.

For me, Barthes' Myth is a proto-linguistic, meta-linguistic, emotional and spiritual signification process that is at times difficult to speak about because, well, I'm a... semi-otician. (ouch!)

Discussing fashion and it's motivation isn't as easy as sharing sports scores, and the concept of Myth seemed appropriate to the task.

As for his Marxist baiting, I don't know enough about Marxism to pick sides.

He wasn’t a Marxist baiter; he was an apologist/denier. (I suspect we’re the only two who care about this so I’ll go back to sleep.)

Like I said, I don't know enough.

Now, where was that wine glass...

Terrific. A lot of insightful directions. How about I pose a directive question to get folks to think about LV's branding from a different angle.

We can take a few actually. Say the open market is like a game of chess with different pieces trying to dominate the space. How is LV making its moves, which pieces are they playing. Through co-branding with Takashi Murakami, LV attempts to be art granting it cultural legitimacy as a meaning maker in society. Knock offs (and LV's allowing their existance--if that is that case) play to the petit bourgeous in fetishizing and inflating the value of the genuine article, thus generating desire for the fake and real alike, both feeding into the perceived value of the LV brand.

Or perhaps a mythic angle... is an LV bag like Cinderella's glass slipper, if not, what is an LV bag's mythic role? is it a shamanistic ritual tool (necessary to engage in the upper east manhatten bar hopping), or perhaps a more appropriate explanation for that use is to see LV bags as the object of worship and adoration in retail environment.

Lets talk about the different hats LV wears as a brand... lets talk about how and why it works.

Sorry to go back to Barthes again! Maybe we should start a new topic.

For those who haven't read Barthes I'll try to explain a bit. Hope my summary isn't too off-the-mark.

Barthes describes meaning as being made up of 'signs'. A sign is made up of two parts: the 'signifier' (words, graphic symbols, gestures etc.) and the 'signified' (the mental concept of the thing we want to represent).

Second-order signifiers arise when the signified is another sign - In linguistic terms, language that talks about other language.

'Myth' is that part of culture composed of second-order signifiers: meaning that comes from other meaning.

The problem with second-order signifiers is that they're an attempt to avoid a problematic issue. Meaning doesn't seem to come either from the sign or from the context. So we jump up a level, to the second-order and look for it there.

However, what's to stop us going further: having third-order myth, fourth-order myth and so on.

In this system, meaning is always just out of reach - just as we think we're about to find it, it jumps away from us.

In the case of fashion (and ,yes, brands), debating whether the value of something is in the object itself or in 'myth' (culture, zeitgeist, whatever you want to call it) is a fruitless activity because we will face this infinite regression.

Value comes from an interation between people, objects and other people.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense. It's incredibly difficult to talk about culture without all sorts of pseudo-intellectual claptrap creeping in.

Last year my wife received a Coach purse from her boss for Christmas. She brought it back to the store for cash to buy things that she could use. The purse was too small for daily use and too casual for formal use, so back it went. This year a client bought her a Burberry purse which was bought while vacationing in England. It was a practical size for her needs and the trademarked plaid pattern included tan, brown, white, black and red — making it very versatile. My wife grew up in schools where the kids really didn’t get as obsessed with brand names as the kids from my youth. She cared more about the graciousness of her client than the gift itself. As for me, I was happy playing with the beautifully designed box it came in. Maybe next year I’ll by her a Jaguar.

Throughout the year I’ve heard my fair share of arguments related to excessive spending and lack of environmental conscience. One such argument was a co-worker’s rant about the H2 and how bad for the environment it is. This same person was driving a POS Beretta that spewed a steady stream of blue smoke. Now which is worse for the environment, a POS car with emissions problems or a new H2 with a modern OBDII compliant exhaust system?

As for how absurd the price of a LV purse is, consider this:

client: “How much for the logo?”

designer: “I don’t know — what’s your budget?”

speaking of boxes...the LV purse does come in a gorgeous box as well. i'm a big box/container freak. you know how when you give kids a wrapped gift, and they end up tossing the gift aside to play with the wrapping & box instead? that be me.

hey Armin, how about a thread/topic involving packaging design? boxes boxes boxes.

by the way, nice interview on AIGALA, did you guys meet or was this via email?

> by the way, nice interview on AIGALA, did you guys meet or was this via email?

By the age-old tradition of e-mail.

"What’s the ugliest pattern you’ve ever seen? Close your eyes, I’ll remind you. Start with an unfashionable color, add a poorly executed two-letter-combination logo and top if off with some clip art flowers. Can you picture it?"

I'm quite disgusted by how you can knock a pattern and a monogram (LV) that was created well before 1896 by a passionate and illiterate french designer. There is something to be said for a man who always lead the avant-garde of fashion without compromising traditional craftsmanship.

What happened to research? ... what happened to backing up you statements with facts as to why things are designed or created the way they are? Are you one of those designers who only think with their eyes? Were you too caught up in it's aesthetics and price tag to actually research it and find out the reason as to why such an influential fashion house would produce such patterns?

I've lost a great deal of respect for you David Weinberger. You have the power to post a great deal of valuable information for designers who still enjoy reading and visit underconsideration. You've probably convinced more than a handful of designers that this company/brand choose to present "clip art flowers" and "poorly executed" typography.

Denis,

I am aware that this pattern was designed before the era of clip-art and did not mean to suggest that the flowers were actual clip-art. To be honest, I am not fond of the LV monogram and I think it is fine to say so, no matter who designed it and when and under what circumstances. There is no problem with that.

The introduction I wrote was intentionally over-the-top and meant to set a stage for the rest of the post. Many of the pieces I write are set up this way and have aspects that polarize, for the purpose of sparking discussion.

I apologize if I offended you or misrepresented the history of Louis Vuitton. I admire your outrage and hope you continue to be passionate about design.

That bag is fucking UGLY. I'd pay $700 to buy parts for a new computer or even top-of-the-line SLI graphics cards, but not a goddamn luxury bag that looks like something my grandmother in China wore.

I hate fashion, and fashion luxury brands. I never paid more than $100 for a piece of clothing, and never more than $200 for warm winter longcoats or professional attire. Those bags are NOT made of diamonds, for crying out loud.