Thanks to Michael over at IP News Blog for the posting about the Wired article entitled “The Decline of Brands“
This article points out that society is becoming less and less loyal to branding. ”When brands first became important in the US a century ago, it was because particular products – Pillsbury flour or Morton salt – offered far more reliability and quality than no-name goods.” The reason for this declining loyalty is informed consumers. The information age allows consumers to get reviews of new products within days, if not minutes, of release. We no longer need to rely on the name tag to know whether we are getting a quality product. We simply check the ratings for that exact product.
Some brands are still considered premium. For example, a recent survey found that 99.5% of people will pay more for a Sony. However, the amount they will pay for the brand is declining. Five years ago Sony DVD players were 44% more than the average. Now, the figure is 16%.
The article claims that abuse of brand loyalty by companies causes inferior products, but that consumers can now determine quality without dependence on name. It closes by stating:
The aristocracy of brand is dead. Long live the meritocracy of product.
I may be the exception to the new trend in brand loyalty. I refuse to eat peas from a can unless they are Del Monte, and I only drink Minute Maid brand orange juice. My husband calls me an “orange juice snob,” but I really think it tastes different. Then again, my cars have all been different makes.
You may be interested in reading the following related posts:
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, November 9, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Permalink: Decline of Brands
2 Comments
Actually, I do whenever I can. Name brand peas and OJ are only a little bit more $, but name brand drugs really hit the pocket book. Then again, maybe I’ll take generic drugs instead of name brand drugs because they don’t taste different. I’ve yet to find a savory pill.
I bet you won’t take generic drugs, either, eh?