Response to CJ: Value of Branding

What’s in a brand name? Are you truly spending the extra money for quality or social status?  The usual answer that we are just buying it for the brand name rather than the quality.  We won’t as a society admit that we just buy stuff to show people that we can afford nice things are trying to be what society is considering ‘in’ at the time.  When you look closer at the actual ‘quality’ of a product there isn’t much of a difference if any.  You can up to $35 for an article of clothing that is virtually identical to a $12 piece of clothing from a Wal-Mart.  When a consumer goes into a clothing store they never go up to a shirt and the first thing they look at in the consideration of buying the shirt is this shirt going to last a long time.  There are the exceptions but most people will buy it just for the brand name, the article is on sale or they are brand loyal. 
The only way to get companies to put more into their quality is to force the companies to remove all their brand names and symbols off the outside of the clothing. They only thing that will distinguish one companies clothes from the others is how well it’s made.  This sounds all good but wouldn’t be practical. No one wants to look the same as every other person.  They want to be different and have that difference of social class.  If someone works as hard as they possible can and wants to buy nice things then they should.  They have proven that they deserve what they’ve worked for and should be looked at being higher up then Joe-Do-Nothing.  So how do we make a fair competition?

---------------------------------------



I think the inherent value in a brand name has become half of the reason that people purchase certain things. Why would people spend more money on something just because of a name? Using clothes as an example, I think in our capitalist society, not only do we wear clothes to cover up, keep us warm, or look good, but we also wear clothes to represent a status. We wear clothes for personal reasons but also in order to impress people and give ourselves value. That is where the value of brands exists. Many branded clothing companies provide their customer with a status value that buying cheaper clothes doesn't provide. This status is part of what these companies are selling and in our society it is important to differentiate yourself and create a sense of value around your persona. People do not like brands because they seem unnecessarily expensive however, branding and status are essential parts of our culture and they allow us to express ourselves, and our value, individually.

Natural Disasters and Supply Chain shortages

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-quake-supply-chain-20110406,0,5806342.story


The above article is discussing the problem, recently intensified due to the Japan earthquake, of corporate reliance on supply chains that are thousands of miles away. In addition to the terrible tragedies and nuclear problems that have been caused by the earthquake, Japanese silicon wafer suppliers have also been affected. In Japan one company, Shin-Etsu, produces 20% of the worlds silicon wafers, a key component in semiconductors. The impact of the earthquake on this industry could effect the car, phone, and computer industries directly in the US.

The problems arise when corporations are so reliant on one channel of supply, especially when dealing with highly complicated and technical components. In terms of marketing, these companies, especially car companies, are going to have to play down the impact of the earthquake on their supply. Cars such as the Toyota Prius are expected to increase significantly over the next couple of months because of the lack of supply for the cars internal computers. What should companies do to hedge the impact of natural disaster against their suppliers? Are there any alternatives to Japan for technology manufacturing? How will the shortage affect the progress of technology over the upcoming months?