Hacker News Reader

Comment by petra | Hacker News Reader

>> The problem with many tech analysts is that they are Apple fanboys without even knowing that they are.

That's true for most of the discussion on the internet: so much talk about how Apple's chips/apps/ui/build-quality/founders/etc are so much better.

But almost no talk at all about how modern brands get built, and what such brands give to users: for example, the ability to tell stories(implicitly or explicitly) to themselves and others, stories that make them feel good about themselves.

And i don't think it's fair to demand those users to forefit that right, after they paid so much for it.

View on HN

If you think brand is the reason Apple succeeds, you simply are way over-discounting or don't understand unique platform features/benefits.

Brands become powerful only when they are true. All the marketing in the world can't successfully position your products as valuable and unique, if they aren't. You can't fool people for long. The gods of the advertising industry want you to believe they can sell ice to eskimos, but they are merely selling their book.

Branding isn't the sole reason for Apple's success. But it is probably an important one.

As for the general power of branding: many commodity like products make lots of money through branding, be in the fields of luxury or fashion.

Yea, I don't think you understand branding. Branding is the power a product gets from fulfilling it's promise to consumers.

Example: Coca-Cola. People don't buy Coke because advertising tells them to, people buy Coke because advertising reminds them to. Coke has a strong brand because Coke consumers prefer it's taste.

Numerous taste tests have shown this. Sam Walton spent millions on a better tasting drink than Coke, proved it was better in every taste test, and Walmart's coke bombed when it was released despite a heavy marketing push and excellent product placement. It bombed because despite the results of taste-tests, customers had developed an affinity for Coca-Cola. It was always good, they could trust it's consistency and flavor, and they really weren't motivated to gamble on something new.

In the cases of luxury or fashion, their unique benefits may be subtle, so subtle you don't even notice them. But their customers do and once they experience them they continue to buy from the same vendors. It can be as simple as a purse that is extremely attractive, yet durable, yet useful with the perfect number of pockets for your needs. Once you have that pleasing experience you are far more willing to buy future products from the same vendor, thinking, they know what they are doing, they think like I do, etc.

In smartphones and Macs, Apple has consistently provided high quality hardware with innovative features, and powerful but easy to use software. That's built up a brand where Apple customers have high expectations for their Apple product experiences, and that brand can only remain strong if Apple doesn't disappoint them.

> Numerous taste tests have shown this. Sam Walton spent millions on a better tasting drink than Coke, proved it was better in every taste test, and Walmart's coke bombed when it was released despite a heavy marketing push and excellent product placement. It bombed because despite the results of taste-tests, customers had developed an affinity for Coca-Cola.

Wait... this seems like evidence for the exact inverse of your thesis. If a better-tasting product comes on the market, for cheaper, with reasonable marketing, and still bombs, it sure seems like the value of the brand has become disconnected from the innate quality of the product.

Obviously, branding alone won't sustain a terrible product. But no one here was arguing that.

If you think about it, it's not. Coke has a great brand because their products pleased consumer expectations, just like Apple. Cokes brand is so good people won't switch even if given a potentially better product, because Coke has always tasted good to them, Sams Cola might not.

There is a significant difference between Apple and Coke. You always buy Macs because they are better for your workflow and find the experience delightful. That makes you usually want to replace one with another. You then have a bad experience with a Mac purchase. You now are far less likely to trust Apple and the Mac when you make your next of purchase.

Coke doesn't suffer the same problem. The joy of its purchase is the consistency of the experience, it's always the same. You know it will never disappoint that taste desire. That's why Coke never ever allows its bottlers to vary the formula even minutely. That way They can never lose your trust. If you drink it from fountain dispensers, your experience is less consistent, making that a more challenging market fir them.

So yes Apple is helped by branding. But like all great brands, Apples brand was built from product excellence, not advertising. Advertising is just a reminder or purchase trigger for the good feelings you already have for the brand.

"Yea, those AirPods look cool, that reminds me I wanted a pair because I expect them to work really well. I should do that now"

I agree with your point, but would add the nuance of "how much do you actually care?". Humans use heuristics (aka rules of thumb) to answer questions that don't really matter as much, ex "what should I drink". Coke has become that rule of thumb, you don't want to spend extra bandwidth thinking of an inconsequential decision.

This is NOT true for questions where there is a bigger consequence. I feel one is much more rational in those decisions (you carefully consider multiple choices when purchasing a phone, car, etc.) This means there is a greater opportunity of disruption because your brand, while still very important, is not the main differentiation anymore and is not the "rule of thumb".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com