Hacker News Reader

Comment by tracker1 | Hacker News Reader

More so... there's a HUGE difference for your average ($70k/year USD) household income not buying a $10-20 CD, and not buying a $10,000 handbag. I'd say in this case it's FAR more inflated and that at LEAST 90% of those lost sales wouldn't even consider the actual, full price products in question.

View on HN

If the people purchasing the products are at least partially purchasing it based on the ability of the product to send a signal that its owner is not part of the average $70k/year household, then there can be a loss of value simply by having $70k/year households have counterfeit ones.

Seems like the smart thing to do would be to sell luxury goods that are actually luxury and not cheap imported shit with a brand slapped on it.

It can be easy to mimic the good without it being the same quality, and it still results in devaluing the brand since it’s now associated with a cheaper good.

Another interesting contrast:

- the media industry's "lost revenue" is actually driving more demand - because those that pirate the media talk about it, and the word of mouth gets around - and legimitate purchases follow. "there's no such thing as bad news".

- the luxury industry's "lost revenue" is actually reducing demand - actual rich people don't want to buy the authentic $10,000 purse anymore, because all the poor people have it already...

I think you're right to some extent but on your second point the reason the rich people buy brands, with the brand clearly present, is just to say "i can afford to 'waste' money on this". Having poor people clamour to emulate them is surely part of the narcissism for some? They want people to try to buy the same stuff as it supports the "people want to be me" notion.

If everyone has a fashion accessory that looks like it cost $10,000, that devalues it for the people that actually spent $10,000. I think that is how the loss figures should be calculated.

(I know it sounds like "boo hoo", but I'd rather not debate that.)

I wonder about this too from the perspective of luxury brands that have long-been espoused in hip-hop and rap money-worshipping culture. Sure it was probably an initial boon to business having Crystal and Louis Vuitton repeatedly incorporated into famous performers' lyrics. But that would seemingly have the effect of devaling the brand for those who traditionally bought the brand and would likely not want to be associated with hip-hop culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com