The launch of the De Beers Forevermark as a consumer trademark, slipped by remarkably unremarked within the industry. Notwithstanding the devastating effects the most fundamental change to the De Beers marketing strategy in the past half century could signal to the selling power of those not within the syndicate’s orbit.
Already, a glance at the De Beers literature shows a new and highly exclusive language developing. On the Forevermark website I see that Pluczenik are offering for sale a matching pair of 26 carat brilliant cut stones. They are described as the “largest matching pair of brilliant cut Forevermark diamonds in the world”, insinuating that diamonds branded in this way are in some fundamental way different from all others. What should be more worrying, to those not plugged in to the DTC marketing machine, is the implication that all non-Forevermarked diamonds are somehow inferior for being unbranded.
The use of exclusive branding techniques to sell diamonds is not only desirable in the current market but inevitable. As the supply market fractures into more and smaller pieces, each supplier is going to feel forced to find ways of differentiating his product.
The Forevermark as we now see it, is indeed a top rate branding, completely unlike the artificially nurtured non-brands that so spectacularly misfired following the introduction of the DTC’s SOC program four years ago. Even within the marketing community, where much criticism was levelled at the mark following its B2B launch, a grudging respect is beginning to emerge as details of the new consumer brand emerge.
The surprise announcement last year that even non-sightholders, and stones supplied by other producers, would be eligible for branding, despite the understanding from the beginning that Forevermark would distinguish sightholders from the riff-raff, is clear confirmation that much more lies behind this innocuous mark than at first meets the eye.
Indeed this mark, supported and promoted by the sightholders for years now, might not, in the end, serve to encourage and promote new demand for the sightholders benefit, as they fondly cared to believe up till now. Nor is it really needed to boost consumer confidence. I have seen no significant research indicating that diamond consumers are massively bothered by the moral implications of buying diamonds, before the issue is forced onto them by those manipulating the media for their own nefarious ends. However, Forevermark, if it is a success, will consolidate De Beers' own market share downstream. and it could well help shore up its dominance of the marketplace even as its market-supply share wanes.
True, De Beers first responsibility is towards its own shareholders. One can hardly fault a company for taking advantage of its residual name recognition and influence to solidify a hold on the consumer market. Even when that far outweighs its actual current clout.
Moreover, one must admit that the Forevermark campaign shows flashes of sheer genius, albeit that we are still early days yet and it remains to be seen how the market will react to a marking system that effectively demotes to plonk status all diamonds previously obtained.
The regrettable passivity of the organisations whose job it is to represent the rest of the industry becomes more understandable when you realise that the executive leadership, clearly convinced of the need for an answer to the Forevermark, have the disadvantage of being forced to persuade their traditionally sceptical voting membership to devote the necessary effort and resources to a long term plan. This at a time when the future is uncertain and money is tight. However, doing nothing is the luxury of sinecures.
If the market is to remain independent and fair, it must be led by a body unaffiliated to any government or commercial entity. It is clear that as long as membership to the Forevermark club remains elusive to some, and to be effective it must, it is in the interests of the wider market to have some form of alternative mark or else risk having all stones not entered into the program perceived as second rate, or worse, as suspect.
Marketplaces being what they are, I have no doubt that alternatives will emerge. Human ingenuity being what it is I have confidence that the marketing community will find a ways to counter the threat of a new emerging monopoly. But that process will only start following realisation of what is actually happening. The chorus of silence that greeted the new Forevermark release does not auger well in that respect. Just mark my words.
Showing posts with label Branding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Branding. Show all posts
Friday, 4 July 2008
Monday, 10 December 2007
Hard Rock Cachet
I was born in England to an Austrian-born father with Israeli nationality and a German mother of Polish descent, and I live in Belgium. Whenever I am asked what nationality I feel, I point to my disdain for the French to prove that at heart I am British. Nevertheless, I must confess to harbouring a sneaking admiration for the Gallic marketing savvy.
Sparkling wine, as we know it, was probably first invented at the end of the seventeenth century by an Englishman, Christopher Merrett. It is however a Benedictine monk or Dom, Pierre Pérignon, born around the same period in the Champagne region of France who has taken much of the credit for creating this fizzy beverage. It was probably to play into this legend that in 1936 Moët & Chandon chose his name to grace what would become one of the world's best known extravagant tipples. In the late 1800s Dom Pérignon's producers shrewdly ran an ad campaign establishing the myth that the eponymous pastor cried out "Come quickly - I am drinking the stars!" when he first tasted what we now know as champagne.
The claim that it was he who discovered it is actually quite important to the Champagne region. An area in Fance that dominates the world market for sparkling wines, in prestige if not quantity, to the extent that it has managed to make those from any other place seem second rate. Indeed, it isn't the bubbles in the wine that make it suitable, even vital, for any festivity, but the magical word champagne that injects the mood of celebration into any event.
There are more regions well known for their produce. In France alone think of Cognac and Roquefort to name but two more of many. And it was the fiercely chauvinistic French, as early as 1824, who were the first to register a Geographical Indication, or a GI in legal parley, in a bid to legally protect their region-distinctive cheese varieties from copycats abroad. Today the French GIs are valued at almost 200 million Euros.
Marketing techniques have developed since then and GIs are an integral part of our consumer lifestyles today. The Scots have made Whisky their very own although if you want to call it Whiskey you can make it anywhere you like. Scotch smoked salmon is recognised as superior too, and it seems many consumers agree it is worth paying a premium for. Interestingly, GIs remain respected and perceived as relevant despite the intelligent consumer being well aware that with modern science and production techniques there is no reason why practically any product cannot be reproduced identically almost anywhere else in the world.
GIs are mostly limited to food, maybe reflecting the French priorities in life. However there are many examples of the same methodology being used to promote both a region and its produce at the same time with one reinforcing the other. The Japanese very successfully harnessed their national reputation for technical prowess and excellence, to launch the Lexus, a top level car brand that shot almost effortlessly into a position other and equally good carmakers have struggled for years to attain.
Taiwan is successfully building its reputation as a manufacturer of quality goods as its sister, China, struggles with its shoddy image. The tagline 'Made in Taiwan' is usually prominently displayed even as Chinese-made goods languish on the shelves. The Swiss have cleverly parlayed their national passion for pedantic, mechanical perfectionism into the recognised world benchmark for watches, while their German cousins, no less meticulous and equally technically proficient, have been far less successful in marketing this fact, maybe due to the fact that the eastern half only relatively recently fully entered the western marketplace.
With the steady deterioration of the cartel for diamonds and its associated promotional clout, the onus has fallen on the individual companies to market their own wares. Branding is indeed one way of generating prestige and exclusivity, but as all those who have tried it will know, it is prohibitively expensive and risky. One alternative could be to set up mechanisms that would allow groups of companies to pool their expertise and muscle into a single marketing umbrella that would add value to their wares without arbitrarily dividing up their market and setting competitors in head to head conflict.
The circumstances exist, yet for this to happen and in the absence of a declared leader, authorities that have hitherto been passive participators are going to have stand up and start pulling their weight for the common good. So, for the sake of an industry that is waiting for a guiding force, isn't it time for he who has clout within to please cast the first stone?
Sparkling wine, as we know it, was probably first invented at the end of the seventeenth century by an Englishman, Christopher Merrett. It is however a Benedictine monk or Dom, Pierre Pérignon, born around the same period in the Champagne region of France who has taken much of the credit for creating this fizzy beverage. It was probably to play into this legend that in 1936 Moët & Chandon chose his name to grace what would become one of the world's best known extravagant tipples. In the late 1800s Dom Pérignon's producers shrewdly ran an ad campaign establishing the myth that the eponymous pastor cried out "Come quickly - I am drinking the stars!" when he first tasted what we now know as champagne.
The claim that it was he who discovered it is actually quite important to the Champagne region. An area in Fance that dominates the world market for sparkling wines, in prestige if not quantity, to the extent that it has managed to make those from any other place seem second rate. Indeed, it isn't the bubbles in the wine that make it suitable, even vital, for any festivity, but the magical word champagne that injects the mood of celebration into any event.
There are more regions well known for their produce. In France alone think of Cognac and Roquefort to name but two more of many. And it was the fiercely chauvinistic French, as early as 1824, who were the first to register a Geographical Indication, or a GI in legal parley, in a bid to legally protect their region-distinctive cheese varieties from copycats abroad. Today the French GIs are valued at almost 200 million Euros.
Marketing techniques have developed since then and GIs are an integral part of our consumer lifestyles today. The Scots have made Whisky their very own although if you want to call it Whiskey you can make it anywhere you like. Scotch smoked salmon is recognised as superior too, and it seems many consumers agree it is worth paying a premium for. Interestingly, GIs remain respected and perceived as relevant despite the intelligent consumer being well aware that with modern science and production techniques there is no reason why practically any product cannot be reproduced identically almost anywhere else in the world.
GIs are mostly limited to food, maybe reflecting the French priorities in life. However there are many examples of the same methodology being used to promote both a region and its produce at the same time with one reinforcing the other. The Japanese very successfully harnessed their national reputation for technical prowess and excellence, to launch the Lexus, a top level car brand that shot almost effortlessly into a position other and equally good carmakers have struggled for years to attain.
Taiwan is successfully building its reputation as a manufacturer of quality goods as its sister, China, struggles with its shoddy image. The tagline 'Made in Taiwan' is usually prominently displayed even as Chinese-made goods languish on the shelves. The Swiss have cleverly parlayed their national passion for pedantic, mechanical perfectionism into the recognised world benchmark for watches, while their German cousins, no less meticulous and equally technically proficient, have been far less successful in marketing this fact, maybe due to the fact that the eastern half only relatively recently fully entered the western marketplace.
With the steady deterioration of the cartel for diamonds and its associated promotional clout, the onus has fallen on the individual companies to market their own wares. Branding is indeed one way of generating prestige and exclusivity, but as all those who have tried it will know, it is prohibitively expensive and risky. One alternative could be to set up mechanisms that would allow groups of companies to pool their expertise and muscle into a single marketing umbrella that would add value to their wares without arbitrarily dividing up their market and setting competitors in head to head conflict.
The circumstances exist, yet for this to happen and in the absence of a declared leader, authorities that have hitherto been passive participators are going to have stand up and start pulling their weight for the common good. So, for the sake of an industry that is waiting for a guiding force, isn't it time for he who has clout within to please cast the first stone?
Sunday, 15 July 2007
Branded for Life
There are many kinds of brands out there in the marketplace and the strategy behind them is not always the same.
Take Coca Cola. The sweet, black, fizzy soft drink is a well known product that needs no selling to the public. I was watching the customers at the chip stand of a stock-car racing rally this holidays. Under a faint blue haze of diesel smoke, and with their mouths full of soggy, vinegar soaked, ketchup drenched chips and fiery hot barbecued sausages, I doubt most could have tasted the difference between champagne and shampoo, let alone between Pepsi and Coke. But practically every customer had a clear preference, for Coke.
The brander’s job in these mass market brands, is to convince consumers to choose their product rather than the rival one. In the case of Coke, emotional attributes are used to convince the consumer. Rather than tell us “Coke tastes better”, a subjective proposition the modern consumer would consider patronising, we are assured that, “Coke is it!” Ergo: fun lovers drink Coke. It obviously works, although the physiques of those guzzlers at the stock car rally were rather less persuasive than the models in the Coke ads.
Nike does not praise the workmanship of their sports shoe, nor it's design and durability. Instead they proudly convey to me (or more importantly my neighbour) that they, as a company, promote going that extra mile in sports. They also make sure it is the brand of choice of some of the choicest sports figures of our day, and highly visibly so. Choosing their swoosh on my child's tennis socks almost feels like doing something positive for her.
Both these brand's strategies rely on creating an aura that envelopes their brand and promises to brush some of it off onto those who buy it.
The distinctive Playboy bunny rabbit logo, on the other hand, has the job of sanitising and putting a friendly and playful face onto a company and industry that would otherwise be perceived as sordid and grubby. While IBM relies almost entirely on the quality of their product to maintain their brand. Remember that old adage, “Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM!”
There are other forms of branding too. Think of how the names in the fashion industry rely on their brand to portray an image. There are a million and one messages that that can be flashed across the room at a party, by a lady's handbag. In this fashion-semaphore, the alphabet is formed, not by fabrics and colours and shapes but, because every brand has it own identity, by designers’ names and brands. Wearing a shirt by Vivian Westwood says something about you because it is by her, despite it looking like something the cat brought in; or even because of it.
Some brands are harder to define. It might surprise you to learn that Google was ranked as the world's top brand in the annual Brandz Top 100, with a brand value of over $66 billion. Ironically their branding has become so successful that it is in danger of actually winning them out of business. As their brand name enters the vocabulary, they face the risk that the word ‘googling’ will become a generic word for searching the web, and that could cost them their entire brand's worth.
Creating and maintaining a brand requires first and foremost a thorough awareness of what the brand is trying to do, is it a quality mark, promising a perfect cut and ideal proportions, or does it have a personality or an aura? Should it exude confidence and assurance, or should it whisper sweet nothings?
Happily, now that the DTC has dropped branding from the list of requirements of their sightholders, the era of failed brands, so damaging to my industry, is probably over. With the pressure now off companies to create brands they are not really passionate about, dare we hope that the industry will now focus its attention and develop those few truly valuable brands it still has in it?
Only time will tell.
Take Coca Cola. The sweet, black, fizzy soft drink is a well known product that needs no selling to the public. I was watching the customers at the chip stand of a stock-car racing rally this holidays. Under a faint blue haze of diesel smoke, and with their mouths full of soggy, vinegar soaked, ketchup drenched chips and fiery hot barbecued sausages, I doubt most could have tasted the difference between champagne and shampoo, let alone between Pepsi and Coke. But practically every customer had a clear preference, for Coke.
The brander’s job in these mass market brands, is to convince consumers to choose their product rather than the rival one. In the case of Coke, emotional attributes are used to convince the consumer. Rather than tell us “Coke tastes better”, a subjective proposition the modern consumer would consider patronising, we are assured that, “Coke is it!” Ergo: fun lovers drink Coke. It obviously works, although the physiques of those guzzlers at the stock car rally were rather less persuasive than the models in the Coke ads.
Nike does not praise the workmanship of their sports shoe, nor it's design and durability. Instead they proudly convey to me (or more importantly my neighbour) that they, as a company, promote going that extra mile in sports. They also make sure it is the brand of choice of some of the choicest sports figures of our day, and highly visibly so. Choosing their swoosh on my child's tennis socks almost feels like doing something positive for her.
Both these brand's strategies rely on creating an aura that envelopes their brand and promises to brush some of it off onto those who buy it.
The distinctive Playboy bunny rabbit logo, on the other hand, has the job of sanitising and putting a friendly and playful face onto a company and industry that would otherwise be perceived as sordid and grubby. While IBM relies almost entirely on the quality of their product to maintain their brand. Remember that old adage, “Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM!”
There are other forms of branding too. Think of how the names in the fashion industry rely on their brand to portray an image. There are a million and one messages that that can be flashed across the room at a party, by a lady's handbag. In this fashion-semaphore, the alphabet is formed, not by fabrics and colours and shapes but, because every brand has it own identity, by designers’ names and brands. Wearing a shirt by Vivian Westwood says something about you because it is by her, despite it looking like something the cat brought in; or even because of it.
Some brands are harder to define. It might surprise you to learn that Google was ranked as the world's top brand in the annual Brandz Top 100, with a brand value of over $66 billion. Ironically their branding has become so successful that it is in danger of actually winning them out of business. As their brand name enters the vocabulary, they face the risk that the word ‘googling’ will become a generic word for searching the web, and that could cost them their entire brand's worth.
Creating and maintaining a brand requires first and foremost a thorough awareness of what the brand is trying to do, is it a quality mark, promising a perfect cut and ideal proportions, or does it have a personality or an aura? Should it exude confidence and assurance, or should it whisper sweet nothings?
Happily, now that the DTC has dropped branding from the list of requirements of their sightholders, the era of failed brands, so damaging to my industry, is probably over. With the pressure now off companies to create brands they are not really passionate about, dare we hope that the industry will now focus its attention and develop those few truly valuable brands it still has in it?
Only time will tell.
Sunday, 1 July 2007
The Meltdown
The most vociferous arguments against branding for diamonds come from the sightholders who have tried it and failed. They are no small group. The graveyard of the industry is littered with the remains of many an expensive experiment, often never even officially laid to rest. Most lie, ignominiously discarded in filing cabinets, ignored and forgotten, only to be dusted down every few years when the DTC SOC questionnaire arrives. A name, duly registered and trademarked, a slick print-advert extolling its virtues and of course, a jaw-dropping price tag, jaded testimony to their owners’ commitment to modern and downstream marketing techniques.
To be fair, despite the ongoing hype and the pressure put on the larger players in the market to create branding for their wares, the naysayers are not entirely wrong. The truth is, the days when a (large) budget, crisp and convincing visuals and enough pages and airtime were all you needed to launch and maintain a new worldwide brand, are definitely over.
The global infotainment culture is changing. The big national TV and media channels are steadily losing influence. In their place multiple, localised and specialist channels jostle to provide personalised content direct to users. Meanwhile the Internet is fast becoming the medium of choice for news and information. The captive audience, that we advertisers could once bewitch with our carefully crafted spells, have wised-up and now take their news, information and entertainment on their own terms, in their own time and relatively ad free.
Even the world’s top brands like Coke and MacDonald’s are drastically scaling back their classic advertising budgets. In its place they are concentrating their efforts on more novel and exciting ways of attracting customers to absorb their message. Smirnoff, the vodka people, are paying game developers to incorporate their product in popular video games. Car manufacturers Toyota paid $16 million to have their cars featured on popular the USA TV show The Contenders. Creditcard company AmEx hired popular comedian, Jerry Sienfeld, to play in an extended play, online advertainment campaign. Even more lucrative, for those that can get it, is news placement, although, whether the Hilton chain is cashing in on their name’s antics after (and behind) bars, is debateable.
Diamonds are not like cars or soap powder, it is true. You do not try, or even want to, reach every single household in the developed world with your diamond branding; unless you have come up with an idea as good as the diamond engagement-ring, which has. But the target audience for ‘iced’ jewellery has been extensively touched by the efforts of the industry of the last five years and it is worth noting that most of the successes that have been booked in diamond (jewellery) branding have come at the expense of those before. There is very little actual growth of the market in branded goods and practically no consistent evidence of customers being attracted to buy a diamond instead of some other luxury gift, because of the branding. (A phenomenon mysteriously referred to as ‘increased incremental demand’ in DTC speak, despite there being no increment that I can ascertain).
There is some good news in the market, although not everybody is entirely sure how to deal with it. Bling is in! But, it is not every diamantaire’s dream to feature prominently, as the supplier of diamonds to firms like GangstaGold, selling personalised gold teeth and $17.000 diamond encrusted dogcollar, to the hip-hop generation or itsmybinky.com who do a diamond encrusted baby’s dummy.
The bling revolution is deliberately in-your-face, in line with the whole gangsta rap culture. The fact that the establishment is uncomfortable with it is actually necessary to make it credible. And yes, it does stand in stark contrast to the caring, sharing, family orientated, Love Forever image that the DTC and the diamond establishment promote. But the denim jeans also started out as a protest garment and today it is Versace and Dolce and Gabbana versions, adorning the posteriors that protesting bling-wearers most want to kick.
Not that I am promoting a massive rush to push for delights like a diamond studded ‘IceBox’ for storing crack cocaine. I do not believe it is necessary or desirable to destroy the very successful link that has been made in human minds, between diamonds and eternal love. I am saying that the brands of tomorrow will probably not fit into the mould that has been constructed. The ‘I love you’ part of the human relationship has practically been covered ad nauseam and it is up to the industry to create the new buzz that will lure new customers to the diamond counter.
As long as diamonds are available, creative minds will be searching for ways to convince consumers to buy them. But it will be totally new concepts and novel new uses that will capture the hearts and wallets of the cyber generation, not pretty pictures of beautiful jewellery with inventive names.
To be fair, despite the ongoing hype and the pressure put on the larger players in the market to create branding for their wares, the naysayers are not entirely wrong. The truth is, the days when a (large) budget, crisp and convincing visuals and enough pages and airtime were all you needed to launch and maintain a new worldwide brand, are definitely over.
The global infotainment culture is changing. The big national TV and media channels are steadily losing influence. In their place multiple, localised and specialist channels jostle to provide personalised content direct to users. Meanwhile the Internet is fast becoming the medium of choice for news and information. The captive audience, that we advertisers could once bewitch with our carefully crafted spells, have wised-up and now take their news, information and entertainment on their own terms, in their own time and relatively ad free.
Even the world’s top brands like Coke and MacDonald’s are drastically scaling back their classic advertising budgets. In its place they are concentrating their efforts on more novel and exciting ways of attracting customers to absorb their message. Smirnoff, the vodka people, are paying game developers to incorporate their product in popular video games. Car manufacturers Toyota paid $16 million to have their cars featured on popular the USA TV show The Contenders. Creditcard company AmEx hired popular comedian, Jerry Sienfeld, to play in an extended play, online advertainment campaign. Even more lucrative, for those that can get it, is news placement, although, whether the Hilton chain is cashing in on their name’s antics after (and behind) bars, is debateable.
Diamonds are not like cars or soap powder, it is true. You do not try, or even want to, reach every single household in the developed world with your diamond branding; unless you have come up with an idea as good as the diamond engagement-ring, which has. But the target audience for ‘iced’ jewellery has been extensively touched by the efforts of the industry of the last five years and it is worth noting that most of the successes that have been booked in diamond (jewellery) branding have come at the expense of those before. There is very little actual growth of the market in branded goods and practically no consistent evidence of customers being attracted to buy a diamond instead of some other luxury gift, because of the branding. (A phenomenon mysteriously referred to as ‘increased incremental demand’ in DTC speak, despite there being no increment that I can ascertain).
There is some good news in the market, although not everybody is entirely sure how to deal with it. Bling is in! But, it is not every diamantaire’s dream to feature prominently, as the supplier of diamonds to firms like GangstaGold, selling personalised gold teeth and $17.000 diamond encrusted dogcollar, to the hip-hop generation or itsmybinky.com who do a diamond encrusted baby’s dummy.
The bling revolution is deliberately in-your-face, in line with the whole gangsta rap culture. The fact that the establishment is uncomfortable with it is actually necessary to make it credible. And yes, it does stand in stark contrast to the caring, sharing, family orientated, Love Forever image that the DTC and the diamond establishment promote. But the denim jeans also started out as a protest garment and today it is Versace and Dolce and Gabbana versions, adorning the posteriors that protesting bling-wearers most want to kick.
Not that I am promoting a massive rush to push for delights like a diamond studded ‘IceBox’ for storing crack cocaine. I do not believe it is necessary or desirable to destroy the very successful link that has been made in human minds, between diamonds and eternal love. I am saying that the brands of tomorrow will probably not fit into the mould that has been constructed. The ‘I love you’ part of the human relationship has practically been covered ad nauseam and it is up to the industry to create the new buzz that will lure new customers to the diamond counter.
As long as diamonds are available, creative minds will be searching for ways to convince consumers to buy them. But it will be totally new concepts and novel new uses that will capture the hearts and wallets of the cyber generation, not pretty pictures of beautiful jewellery with inventive names.
Friday, 1 June 2007
The Branding Iron
With the amount of money spent on diamonds per annum, it is truly surprising that so few successful diamond brands exist. I would venture to say that no diamond brand commands enough market recognition to allow it to be considered a household name. This is not for lack of will. It is no secret that the DTC has been urging its sightholders to consider the branding route as a way of cementing market share, and thereby SOC status, since beginning with that scheme.
To be fair, it is far more difficult to brand a diamond than to brand a new face cream or sport shoe. Consumers do not usually buy diamonds, they buy jewellery. Most could hardly care less which company supplied the sparkle. Computer chip powerhouse Intel faced a similar problem when their chips were put into branded computers. Their novel approach was to have a distinctive ‘Intel inside’ sticker on new computers. This exposed many consumers to their brand and established their dominance, even for many who had never come across the name before.
De Beers, with their Eternity, Journeys, Trilogy and similar projects, have cleverly managed to franchise lines of jewellery with precisely defined groups of stones into the De Beers brand. Incorporating the stone into jewellery and branding the combination can also work.
The qualities, however, that make a successful diamond trader, are not necessarily those that make a good jewellery brand. Over the last five years, too many have attempted to widen their scope in that direction, only to hastily withdraw with much licking of wounds. I sympathise with the sightholders who resist the urge to tread into an area they know little about and concentrate, instead, on seeking a solution that involves branding the stone itself.
Vodka is often held up as an example of what branding should be. Vodka is colourless, flavourless and devoid of any aroma. In a blind taste, most of the people who insist on Absolut or Smirnoff would be unable to identify their own preference from a rival brand. Yet the Absolut drinker will not trade in his young, artistic and slightly avant-garde tipple for the imperial snobbery of tsarist Smirnoff nor the raunchy chutzpah of Eristoff’s identical beverage
The fact that a supermarket brand tastes, looks and smells the same too, at half the price, does not affect these buyers, because it is not just vodka they are buying. What they are buying into is the brand’s image. Having the distinctively shaped bottle on your table, identifies you to your fellow connoisseur, or exposes you to pitying glances from proponents of a rival brand.
Unlike vodka, however, diamonds are an industrial ingredient, only coming into their own for the consumer, when set into an attractive piece of jewellery. Whether you bought it in a lavish box, reading Hearts on Fire, The Love Diamond or just a much scribbled on diamond envelope, it can look identical once it is calling for attention from on your loved one’s finger or throat. This is a commonly aired argument against branded stones. The independently owned websites I visited advised consumers to ask to be shown a non-branded stone of similar specs and compare look and price.
The most obvious method route for creating distinction is by marketing a unique cut. The Buddha Cut (www.buddhadiamond.com), developed and marketed by Albert Haberkorn, is one good example of a diamond brand that is distinctive enough by virtue of its shape to make it appealing to a certain segment of the market. By registering the patenting rights to cutting diamonds in Buddha form, Haberkorn have shrewdly given their stone total dominance in that market and they can thus define their own pricing strategy, regardless of the cost of the raw material.
The Web Cut from Dali Diamond Co (www.webcut.com), and The Escada cut from the house Pluczenik (www.pluczekink.com) are two more examples of brands relying on a distinctive cutting shape in combination with established names for the visibility of their brands within the jewellery. However, it takes a lot a passion to develop a special cut and I do not think one should set out to do that, just for the purpose of having something to brand. It can be too painfully obvious when a diamond cut has simply been slightly manipulated, its difference noticeable only to a connoisseur, then marketed as better. The consumer has proved, moreover, by voting with its wallet, that it does not prefer diamonds looking like upturned pineapples, to the classic diamond cuts.
The real challenge out there is to create a brand name for a classic cut diamond, whose value supersedes the price of the goods producing it. With a name able to dominate its field in any given market, to the extent, that consumers within it will recognise that name as a synonym for diamond. And I am confident that what was done for vodka, for blue cotton trousers, and for the carbonated extract of cola nut juice, will be done for polished carbon too.
To be fair, it is far more difficult to brand a diamond than to brand a new face cream or sport shoe. Consumers do not usually buy diamonds, they buy jewellery. Most could hardly care less which company supplied the sparkle. Computer chip powerhouse Intel faced a similar problem when their chips were put into branded computers. Their novel approach was to have a distinctive ‘Intel inside’ sticker on new computers. This exposed many consumers to their brand and established their dominance, even for many who had never come across the name before.
De Beers, with their Eternity, Journeys, Trilogy and similar projects, have cleverly managed to franchise lines of jewellery with precisely defined groups of stones into the De Beers brand. Incorporating the stone into jewellery and branding the combination can also work.
The qualities, however, that make a successful diamond trader, are not necessarily those that make a good jewellery brand. Over the last five years, too many have attempted to widen their scope in that direction, only to hastily withdraw with much licking of wounds. I sympathise with the sightholders who resist the urge to tread into an area they know little about and concentrate, instead, on seeking a solution that involves branding the stone itself.
Vodka is often held up as an example of what branding should be. Vodka is colourless, flavourless and devoid of any aroma. In a blind taste, most of the people who insist on Absolut or Smirnoff would be unable to identify their own preference from a rival brand. Yet the Absolut drinker will not trade in his young, artistic and slightly avant-garde tipple for the imperial snobbery of tsarist Smirnoff nor the raunchy chutzpah of Eristoff’s identical beverage
The fact that a supermarket brand tastes, looks and smells the same too, at half the price, does not affect these buyers, because it is not just vodka they are buying. What they are buying into is the brand’s image. Having the distinctively shaped bottle on your table, identifies you to your fellow connoisseur, or exposes you to pitying glances from proponents of a rival brand.
Unlike vodka, however, diamonds are an industrial ingredient, only coming into their own for the consumer, when set into an attractive piece of jewellery. Whether you bought it in a lavish box, reading Hearts on Fire, The Love Diamond or just a much scribbled on diamond envelope, it can look identical once it is calling for attention from on your loved one’s finger or throat. This is a commonly aired argument against branded stones. The independently owned websites I visited advised consumers to ask to be shown a non-branded stone of similar specs and compare look and price.
The most obvious method route for creating distinction is by marketing a unique cut. The Buddha Cut (www.buddhadiamond.com), developed and marketed by Albert Haberkorn, is one good example of a diamond brand that is distinctive enough by virtue of its shape to make it appealing to a certain segment of the market. By registering the patenting rights to cutting diamonds in Buddha form, Haberkorn have shrewdly given their stone total dominance in that market and they can thus define their own pricing strategy, regardless of the cost of the raw material.
The Web Cut from Dali Diamond Co (www.webcut.com), and The Escada cut from the house Pluczenik (www.pluczekink.com) are two more examples of brands relying on a distinctive cutting shape in combination with established names for the visibility of their brands within the jewellery. However, it takes a lot a passion to develop a special cut and I do not think one should set out to do that, just for the purpose of having something to brand. It can be too painfully obvious when a diamond cut has simply been slightly manipulated, its difference noticeable only to a connoisseur, then marketed as better. The consumer has proved, moreover, by voting with its wallet, that it does not prefer diamonds looking like upturned pineapples, to the classic diamond cuts.
The real challenge out there is to create a brand name for a classic cut diamond, whose value supersedes the price of the goods producing it. With a name able to dominate its field in any given market, to the extent, that consumers within it will recognise that name as a synonym for diamond. And I am confident that what was done for vodka, for blue cotton trousers, and for the carbonated extract of cola nut juice, will be done for polished carbon too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
