"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > Then why not substitute placebos whenever possible and save ourselves some cash?
Go ahead, feel free. But others will continue to buy advertised brands. And I will continue to try to convince them to buy. In fact, I will do my damnedest to talk people into buying things they don't need. It's my job. > > Hey, maybe I'll buy my wife one bottle of Chanel No. 5. When it's empty, I'll refill >it with the clone, claiming I discarded the old bottle and bought her a new one. OK, >so I'm omitted some of the necessary logistics. But if she'd be none the wiser, why >not? How are matters worse? That's fine as well. But if the brand didn't exist, with all its imagery value, then there would be no Chanel bottle to refill, nothing to aspire to. And the generic perfume wouldn't have to try to mimic the scent of the brand name. In fact, it really wouldn't have to smell good at all if there were no target. If one were to extend that thought, and think about what might happen without brand identity, one must conclude that we'd soon be swimming in a sea of mediocrity. Imagine for a moment that there are no camera brands, just one line of equipment produced in one state-owned factory. There would be no need to aspire to greatness, no need to create a market for your product. It wouldn't matter if the aperture blades were oily and the focus rough, because there would be no alternatives. Value is partly inherent and partly a result of "hype" (as you call it). But that portion of overall value that is a product of marketing hype is just as valuable in its own way as the object itself. In truth, a brand name is nothing more than a form of hype. The more value you can attach to that brand name, the better chance it has of succeeding in the marketplace. Paul Stenquist - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
