The difference between Nike and Morton is that stores will only sport shoe stores
only sell products that are heavily advertised. Go to an athletic shoe store.
Try to find something other than Nike, Reebock, .... Even New Balance only sells
running shoes.
Last time I hurt my foot on the court, I tried to find a non-Nike basketball
shoe. Reeboks don't fit well. I could not find anything at all that would work
because Reebok and Nike took up 95% of the shelf space.
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> >
> > Michael Perelman's main example of IP (or at least the one he emphasized)
> > was Nike's branding. He also referred to IP in music (on CDs), videos, and
> > software. Except for the last, there's no obvious connection between IP and
> > "technological strength."
>
> A point I raised on this got lost in the shuffle. Microsoft has (protected by
> IP) an actual monopoly on the *product*. Nike only has IP on its name
> and its various advertising slogans. Hence, I argued, Nike should be compared
> not to Microsoft but to (for example) Morton's salt and the advertising
> slogan, "When it rains, it pours." That is, products (shoes or salt) equal to
> the branded product (by usability standards) exist but the branding provides
> an illusion of product differentiation. Someone called this a mass
> hallucination or something like that. I argued that that metaphor was a
> barrier to understanding brands as a social institution. Then the whole
> thing went down some other track. I'll have to see if I can find my
> original post, which I don't remember in detail now.
>
> Carrol
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
