|
24/01/2010 13:46:40
|
NeilWarren
Posts 645
|
We have a cherished belief, certainly here in our treasured information hub that is ModernSelling.com, that "Content is King".
So, "stung" (again!) by a negative headline that grabbed my attention, I was fascinated by this posting...
Paul Lanigan - Content Counts for Little
...which definitely got me thinking. It does it also point in the direction that your reputation is also going to matter, and that the "context" might also have a big role to play, with such issues as "target audience" and so on in mind?
|
|
19/02/2010 15:38:44
|
Nick de Cent
Posts 175
|
Got to say that this is a fairly obvious point in that products from relatively unknown sources always have to work that much harder in the market compared with those that come from a recognisable brand. Exactly the same principle applies during the editing process of most publications, in that stories from a well-known company or a 'celebrity' are often deemed newsworthy of themselves even though their content or relevance may be inferior to items from less celebrated sources: Jordan & Jade Goody being prime examples of this principle. The same principle is obviously true in the record business, in the art world and the book publishing trade.
Of course, the converse does apply. though - it is more than possible for a well-known company to ruin its reputation with poor 'content'. One only has to think of some spectacular failures like Sinclair & his C5, Amstrad and almost all his later products, Ratner and his tatty jewellry or many MPs and their expense accounts, to see that poor content/product/conduct can easily ruin a one-proud reputation. One has to worry about Toyota at the moment and wonder whether the iPad is really going to enhance Apple's reputation.
Indeed, it is for this very reason that we have invented the concept of the 'brand': on most occasions a brand offers a convenient, short-hand means of conveying a predictable mix of qualities in a way that's not too challenging or threatening to the general public. Brands also tend to be targeted so that products can be sold 'in context' to whichever group identifies with the particular mix of qualities the brand is seeking to convey.
|
|
19/02/2010 17:02:34
|
.jpg)
Mr Bean
Posts 82
|
What do you think the outcome would have been if he had played a populist piece Vivaldi's Four Seasons and played it to his full potential? He may be a great violinist but the chosen piece wasn't exactly foot tapping stuff was it?
This is a classic case of an extreme example being used to argue a generalist case (the exception that proves the rule).
Nick's observations and comments are, as usual, valid and insightful. But one has to wonder if the initial success of both Sinclair and Sugar owes as much to luck as ability? They both had 'products of their time' that made them millions but they failed to repeat that success (luck?). And did anyone ever believe the tat sold in Ratners was any good? The only thing friend Gerald did wrong was to ram it down his customers thoats in such a public fashion.
I think Toyota's problems are short-lived. This is a media frenzy gone mad. Cars are recalled all the time - its just that it's so out of keeping with their brand image (reliability, quality) that it comes as a bit of a shock. I also heard a pundit say that he thought this was the American auto makers stirring up the pot to get revenge for Toyota wiping the floor with them. Given the choice, personally I'd still sooner drive a Toyota than a Chrysler.
Interested to understand your reservations about the iPad, Nick and what you think it could do, negatively, to Apples' reputation. Personally, I think it's just a large iPod Touch but hey, what do I know?
What I do know is that for every discerning customer there are at least 10 who are unable to differentiate quality from tat.
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|