A thing or two on BRANDING

[oldminer]

In another thread we have just mentioned the possibility of diamonds becoming commoditized. I don''t think it should be a big fear to anyone, but true branding does further the process. I just don''t think commoditization is about to happen.

A true brand is CONSISTENT in nature. Who ever wants a Kleenex knows what to expect on their tender nose. Who last squeezed the Charmin? A diamond brand requires the cutter to stick to very strict guidleines of cut. They need to pick their parameters wisely and then stick to them. Some vendors are doing just that, but others have created some questionable products that are doomed to failure in light of what branding is all about.

When you thin of GE or Sony, you don''t worry about the contents of their box being broken. They know how to build stuff and how to pack it. When you think of Toyota, you know you will get from A to B with decent assurance. Why? Because these big corporations know what a brand means and how to make it stick.

A few diamond vendors are selling branded diamonds with strong matching pf parameters and performance. These have a far better chance of "making it" than those who sell a so-called brand that has parameters all over the place.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

So true, Dave.

Indeed, with branding being a relatively new thing in diamonds, manyhouses are approaching it in an incorrect way.

Because of this, you will find many brands, that have no meaning, other than the fact that a brand-name has been inscribed and that the stone is accompanied by a marketing campaign and some promotional material.

I believe in branding in the traditional sense, where the brand stands for a specific consistency. This does not necessarily mean that pricing needs to be higher. The essence of a brand might also be its relatively low price. In this case, the benefit of the brander will not be a premium price, but a faster turnover of his stock.

Live long,

 

[Hest88]

Yep, good way to put it Dave. The thing is---a brand doesn''t stand for quality just because it says it does; it will take some time for consumers to experience the product, realize that it *does* come with a certain measure of quality, and then start to associate the quality directly with the brand. Only after that happens will consumers follow the brand unthinkingly and the brand have value in and of itself.

 

[JohnQuixote]

All of you make good points. The chorus of consistency, of knowing what to expect, is the key to establishing a brand:

McDonald's and Morton's both sell grilled cow. Consumers know how much they will be paying and what to expect when they walk in the door of either place.

Branding is referral-friendly. When a friend calls me from a major city, asking where to take a date for steak, I am comfortable suggesting Morton's because I know the consistency - even if I have never been to that location. They have successfully proven the 'brand' to me.

Because of TV, radio, signage and the internet, humans have become bombarded with blase' commercial advertisements to the point that we have become numb to them. As a result, personal referrals have become very powerful. They are a cornerstone in the foundation of viral marketing, and the internet is a potent medium for building on that cornerstone (http://www.cluetrain.com/).

For anyone interested in tracking the effectiveness of viral marketing (and branding), especially in the internet age I'd recommend reading a book called 'The Tipping Point' by Malcolm Gladwell.

 

[WinkHPD]

Agreed.

Paul recently told me about inspecting some diamonds from a house in India. While the stones were all AGS 0''s (correct me if my memory is wrong, Paul) they were all over the board, many being on one edge of the grade and others being on the other, with no consistency of look. As AGS 0''s they will all be beautiful, but there is no way they will ever have the consistency of look of some of the favored brands here.

Wink

 

[oldminer]

Those "all over the place" sort of "Ideally" cut diamonds are great for the non-brand, mass sellers. But, as you said, they are worthless to those who seek to create a real brand. Morton''s was a great example.

 

[finerthings]

Now you''ve got me really confused because I thought the whole purpose of AGS triple 0 diamonds (also known as ideal hearts and arrows) was insurance to the consumer that the diamond they are getting is superb. So now I read that these stones don''t uniformly perform well...what''s up, I''m in need of more explanation.

 

[diamondlil]

Finerthings, it''s my understanding that AGS 000 does not necessarily mean it''s H&A, and H&A does not necessarily mean it''s ideal.

 

[belle]

diamondlil is absolutely correct. ags0 does not guarantee hearts and arrows in any way. if you want the top optical symmetry found in h&a stones, you will have to be sure you find a brand that guarantees true h&a (like wf''s ''a cut above'') or you will have to have h&a images proving the quality. simply having ags0 (or 000) does not guarantee h&a.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/19/2006 6:16:19 PM
Author: finerthings

Now you've got me really confused because I thought the whole purpose of AGS triple 0 diamonds (also known as ideal hearts and arrows) was insurance to the consumer that the diamond they are getting is superb. So now I read that these stones don't uniformly perform well...what's up, I'm in need of more explanation.

An AGS 0 diamond may not be cut to H&A precision.
A H&A diamond may not have ideal light return.
More here.

On the whole, AGS 0 is an indication of a far better diamond than average - especially if graded with the new DQD that includes light performance assessment. Diamonds cut to the outer limits of AGS 0 may not perform quite as ideally through a broad range of conditions as those cut to the heart of those proportions.

Further (and more to the point of branding) there are different design configurations within AGS 0 that can be equally appealing but have slightly different personalities... It's like one chef's lobster thermador versus another's grilled veal with mushroom ragu: They are equally divine - most people would delight in either - but some people may prefer one over the other.

Hmm. Time for dinner.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/19/2006 6:16:19 PM
Author: finerthings
Now you''ve got me really confused because I thought the whole purpose of AGS triple 0 diamonds (also known as ideal hearts and arrows) was insurance to the consumer that the diamond they are getting is superb. So now I read that these stones don''t uniformly perform well...what''s up, I''m in need of more explanation.

In Pauls case AGS supports his brand.
In many cases GIA IS THE BRAND (and sometimes makes more revenue than any other functionary in the process)
In Tiffany''s case it seems they may be working to drop lab reports and rely on their own brand

For good brand background I think you can not go past Al and Laura Ries
http://www.ries.com/Books/index.cfm?Page=CS-22ImmutableLaws&Book=22New

Introduction - Branding is the single most important objective of the marketing process. What is branding??

1. The Law of Expansion - The power of a brand is inversely proportional to its scope. What’s a Chevrolet? A large, small, cheap, expensive car.

2. The Law of Contraction - A brand becomes stronger when you narrow its focus. Starbucks is a coffee shop that just sells coffee.

3. The Law of Publicity - Brands are born with publicity,not advertising. With no advertising, The Body Shop has become a powerful global brand.

4. The Law of Advertising - Once born,a brand needs advertising to stay healthy. Advertising "No. 1 in tires" keeps Goodyear No. 1 in tires

5. The Law of The Word - A brand should own a word in the mind of the consumer. "FedEx this to LA".

6. The Law of Credentials - The crucial ingredient to the success of any brand is its claim to authenticity. Coca-Cola is a powerful brand because it’s "the real thing."

7. The Law of Quality - Quality is important, but brands are not built by quality alone. Does a Rolex keep better time? Probably? Does it matter? Probably not.

8. The Law of The Category - A leading brand should promote the category not the brand. EatZi’s is a new brand selling quality take-out meals at affordable prices.

9. The Law of The Name - In the long run, a brand is nothing more than a name. The primary difference of a Xerox copier is the Xerox brand name itself.

10. The Law of The Extensions - The easiest way to destroy a brand is to put its name on everything. What’s a Miller? Line extensions are killing Miller.

11. The Law of Fellowship - In order to build the category, a brand should welcome other brands. The best location for a Planet Hollywood is next t o the Hard Rock Cafe.

12. The Law of The Generic - One of the fastest routes to failure is giving a brand a generic name. Blockbuster is a good brand name while generic brand names are not.

13. The Law of the Company - Brands are brands. Companies are companies. There is a difference. Does Tide need the name P&G on the box? Brands should stand on their own.

14. The Law of Subbrands - What branding builds, subbranding can destroy. Express, Select, SunSpree, and Garden Court erode the power of the Holiday Inn brand.

15. The Law of Siblings - There is a time and a place to launch a second brand. When Honda introduced an expensive car they didn’t call the brand, "Honda Ultra."

16. The Law of Shape - A brand’s logotype should be designed to fit the eyes. Both eyes. Avis has the right idea, Arby’s is too vertical.

17. The Law of Color - A brand should use a color that is the opposite of its major competitor. The distinctive robin’s egg blue of a Tiffany box helps burn the brand into the mind.

18. The Law of Borders - There are no barriers to global branding. A brand should know no borders. Heineken is sold in 170 countries. All brandsshould be global brands.

19. The Law of Consistency - A brand is not built overnight. Success is measured in decades. BMW has been the ultimate driving machine for 25 years.

20. The Law of Change - Brands can be changed, but only infrequently and only very carefully. Twenty years ago, Citibank was a business bank. Today Citibank is a consumer bank.

21. The Law of Mortality - No brand will live forever. Euthanasia is often the best solution. Kodak is a photographic brand that will not be as effective in the digital era.

22. The Law of Singularity - The most important aspect of a brand is its single-mindedness. By focusing on safety, Volvo has become the largest selling imported European luxury car.

 

[strmrdr]

My opinion on brands is that brands mean next too absolutly nothing.
Being in the computer fields brands are a dime a dozen and one line will be kicken and another crap all the same brand.

As consumers become more educated brands are less important.

What brands do is attract the impulse buyer more than anything.
In some cases and especialy in the case of a lot of branded settings its just an excuse to kick the price up on so-so quality in many cases.
A lot of brands start out high quality turn to garbage as soon as they get popular because they have to abandon the production methods that made them better and they become just another item.
That makes it hard for the brands that actualy do mean something to excell.

When it comes to diamonds the ACA brand im kewl with because it means something but that doesnt mean im going to relly on the brand if im buying. The information still has to be there.
Same with Infinity
HOF and 8* are brands that like the case with designer settings are an attempt to create artificial shortages and charge more.



so my bottom line is that brands smands whatever :}
quality products is what its all about.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/19/2006 6:16:19 PM
Author: finerthings

Now you''ve got me really confused because I thought the whole purpose of AGS triple 0 diamonds (also known as ideal hearts and arrows) was insurance to the consumer that the diamond they are getting is superb.

.... ''superb'' doesn''t mean all AGS0 diamond would be completely identical. The idea was (IMO) to make them consistently brilliant - in a sense AGS defines very precisely.



So now I read that these stones don''t uniformly perform well...what''s up, I''m in need of more explanation.

If the look of the stones was slightly different under Wink''s loupe, that doesn''t mean to me that ''performance'' (i.e. brilliance) was uneven too.

Is it even a nice idea to have all diamonds look identical, like ... (name something cheap, round and branded - I''m lost).

8* touts this idea - that all their diamonds look identical, but they also have a clever way to keep the look rare - the price

 

[finerthings]

Thanks everyone for your explanations.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/19/2006 6:16:19 PM
Author: finerthings
Now you''ve got me really confused because I thought the whole purpose of AGS triple 0 diamonds (also known as ideal hearts and arrows) was insurance to the consumer that the diamond they are getting is superb. So now I read that these stones don''t uniformly perform well...what''s up, I''m in need of more explanation.

They are all superb. They are not all equal. They are all the top grade. There is incredible, there is really incredible and there is ridiculously incredible.

The average viewer will not be able to discern one from the other, but the trained observer will be able to detect minor nuances. For 99+% of the consumers (and sadly for a VERY high percentage of the vendors) it will not matter, but for a brand to establish itself well it should have a level of consistency well above what the average consumer can detect and much of the comfort that the consumer derives from owning that brand is knowing that it is consistently in the really incredible to ridiculously incredible catagory. After all, if you are paying for a brand, why be content with merely incredible?

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the discussion of these tiny details that we tend to forget the unsettling effect these discussions can have on someone who has not been involved with them for a while. Please do not worry aout your AGS 0, if you have one it is already an incredible stone. We just enjoy arguing about where in the hierarchy of AGS 0''s this particular incredible stone belongs. Some of us also believe that if you are going to brand a stone, you should consistently produce a recogniseable pattern of excellence.

Wink

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/20/2006 8:53:16 AM
Author: Wink

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the discussion of these tiny details that we tend to forget the unsettling effect these discussions can have on someone who has not been involved with them for a while.

Wink, can you snip and save that thought?

 

[Rod]

Everyone makes perfect sense on branding. Having immersed myself in diamond speak (is there a cure for this obsession?), I see branding as a way of helping the uninformed purchase something they can feel OK about. Take Leo for example. Many of the "Maul" jewelers sell the Leo. In my opinion, it doesn''t sparkle any better than the stone I bought, which isn''t branded, isn''t ACA, isn''t H&A, isn''t 88, isn''t Cento, isn''t.....But, when the average couple walks into the average store to buy that engagement ring, purchasing a Leo can give them some piece of mind they got something of better value. After all, not many people become as obsessed about diamonds as PS''ers do. And that means they know even less and as most of us can agree, there are a lot of bad dealers and poor quality cuts lurking out there. Buying a good diamond is a tough job indeed. Just my .02

 

[Hest88]

My opinion on brands is that brands mean next too absolutly nothing.
Being in the computer fields brands are a dime a dozen and one line will be kicken and another crap all the same brand.
As consumers become more educated brands are less important.

I wish this were the case, but I think the vast majority of consumers will always default to a trusted brand. For whatever reason---time, lack of understanding, lack of desire, etc.---most people take the simpler route. It''s how Mont Blanc, Rolex, Tiffany, and the like manage to thrive: by convincing the average consumer that their brand stands for a vastly superior product. Any diamond that can establish itself as a name brand will find itself ahead of the pack.

 

[perry]

I agree that branding is important - and that it leads to higher sales.

The trick for the consumer is to learn what the brands mean. Once they learn - then they can make a choice on what to buy. A brand selling "cheap - not so hot" goods may do very well.

McDonalds means cheap - fairly average hamburgers served fast in clean resturants. What they are really selling is the "fast in clean resturants" and not the hamburger.

In the world of jewelry there are also brands - but many people do not know the difference between them. When it comes to diamonds most people know almost nothing.

How do we educate people about what are really good brands (cut and quality wise); and the various other levels?

Perry

 

[oldminer]

Perry, you are very right about educating people to know about which brand stands for quality and which brand is just a name. How to tell the branded stones that are worthwhile from those in the middle and those that are only a name.

When we measure light performance quality we get repeatable results. When we measure tightly controlled brands we get reasonably close sets of brilliance, sparkle and intensity readings. When we measure some"name only" types, we get what logic would dictate, numerical readings from stone to stone showing inconsisten cutting and inconsistent performance. In the end, we will be able to report which brands provide consistency and which ones are more lax in cutting parameters. I think this will serve to educate retailers and pass on down to consumers, too.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dave an essential part of the beauty grading process is that consumers should be able to compare all diamonds from all companies and all different cuts on the same or similar scales.
Then the companies that can produce the diamonds that have the right appeal can build better brands.

AGS is failing in this because they have 2 ideal cuts (and more coming) that are not as good as each other.

This is the first problem for building diamond brands. There is only so far that you can go with 8* HoF marketing hype in terms of roduct based diversification.

The company that can come up with 5 new cut designs each year that are all as good or better than princess cuts may become the innovation leader and be known for high fashion. The Armani?

The company that can maximize yeild could become the company known as ''the biggest for less'' MacDonalds?
The company that brings out 1 new stone every 3 years that is progressively better than the 1 before, and all out perform Tolkowsky - they could be the BMW of performance?

etc etc
But first we need to fix the grading of beauty so the brands can introduce new cuts.
GIA''s round cut grade will stymie new cut development

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/20/2006 7:05:29 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The company that can come up with 5 new cut designs each year that are all as good or better than princess cuts may become the innovation leader and be known for high fashion. The Armani?

Armani,

What is so fashionable about Armani. I think that you do not intend this comparison with a fashion brand, which stands for yesteryears (beginning of the 90''s) and did not evolve after that.

True fashion is Dries Van Noten, Yamamoto or Ann Demeulemeester. And maybe I am talking about the past, since nowadays I hear names like Raf Simons, Les Hommes, and others.

Did you notice that these fashion-brands apparently have a short life-cycle? Even if Armani is still very well known, the real afficionados would not like to be found dead in an Armani-outfit. And did you read the latest reports about LVMH, which shows that most of their famous brands are actually all running at a loss.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2006 2:09:19 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 1/20/2006 7:05:29 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The company that can come up with 5 new cut designs each year that are all as good or better than princess cuts may become the innovation leader and be known for high fashion. The Armani?

Armani,

What is so fashionable about Armani. I think that you do not intend this comparison with a fashion brand, which stands for yesteryears (beginning of the 90''s) and did not evolve after that.

True fashion is Dries Van Noten, Yamamoto or Ann Demeulemeester. And maybe I am talking about the past, since nowadays I hear names like Raf Simons, Les Hommes, and others.

Did you notice that these fashion-brands apparently have a short life-cycle? Even if Armani is still very well known, the real afficionados would not like to be found dead in an Armani-outfit. And did you read the latest reports about LVMH, which shows that most of their famous brands are actually all running at a loss.

Live long,

Read rule # 21 in my post above Paul (or is this Lieve commenting per chance?)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Absolutely right about rule no. 21. And this is still Paul. I have my hidden interests too, you know.

 

[valeria101]

Does anyone remember some really old posts by Garry here, trashing diamond pictures from Tiffany.com via DC guesstimates?

Well, after they revamped the site (sometimes since the beginning of December ''05 perhaps) every round diamond there has ''standard issue'' arrow pattern.

Not sure what this has to do with branding, or with the 10,000 posts about Tiffany diamonds lacking something...

Why on Earth?

 

[JohnQuixote]

What a renaissance forum!

In the last 3 days we''ve done incredible cars, wine and now fabulous designer clothes. If you guys haven''t seen hangout, there are also some must-read food threads.

(Paul - Anyone who saw you at JCK knows you are a sharp-dressed man... But I think we all thought our friend Lieve dressed you!)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Wait till you see my new glasses.