Comments for Forsenorse's Blog

Comment on Rethinking Surf Ads by minitipito

minitipito — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:50:08 +0000

aja

Comment on About by Tom Daniel

Tom Daniel — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:38:27 +0000

Hi Erik,

Just wanted to say hi and hope that you’re able to send me an email, as I’d value your opinions on something that I know you’ be informed about and that also may be something that may interest you. Have a look at our site, regards from Australia and look forward to hearing from you as you can …… Tom. Skype: tomatfeedit

Comment on Rethinking Surf Ads by jah

jah — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:32:24 +0000

I agree. There’s way to much sameness. I really don’t see any brands (with the exception of Insight) even attempting to push the creative envelope. It’s truly a phenomenon that the our industry, with all its supposed creativity, hasn’t progressed past this “action shot/product shot” mentality. Maybe it has to do with the fear of being different. The sport and industry cannibalizes itself every year because company’s, in-part, want to look and feel “core”… and the result is a lack of true creative inspiration, static or declining market share and an open door to larger companies, with massive budgets, who hire an outside agencies to build campaigns that inspire and motivate. Nike, Gatorade, Converse, Adidas, are a few good examples. Even the smaller company’s should learn from this, as they are more agile and fluid to sustain their creativity without the bureaucracy.

Who knows, maybe the bros will wise up one day and get to the essence of what truly inspires and drives the real core… hint – its not a shot of someone doing an air with your logo over it.

Comment on It was your idea? by Tbone

Tbone — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:14:12 +0000

and that’s exactly what Apple has done for 20+ years. They have always “gotten it.”

Comment on Do consumers care when your apparel brand started? by Paul G. Gagner

Paul G. Gagner — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:49:51 +0000

Consumers care about values. Trying to leverage a brand’s heritage can have the opposite effect by portraying a brand as a has-been and one not relevant to the needs of today’s consumer. However, if you focus on the brand’s values – quality, sustainability, reliability, value, etc. then these are the attributes a consumer cares about and relates to – and these values can come from a 100 year old brand, or 1 year old brand. If the 100 year old brand has consistently upheld these values then this speaks volumes – but still, the focus should be on values, not age. It’s kind of like talking about demographics vs. psychgraphics. In my opinion the latter is much more relevant for understanding, and predicting, consumer behaviors.

Comment on Do consumers care when your apparel brand started? by doubleb

doubleb — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:02:08 +0000

Hmmm, tough call.

I often see people in their late 20′s/early 30′s wearing Airwalk and Vision Streetwear kicks, probably oblivious to the fact that they’re not the same companies they were back when we were kids. I think they like the heritage aspect for sure.

Hollister plays to a similar space too. Even if people didn’t wear it 20 years ago (because it didn’t exist!), it has a perceived heritage among those that don’t surf, but like to emulate the lifestyle. Hollister, an incredible case study, can be said to have a classic surf feel, especially with some of its vintage gear. People resonate with that. Even if it’s not authentic to the core surf set.

Then there’s the guys who want the latest and greatest before you have it and once you do, they don’t want it anymore.

There’ll always be those that prefer the Stones to <>, but some people will want a mix of both.

Comment on Do consumers care when your apparel brand started? by antipop

antipop — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:53:10 +0000

Probably not much for teens floating in the trend tides but for many other markets I believe consumers do care. A consumer in the outdoor lifestyle market looking for a dependable shell, may make a decision about a jacket based on whether or not they believe the company has a significant amount of experience, history and r&d to produce a reliable product. At higher price points they may also want feel secure that the company will be around to back up the product in the future.
While they may not care about which year, I bet the they care about an established reputation.

I would also speculate that the “innovators” and “early adapters” would probably care more. I my opinion these are the people setting trends, doing research and looking for something new. They maybe more core. I would guess that as the curve rises and falls post early adapters, the concern about start dates begins to drop off.

Just my 2 cents
apop

Comment on The Airwalk Syndrome…returning? by forsenorse

forsenorse — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:14:13 +0000

Good question. I have to look at a brand like Patagonia with what I perceive to have controlled distribution, but managed to remain “core” and still grow. In talking to a “core” retailer recently they mentioned that the best brand at managing distribution and thus providing protection against eroding margins for the retailer and the wholesaler…just happens to be one of the largest brands…Nike, with Nike 6.0. The core market may be dwindling (SIMA research showed 156 shops closed from 2006-2008….wait until 2009 wraps up!) but a lot of brands can still find growth in the core and the “accepted” (hey, at least these aren’t the mass discount chains) national retailers like Macy’s, Zumeiz, the Buckle. What good is revenue growth for a private company if profitability drops.

Comment on The Airwalk Syndrome…returning? by doubleb

doubleb — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:07:07 +0000

Great thoughts Jeff. I honestly don’t have the answer. I know with my agency, we’ve had the option to expand in a number of ways, but held off because I didn’t think it was sustainable.

The result was, for a period of time, we put in a lot of extra time… but eventually things got back to a normal growth level and we were ok. But we’re a small PR firm (with big results , not a global agency.

From a brand standpoint, it’s a lot harder, I’m sure. There are a few brands out there in skate I see following the slow/sustained growth model and starting sub brands at the same time to increase their presence. Of course, these guys are not near the revenue of some of the larger ones.

There’s also the downside of when a mass retailer cuts down their big buys from the action sports world.

Again, it’s a dicey path to head down and one not easily navigated. If I had all the answers, I’d start my own brand.

Comment on The Airwalk Syndrome…returning? by Jeff Trainor

Jeff Trainor — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:49:20 +0000

Well put, over distribution has always been a brand killer. The list of brands which have fallen victim to the temptation of easy money from national retailers is a long one. So the question is this, if your business is in a position where you are unsuccessfully scrambling to make up lost revenue from “core” channels which ultimately may land you in the grave yard, what harm is there in finding sanctuary in the pockets of a national retailer? In other words, you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t. It seems the only option which allows the business to survive and maintain its integrity is downsizing operations to fit the new demand. However this approach has its problems too. Aside from the obvious being layoffs and restructuring, voluntarily decreasing market share and therefore revenue may ultimately lead to the demise of the brand. Is going vertical the only way to maintain core integrity, maintain/grow market share, and stem off over distribution?