About Me 0091: Being Right or Making Money

It’s that magical time of the year when brand preferences are being lodged in the consumer psyche by any means necessary, be it free online shipping offers or conventional “doorbuster” style shopper stampedes. (Plus, in an admirable show of advance conditioning, there are those sidebar Four Loko-fueled parking lot brawls.)

But the romance of the brand is a notoriously ephemeral thing, as any casual survey of thrift-store Tickle-Me Elmo and Tamagotchi displays will promptly demonstrate. To do the job right, in this as in so many other realms, we would do well to heed the example of the Germans. As Bloomberg’s Chris Reiter reports, Deutschland’s Big Three automakers—BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (now a Volkswagen property)—have long been locked into a battle for the overtaxed attention spans of the youth market.

Back in February, Audi made a dramatic bid for high-end kiddie allegiance with a $13,300 model of a 1930s roadster, evidently calculating that a Weimar-era collectible is the perfect bridge to the true sturm-und-drang of a privileged adolescence. The model comes replete with “an aluminum frame, hydraulic brakes, seven speeds, leather-clad steering wheel, and oak dashboard,” and nearly sold out of its initial 500-unit manufacturing run, Reiter notes.

The idea behind such lush toy marketing, of course, is to instill intense brand-loyalty among the market’s littlest thought leaders. "Merchandising is important not because you can make huge money with it,” Audi sales chief Peter Schwarzenbauer tells Reiter, “but because it's another means of positioning your brand.” That means that Audi isn’t confining its initiatives to pint-sized drive trains, but is branching out to other durable badges of status, such as a $17,000-plus table soccer game—the idea here, evidently, being not so much to cultivate hooligan-style soccer fandom in the plutocratic young, but rather to inculcate the more genteel and respectable habit of full-scale team ownership.

It’s true that Audi isn’t neglecting more downmarket kiddie consumers in its push, with a $60 branded teddy bear and a $400 red-plastic version of the roadster; here, the functional array of model accessories include “an adjustable rollover bar, hand brake, over-sized tires with Audi-style rims, and padded seats.” But the main event is clearly the scrum for top-line market cachet, which is why Audi’s rivals are stepping up their game. Mercedes, for instance, is planning a spring rollout for “the foot-powered SLS Bobby-Benz, featuring headlights, grill, and rear end similar to those of the company's $183,000 SLS sportscar. The toy SLS features quiet-running tires, an Ackermann steering system with tight cornering for living-room maneuverability, and a steering wheel that absorbs impact to prevent injury in the event of a collision.” The model will boast a comparatively modest $120 asking price—but that loss-leader price point is a small sacrifice when you’re grooming future six-figure auto customers. "All the products have to live up to Mercedes' standards for quality and safety—especially our toys, which are all-time favorites with the next generation of Mercedes-Benz customers," reports Christian Boucke, who heads up the Benz accessories division.

BMW, meanwhile, appears to be the most horizontally minded lifestyle competitor in the luxe-branded market, brandishing a wide panoply of gear from a $460 kid-scale version of its M3 GT2 race car to a pair of $50 rain boots. The Beamer accessories division also turns a healthy 7 percentish profit—even though its brand-keepers, too, stress their real stake is in the longer-term loyalty game. “We are first and foremost a marketing initiative, and the main objectives are to broaden the brand's presence and strengthen loyalty," says Thomas Goerdt, who directs BMW’s distinctly un-German-sounding merchandising and lifestyle unit.

Still, the great risk of too-rampant accessory branding is market saturation—which is why Michel Gabriel, a branding specialist who has advised past Audi projectS, draws the line at underwear, even though “a lot of money can be made from a product” aimed at the intimate end of the brand market.

We can’t help thinking, though, that the Grosse Drei auto barons are selling short tomorrow’s financial titans with mere miniature knockoffs of luxury rides—and not just because their British competitor, Aston Martin, still owns the highest tip of the market with a Volante Junior model fetching a cool $24,000 with a devoted consumer base of young royals—who have duly gone on to modify their fullscale Astons to run on wine.

After all, the lesson of branding the world over is that a truly consummate brand eventually eclipses its mere material referent—hence the power of the glyphlike Nike swoosh (which only cost the firm $35 when design student Carolyn Davidson submitted in in 1971), or the “i”-themed Mac brand interface. Likewise, the business model for Mercedes has involved coaxing lavish multimillion-dollar subsidies from U.S. lawmakers at the same time it’s presented itself as an above-the-fray survivor of the 2008 global auto downturn.

Likewise, BMW has briskly seen to it that influential state congressional delegations have placed its own export interests ahead of the bailed-out U.S. auto industry—while Audi’s corporate parent Volkswagen has at least been candid in soliciting U.S. bailout funds, while also putting in for homeland funds to shore up its rickety loan operation. (Needless to say, this corporate pursuit of public-sector handouts doesn’t seem to have softened VW’s stand on American union drives, since like other foreign automakers, it’s expanded operations in anti-union right-to-work states to evade higher labor costs at home.) All of which is to say that, if doting plutocratic parents are looking to instill formative brand preferences this holiday season, nothing says “heed daddy’s example” like a simple, influence-subsidized government check. And Lord knows that for the properly connected family or industry, a good government kickback is about as hard to obtain as a pair BMW rain boots.

You, valued and valuable reader, are invited to join Chris Lehmann and your other fellow rich people to celebrate the publication of Rich People Things, this Thursday, December 2nd, at Le Poisson Rouge in New York City, from 7 to 9 p.m. There will even be a brief chit-chat with Thomas Frank and Maureen "Moe" Tkacik.

“You wanna know what the mother of all bubbles was? Us. The human race.”

That’s Gordon Gekko in the distinctly-mediocre Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

This weekend brought a rush of stories about a “bubble” that may or may not be re-inflating in Silicon Valley. The New York Times kicked it off, venture capitalist Fred Wilson (who is featured prominently in the story) quickly responded, and then Newsweek weighed in just to make sure the “Bubble 2.0″ moniker was secure. Uh oh, right? Not so fast.

One giant nugget of information in the NYT piece (co-written by TechCrunch alum Evelyn Rusli) is a bit buried:

For starters, this is not a stock market bubble. None of the companies are publicly traded.

In other words, if this “bubble” were to pop, it wouldn’t be the mothers and fathers of the world hoping to put their children through school who would be getting screwed. It would be the private investors. It would be a handful of (mostly) rich people who would be out of some of their money.

I suppose the employees of the collapsing startups could also be screwed somewhat. But they’d undoubtedly find work again quickly. And the founders would start new companies. Just like after the first bubble.

Business Insider has a good rundown of the actually public tech companies — you know, the kind mom and pop can and do actually invest in. The consensus there? Pretty wonderful, actually. Not over-the-top outrageous, just very solid for the most part.

Now, that doesn’t mean a “Bubble 2.0″ couldn’t pop and adversely affect the overall ecosystem. In fact, I’m sure it would to some extent, mainly because less money coming in would mean less innovation across the board. But it wouldn’t cause everything to collapse.

We all just lived through a very real bubble. The housing bubble. The results of it popping almost completely brought down not only our own economy, but much of the world’s economy as well. Real people lost their life savings. People went to jail. More people should have been locked up forever. It’s almost insulting to mention this supposed new web bubble in the same breath as that.

Again, this “Bubble 2.0″, if it does exist, is mainly just troublesome for investors. Smaller angel investors, in particular, are getting squeezed out of deals because early stage valuations are getting ridiculously high in some cases.

Undoubtedly it’s true that some of those startups should not be accepting so much money at such valuations, but that’s on them. If they fail, it will be a lesson to other startups. Maybe the motto is: go big and go home (at least in the early stage).

Another underlying current here is that many private investors aren’t comfortable with the state of the startup ecosystem. And yet many of them continue to do deals that they may not be comfortable with. Again, that’s on them. They’re all doing due diligence. If they don’t think a deal is worth it, they obviously shouldn’t do it. But some don’t seem to be able to turn down their name being attached to a high-profile investment — even if projections have it panning out to be a 2x exit. (The horror!)

Maybe some of them would actually be more comfortable investing in what Wilson calls “The Mess“. That is, startups in their awkward years. They’re neither new and sexy nor mature and money-making. Not surprisingly, no one seems to want to invest in those, besides current investors. But maybe those are where some deals are to be found.

In the press, there are two kinds of sexy stories to write: over-exuberance and death. We just got done with a week’s worth of over–exuberance surrounding the Google/Groupon deal. Holy shit, $6 billion dollars for a company that has only really been at it for a little over a year? That’s awesome! Let the good times roll.

The deal ultimately fell apart and in came the death stories. There needs to be balance in the world, after all. We know this just as well as anyone. The $6 billion Groupon deal made web investing as hot as the sun for a few days. And now it’s a bubble.

But wait. “Bubble 2.0″ has existed before. Here it is in 2005 — with Wilson worrying about some of the same things he’s still worried about. And here it is again in 2007 — with John Dvorak worrying that social media among other things would pop the bubble. And wasn’t it for sure a bubble later that year when Microsoft invested in Facebook at a $15 billion valuation? I was sure I heard that over and over and over again. Turns out, that was a pretty damn awesome investment, strategic or not.

There are dozens of other examples as well.

So maybe this is actually “Bubble 4.0″ or “Bubble 5.0″. Or maybe it’s not a big bubble at all. After all, if it pops and gum gets over only a few faces, will anyone do anything other than point and laugh, then go on with their lives?

[image: 20th Century Fox]

bench craft company rip off device

Live Blog: President Obama's news conference – CNN Political ...

President Obama will hold a previously unscheduled news conference on Tuesday at 2:20 p.m. likely focusing on the compromise with Republicans on tax cuts, the White House announced. Check back here for CNN's live blog of the press ...

Senior White House Official: 'We Wanted a Fight,' too ...

Vice President Biden heads to Capitol Hill today to lobby Senate Democrats to support the tax cut compromise, as President Obama faces criticism from congressional Democrats that he should have fought more for the Bush tax cuts on the ...

Good News, for a Change (SWJ Blog)

Ann Marlowe, not known for optimistic reporting and commentary on our efforts in Afghanistan, takes a different tone in her Weekly Standard piece entitled Good News, for a Change. BLUF: "… Zabul seems to be on an upward path. ...

advertising enlargement drugs