Harley sales down

[Seca Girl]

Interesting that you consider a for-profit corporation worthy of the same loyalty as your family and country.

I have no problem with loyalty to people or ideals, and displaying that with a tat. I have several tats myself. I just find it odd when that is transfered into a corporation.

If H-D means that much to you, and you consider your country & family to be corporate brands, oh well.

It's quite amazing that corporations can create that loyalty. It's really a masterstroke of advertising. H-D is the king of it in m/c world.

(PS, ad hominem, means "against the person" not relevance. Oh, and how did you pull out that I'm a harley-hater? My feelings on H-D go as far as I'd prefer not to ride cruisers, regardless of maker.)

[Nalian]

Tattoos are such a personal thing, I'm not really sure why anything should be 'dumb' to get.

[flynrider]

For the last few decades, advertising trends have moved towards developing an "irrational affinity" towards the brand, rather than trying to sell you a particular product. Apple started it in the 80s and it has exploded. Nike, and others have had great success with it. When you see an advert that doesn't mention a particular product, but tries a message like, "You think like us, not like them", you're seeing it in action. It's a very effective method and has been adopted by the two major parties in U.S. politics. The results are plain to see.

I have a hard time figuring out why anyone would have, as Gummiente put it, "extreme brand loyalty" to a corporation. What did they ever do for you, other than sell you stuff? If you like their stuff, fine. But, if someone should come along with much better stuff, is there any reason you should be "loyal"? Corporations do not care about you any further than your wallet. If you think they do, you're just kidding yourself. In the corporate world, if there is such a thing as a loyalty, it will be to the corporations stockholders.

[CNF2002]

For the last few decades, advertising trends have moved towards developing an "irrational affinity" towards the brand, rather than trying to sell you a particular product. Apple started it in the 80s and it has exploded. Nike, and others have had great success with it. When you see an advert that doesn't mention a particular product, but tries a message like, "You think like us, not like them", you're seeing it in action. It's a very effective method and has been adopted by the two major parties in U.S. politics. The results are plain to see.

I have a hard time figuring out why anyone would have, as Gummiente put it, "extreme brand loyalty" to a corporation. What did they ever do for you, other than sell you stuff? If you like their stuff, fine. But, if someone should come along with much better stuff, is there any reason you should be "loyal"? Corporations do not care about you any further than your wallet. If you think they do, you're just kidding yourself. In the corporate world, if there is such a thing as a loyalty, it will be to the corporations stockholders.

Great insight! Right on the money. You missed McDonalds, which I think is a perfect example. Compare McDonalds to regular food side by side, the fast food is just disgusting. But kids love it. Kids love it before they even eat it. 2 year olds beg to go to McDonalds for the first time, never having tried the food, like its the end of the world if they don't get it. And rivalries between fast food joints, Burger King vs Jack in the Box...its all the same junk, but people swear to 'hate' one junk food place over the other.

[Gummiente]

I have no problem with loyalty to people or ideals, and displaying that with a tat. I have several tats myself. I just find it odd when that is transfered into a corporation.

The term you used in your previous post was "almost a mental illness". Had you said "I just find it odd" instead, I would not be taking you to task on this.

and you consider your country & family to be corporate brands, oh well.

That is an asinine assumption on your part. But thanks for the insight into your character.

(PS, ad hominem, means "against the person" not relevance.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." If you're going to use big words, make sure you know the full meaning of them.

[Seca Girl]

I have no problem with loyalty to people or ideals, and displaying that with a tat. I have several tats myself. I just find it odd when that is transfered into a corporation.

The term you used in your previous post was "almost a mental illness". Had you said "I just find it odd" instead, I would not be taking you to task on this.

Haha. So pedantic. Basically, you're saying that had I said "I think" as a preface to my original statement, you woundn't be bothered? It was an opinion, just as everything you've posted. Leaving off a weasel word or makes it a fact?

But thanks for the insight into your character.

Remember, your first response was to equate my statement about brand loyalty to loyalty to a country. So, to include the obilgatory insult "your character is defective because you don't know the difference between a corporation and your country." But seriously, I think you didn't have a proper frame of reference for my statement.

It's likely, that you didn't understand the concepts of branding and marketing that I was referring to in my OP. [1] A flag, or crest, can be a logo, without necessarily being a brand, in a mass media advertising context.

So I hereby apologize to Gummiente, for making a short, light-hearted post that did not fully explain all aspects and ideas referenced therein, so that all possible internet trolls would have no basis for misinterpetation.


[1] To use the extreme example of a country (we'll use Canada):
Loyalty to Canada, as "Brand Canada" would be where everything you know about Canada, and all of your feelings toward it, come from advertisments. Any loyalty to "Brand Canada" would be based that marketing. Now we can agree that people when people declare their loyalty to a country, the country's advertising (or "brand") isn't usually an influence.

So, when discussing brand loyalty, the discussion is usually limited to corporate brands. Because corporations would rather have blind loyalty to the brand, rather than have consumers judge the quality of produced independantly.

Citing the example of puck in the UK: Rita Clifton, chairman of brand consultancy Interbrand, said French Connection took the joke too far. "As the joke wore thin, it no longer had that type of emotional hold over consumers and then when the emotional hold becomes weaker of course things like product inadequacy or lack of perceived value, all these things start to come into play."

When the brand is weakened, it seems that customers start to notice things about the corporation's products that they might have overlooked, when clouded by emotion. This is the essense of branding. Where customers will overlook "product inadequacy or lack of perceived value" because of emotional attachment to a brand. Advertising and marketing are the tools that build the brand, and the loyalty to it. Therefore all feelings about the brand have been artificially created. An excellent way of of doing this to make the brand into a "lifestyle."

Throwing the example of a country's military into a conversation about branding is either a misunderstanding of the discussion, or the intentional throwing of a red herring.

[Seca Girl]

I have a hard time figuring out why anyone would have, as Gummiente put it, "extreme brand loyalty" to a corporation. What did they ever do for you, other than sell you stuff? If you like their stuff, fine. But, if someone should come along with much better stuff, is there any reason you should be "loyal"?

It's funny, I was watching American Chopper while reading this (the old man is fun to watch scream), and I realised something. You can build a complete custom chopper, without using any H-D parts.

It leads me to ask the Harley loyalist here: Would you own a custom chopper that didn't include any H-D parts? If you did have such bike, would you ride it to a Harley-only events? What if it was held together with metric fasteners (fabbed in Europe, maybe)? Now, why the hate for factory metric cruisers?

Flames aside, it's interesting that such custom choppers still fit in to the Harley world. They're not H-D products, don't use H-D parts, but are the ultimate evolution of H-D products.

[Gummiente]

I have no problem with loyalty to people or ideals, and displaying that with a tat. I have several tats myself. I just find it odd when that is transfered into a corporation.

The term you used in your previous post was "almost a mental illness". Had you said "I just find it odd" instead, I would not be taking you to task on this.

Haha. So pedantic. Basically, you're saying that had I said "I think" as a preface to my original statement, you woundn't be bothered? It was an opinion, just as everything you've posted. Leaving off a weasel word or makes it a fact?

But thanks for the insight into your character.

Remember, your first response was to equate my statement about brand loyalty to loyalty to a country. So, to include the obilgatory insult "your character is defective because you don't know the difference between a corporation and your country." But seriously, I think you didn't have a proper frame of reference for my statement.

It's likely, that you didn't understand the concepts of branding and marketing that I was referring to in my OP. [1] A flag, or crest, can be a logo, without necessarily being a brand, in a mass media advertising context.

So I hereby apologize to Gummiente, for making a short, light-hearted post that did not fully explain all aspects and ideas referenced therein, so that all possible internet trolls would have no basis for misinterpetation.


[1] To use the extreme example of a country (we'll use Canada):
Loyalty to Canada, as "Brand Canada" would be where everything you know about Canada, and all of your feelings toward it, come from advertisments. Any loyalty to "Brand Canada" would be based that marketing. Now we can agree that people when people declare their loyalty to a country, the country's advertising (or "brand") isn't usually an influence.

So, when discussing brand loyalty, the discussion is usually limited to corporate brands. Because corporations would rather have blind loyalty to the brand, rather than have consumers judge the quality of produced independantly.

Citing the example of puck in the UK: Rita Clifton, chairman of brand consultancy Interbrand, said French Connection took the joke too far. "As the joke wore thin, it no longer had that type of emotional hold over consumers and then when the emotional hold becomes weaker of course things like product inadequacy or lack of perceived value, all these things start to come into play."

When the brand is weakened, it seems that customers start to notice things about the corporation's products that they might have overlooked, when clouded by emotion. This is the essense of branding. Where customers will overlook "product inadequacy or lack of perceived value" because of emotional attachment to a brand. Advertising and marketing are the tools that build the brand, and the loyalty to it. Therefore all feelings about the brand have been artificially created. An excellent way of of doing this to make the brand into a "lifestyle."

Throwing the example of a country's military into a conversation about branding is either a misunderstanding of the discussion, or the intentional throwing of a red herring.

That has to be the biggest release of verbal diarrhea I've seen on this forum in a while. My first response to your post was a question, not an attack - ad hominem or otherwise. YOU equated a brand tattoo with a mental deficiency, causing me to wonder if that same sentiment applied to military members who have their branch and/or unit affiliation applied to their body. YOU took that to mean I equate a corporate logo as being on par with one of country or family - again, I refer to that as an asinine and completely incorrect assumption.

But with this latest post of yours it's obvious that any further attempt on my part to keep you on topic is going to be a complete waste of time, as you'd rather base your comments on perceived insults, illogical assumptions and taking things out of context. While your grasp of the English language is obviously superior to mine, it is also apparent that your interpersonal dynamics, like so many other academics I've met, are lacking.

Nice talking with you. Carry on...

[jonnythan]

They're not H-D products, don't use H-D parts, but are the ultimate evolution of H-D products.

I'm no Harley loyalist, though I do like their bikes, but to say a chopper is the ultimate evolution of the classic cruiser is.... well, let's say it's an interesting statement. Well, let's say it's wrong... let's say it's dumb too.

As for the conversation at hand, I think getting a corporation's brand tattooed on your body is questionable at best. I can understand the whole Harley thing.. my girlfriend's parents are big H-D people (yes, they're bikers) and I can certainly see where they're coming from. I'll probably own a Harley, but I cannot forsee myself ever being so loyal to a *corporation* as to get their logo permanently embedded into my skin.

I also have to say that it's childish to take the attitude that "corporate logo tattoos are dumb" and then attack the person who claimed this by equating that statement to "all logo tattoos are dumb." If someone was in the USMC and get a Marines tattoo of some sort.. more power to you. That's pretty cool if you ask me. In any case it's a completely different thing to get an American flag tattoo vs a Nike swoosh tattoo. There's no possible way to deny that.

Furthermore, Seca Girl's "Brand Canada" analogy is without any merit or relevance whatsoever. It's pure folly to imply that all a "Harley loyalist" knows about H-D is through advertising or marketing. Often, the motor company itself isn't even the direct target of their loyalty. In the H-D world, it really kinda does represent a lifestyle to many people. It's a position - political and social all at the same time. It represents something... something that isn't just a motor company. And a damn lot of them know way more about the motor company than anything they've learned through marketing.

[Seca Girl]

Trolling is fun, thanks for playing!