Why are designer's print ads so horribly out of touch?

I also want to take a bit to chime in on this issue. I am a luxury marketing student and have read quite a bit and been taught even more.

What the OP has also ignored, and I don't believe it was subsequently touched on, is that a lot of the fashion brands carve out not only exclusivity, but also a goal. In this day of leverage, credit, and expansion, many consumers will leverage themselves to obtain a status symbol, mainly a designer item which is thought of by the mainstream as luxury.

In these ads, there are handsome, skinny, ideal men for most. Marketing, and specifically branding in this regard, works on 5 levels from awareness to branded. The reason for the consistent marketing and advertisements is not to cater to the loyal customers as it is to develop new customers. Consumers of premium and luxury brands are some of the most likely consumers to be loyal to a particular brand.

If we take your example of Gucci, it is important to realize what the customer for Gucci is. Is it a classically tailored gentleman? Probably not. Is it a recently promoted person who considers them self a hotshot? Likely. Is it someone who is attempting to demonstrate status? Absolutely.

These images appeal to nobody and sell very little.

Click to expand...

Gucci is the highest selling Italian brand in the world. Its sales are consistently in the billions of dollars, leading me to think that they indeed sell quite a bit.

My final thought to you. You may have a career in marketing, but the first thing you learn in luxury marketing is that the traditional rules of marketing are thrown out the window. In fact, the rules are often quite reversed to ensure brand success.

In these ads, there are handsome, skinny, ideal men for most.

Click to expand...

I guess we disagree in our view of what constitutes an "ideal man". I don't think the men pictured in the above ad are handsome or ideal. Skinny, sure... but that's it.

Since my original post, I was suggesting that the men in these ads SHOULD be handsome and ideal, however instead they typically lack even the faintest of identifiable male traits or physical features.

Another poster, IMO hit the nail on the head, so I'll just quote him rather than paraphrase

Originally Posted by negusnegas

Click to expand...

Sometimes in more subtle ways, such as people saying they were unable to identify with say a Dior ad, but more so able to identify with a d&g ad. Interestingly enough both are pretty homoerotic, but the d&g ad has an underlying masculinity that a more traditional male may still be able to connect to, while the dior ads often border on the androgynous.

Also...

Gucci is the highest selling Italian brand in the world. Its sales are consistently in the billions of dollars, leading me to think that they indeed sell quite a bit.

Click to expand...

I didn't need you to tell me that. I was suggesting that the ads sold very little, per their placement in GQ. I still contend that the vast majority of GQ's readership (80-90%) will feel a strong disconnection with the "extreme ads" rather than a favorable view of the brand. Without question, Gucci/ Versace will continue to sell products to their pre-existing niche. I am questioning (and doubting) however, their concrete ROI on running extreme ads in mainstream men's magazines.

Your correct assertion that Gucci is a luxury brand, and defies traditional advertising is duly noted; so I will yet again repeat that there are more cost effective ways of reaching their base and vying for market share than mass-distributed print publications (particularly in the digital age).

dude give it up you obviously do not get it. ****.

Originally Posted by macuser3of5

Click to expand...

dude give it up you obviously do not get it. ****.

What am I not getting? Rather than cursing at me, why don't you actually read what I've written and provide a concrete, factual rebuttal if you're so inclined.

I'm willing to horizontally frame my argument from "Gucci isn't connecting with ME" to "Gucci isn't reaching their base effectively (via GQ)"

Six in one, half a dozen in the other. But if it reduces the nitpicking and silly counter-arguments than so be it.

Macuser3of5: Gucci can run a more effective ad campaign by utilizing; sponsorship, co-branding, takeover/ floating ads, CPC placements (in blogs, search engines, industry forums, etc), SEO, etc. versus traditional print advertising. In fact, given their "extreme ads" and avante-garde image, they'd be well-suited for a viral online/ ground campaign. Right or wrong?

(Please don't continue to insult me without adding any substantial commentary to the discussion)

why it's just noise. everything has been said 100 times by now.

Originally Posted by JG000

Click to expand...

Macuser3of5: Gucci can run a more effective ad campaign by utilizing; sponsorship, co-branding, takeover/ floating ads, CPC placements (in blogs, search engines, industry forums, etc), SEO, etc. versus traditional print advertising. In fact, given their "extreme ads" and avante-garde image, they'd be well-suited for a viral online/ ground campaign. Right or wrong?

Please respond.

gucci could create ads featuring two cardigan-wearing donkeys pounding each other ********** and still maintain its sales. look, these are established brands. their current advertising campaigns probably have more to do with maintaining a sense of visible edginess than they do with swaying its base towards making a financial decision they may not have otherwise made.

Originally Posted by JG000

Click to expand...

Please respond.

Build yourself a multibillion dollar luxury brand and prove us all wrong. Until then for the love of god just shut up.

Originally Posted by JG000

Click to expand...

Please respond.

You're right, Gucci should just drop print ads and post diggs, start fake blogs, and have the models prance around in chatroulette. The kids will eat that **** up. JFC

He's just saying the Village people are his kind of man.

They all try to carve out an image for themselves, in order to grow/maintain their place in the market. On some level, this influences what you think of when you think of the brand.

Obviously, this has a different impact in different contexts. What plays well in the market doesn't necessarily appeal to specific sub-groups, such as this one.

I think the best argument for the efficacy of these ads is the fact that they all do it. If it was really so horribly out of touch, at least some of them would start to jump off the bandwagon. Since that hasn't happened, you have to assume the ads are good value for their money.

You also have to remember about brand awareness. Each of these brands has a particular image that is associated with them, and which they promote through their ads. If they produced different ads for each magazine that they advertise in, then their brand image would become diluted. You can't cater to every potential customer without diluting your image so much as to be indistinguishable from the average mall brand.

Originally Posted by Sanguis Mortuum

Click to expand...

You also have to remember about brand awareness. Each of these brands has a particular image that is associated with them, and which they promote through their ads. If they produced different ads for each magazine that they advertise in, then their brand image would become diluted. You can't cater to every potential customer without diluting your image so much as to be indistinguishable from the average mall brand.

These designer brands are selling more than clothes...They're selling a perceived lifestyle.

The person buying Prada or D&G will get associated to a certain mental image of the brand and its social symbolism.

Ralph Lauren is using his preppie models for decades now and it is working...

Gucci ,Tom Ford have decided to be associated with a more sexy image and it is working too..

Originally Posted by Sartorial1

Click to expand...

Advertisers in conjunction with the purveyors of fashion have decided (in their minds) how we should look.
Is it how you want to look?
You have a choice when it comes to you.

+1.