The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]


It’s The Company You Keep That Says Most About Who You Are …
September 24, 2007, 7:02 am
Filed under: Comment

PradaPhone by LG

So following Prada and LG’s recent dalliance creating the iPhone ripoff [well, at least in looks – it was generally accepted the product was quite simplistic interms of technical ability] which brand do you think prospered more out of the relationship and do you think they should/would do it again?

Oh, and feel free to interpret ‘prospered’ anyway you like … be it financial, brand allure, distribution, etc etc. Thanks so much, looking forward to hearing your comments.


35 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Maybe it’s just me but I felt Prada were the biggest losers in this. Everything except the name on the front of the phone felt like LG (and I include the ads) and it left me Prada had gone down market.

Comment by Pete

It’s beyond me why Prada would want to do this deal with LG. I agree with Pete. Prada is taking a massive nosedive downmarket with this LG co-branding deal. But if I were LG, I would do it again.

Comment by fredrik sarnblad

Yup. I concur here… the mobile phone market is a market driven by necessity. People these days NEED a phone. The thing that the phone companies try to do now is convince us why there product is better than the others. Either through the fashion angle, the functions angle, the design angle etc… but in the end, it’s all about fulfilling a pretty necessary need.

High fashion is not necessary, it’s a privilege. And as you’ve discussed quite a few times on this blog, Rob, it’s this “privilege” that drives brands like Louis V, Bulgari, YSL, Dolce and yes, Prada so strong – because people want what they can’t have. Placing themselves into the fickle world of mobile phones kills that desire by making them seem accessible to the average person.

It might sell a few phones for LG which is good for them, but long term, it’s not a great move from Prada.

My 2 cents anyways… would like to know your opinion, Rob.

Comment by Age

It was an interesting move. I think Prada felt they would gain kudos from the iPhone association; whereas in reality they lost a little from the LG association. Not that LG are a bad brand, they just lag a little in phones…although that said, at the time this one came out LG did have the single most stylish phone on the market. (The chocolate).

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I agree with Pete … I think it’s all been to the benefit of LG rather than Prada. I’m sure it made sense initially, but in the end it came across as a crass exploitation of both the iPhone hype and the Prada brand.

Infact I’d go as far as to say this union has up potentially damaged the prestige of the PRADA brand – because apart from their name on the product, it all smacked of LG – which is great for them, but not so good for PRADA, a brand that has been very strong in consistently maintaining their brand tone and manner for the past decade or so.

And I’d like to say this view is not because my time working on LG was, without doubt, the single worst client experience of my entire career 🙂

Comment by Rob

Funnily enough, the other times mobile phone companies ‘linked up’ with designers/brands, they seemed to have [initially at least] fucked up …
or strictly speaking, Motorola have with D&G and Apple. Then this is a brand that said their strategy was to give phones names with 3 or 4 letters as they had proof this meant it was seen as ‘cool’.

For fucks sake …

Charles wrote a great post on this issue over on his blog – a blog he can’t access at the moment as he’s in Beijing at the moment, ha!

Comment by Rob

I can see why Prada did it though.
The LG chocolate had just come out and was widely seen as the epitome of phone cool, and the LG shine was also seen as pretty stylish.

They backed the right horse, it was just a bad race.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I can see why Prada did it too … but I still wouldn’t allign with a company that is still more well known [in certain parts of the World] for fridges and mircowaves than phones!

In their quest to make their brand more accesible [if that was the real reason] they’ve actually – in my mind at least – made their brand less desirable, a major difference, ha!

Comment by Rob

Maybe that was the point though, to slightly unexclusivise the brand. Maybe they werent selling enough as they were ‘too out of reach’.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

If you license your brand to extensions that are unrelated to the core then you denude or at least relocate that core. Phone usage may well have a fashion element to it but it’s a different sort of fashion from that in which Prada deals so I can’t see it does Prada any good unless as Mr. Mortimer says it’s a Burberry thing.

Comment by John

Yep.
At the point that phone came out though, phones were at their highest ever point of being “style symbols”. Maybe they were testing the water, maybe they were unexclusivising, maybe they just got it wrong.

But considering the potential market of phones, I bet they consider a test worth taking.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

So by that reckoning, how do you think the Levi’s mobile is going to do – a phone that is branded Levi’s and has no noticable ‘partner’ to give it technological credibility.

Comment by Rob

Haha.

Well firstly, Levi’s have already tried technological developments (I believe they did the first mp3 player jacket.).

Secondly, I wouldnt say Levis was the right type of brand to do such a move. The middle to lower ‘class’ section of phones is crowded… Prada stood a chance because the high end phone market was starting to take off alongside the fashionista-phone market.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

Hmm – seems like you were writing good stuff even before I wove my influence upon you! As for Levi’s well I think the same rule applies – phones are technical, levi’s are clothing and you don’t associate any type of clothing with using a phone (except perhaps for a dirty mac) so i don’t see the connection. Aren’t these phones just a reaction to the customisation of phones that sees peopel putting different facias/ring tones on them and is it just me or is the reaction to that largely ridicule or indifference?

Comment by John

Well we’ll be able to evaluate LEVI’s extention as they’re launching very soon and I for one am interested to see where it fits in. The problem with all this is that there’s no guaranteed set of rules – there’s great examples in both camps – but one thing that does seem to underpin success is being serious about it, rather than simply stretching the brand to exploit some perceived profit opportunity.

Comment by Rob

Absolutely. Odd brand extensions work when there is genuine believe and effort. Cadbury’s Smash anyone?

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I have to say that my girlfriend wanted one and got one. But the telephone is real crap. It looks nice but is absolutely impractical as hell. So it got sold and will be replaced by a Nokia.
In my thought only LG took advance from the cooperation. But still I can’t understand why Prada did it. I don’t like Prada but they should have done a cooperation with Samsung or Nokia. A good mobile phone brand. The same is with the new cooperation between Porsche Design and Sagem. Why Sagem? They were okay 10 years ago but since then only produced bad products. Anyway, morning everybody.

Comment by Seb

I think I can answer that question about Prada and Porsche for you Seb … royalty % payment, and the fact it would probably be massive from those 2 mobile manufacturers whereas with one of the big 4, it would probably be a fraction of it.

There’s a great example of brand ego with Sony Ericsson and the licensing of the Walkman and Cybershot brands – but given I fancy maintaining a roof over my head, that will have to wait for another day, ha!

Great to have you back Seb and lovely to see corporate-toadiness in buying your missus a Nokia given your agency is happily taking millions off their hands for global advertising!

Comment by Robert

But Nokia and Samsung dont design ‘style’ phones. And most Nokias feel like they are made by a 5year old using sticklebricks.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

Have you seen the new Nokia Prism?

Designed by Stevie Wonder and Liberace I think, ha!

Comment by Robert

Wouldnt surprise me.
I can see why Nokia went for W+K, they need all the style advice they can get.

I stopped buying Nokias because they never felt like they would last 5 minutes.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

Cadbury’s Smash really threw me there. So much so that I rang my mum and she teels me that cadbury’s moved from chocolate into desserts (which is logical) and that Smash came after that so it’s not quite as odd an extension as it seems from today. They also owned Schweppes which owned Typhoo and so were trying to capture supermarket shelf space I guess.

Comment by John

Oh no, sirs. Nokia is still the best choice when it comes to mobile phones. They have an intuitive menu and less susceptible for technical wear than other manufacturers. This may sound like corporate toadiness (thanks for teaching me that term, Rob) but it’s just the truth. Right now I own a Samsung and they are great, too. Especially in terms of design they are ahead of Nokia. But my next will be a Nokia again.
Though I have to agree about the designish aspect. But why do Nokia phone look like oldschool bones from the 80ies? Aren’t the Scandinavian designers famous for their ahead of time designs and minimalism? Or is it because Finland is too close to Russia (sorry) and only the Danish and Swedish have that brilliant taste for form and function?

Comment by Seb

Could be.
Though I disagree on usability. Ive had two Sharp phones and found them to both be brilliantly usable menuwise.

They also feel so much better built than Nokias. I think the Fins have come a long way though, and hopefully soon they will be back in my consideration. They went too mass market and cheap back in the 2001-2004 phone rush and havent fully recovered yet.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I’m with Seb on the Nokia point. Intuition and ease of use is a massive, massive reason as to why they are still number one worldwide.

It also helps that they are using the 3310 in the developing world, one of the great mobile designs in the last 15 years. People then trade up, and voila..

Comment by Will

Oh, and Mr M – never had a Sharp, but Samsung’s are awful, Motorolas are generally not that great..

The only true pretender is the mighty Sony Ericsson.

Comment by Will

Dont like Samsung, and Motorola’s are so incredibly user unfriendly. But I love my Sharp phone, even after two years.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I miss my Nokia phone. I have this Sony thing that really sucks.
I also miss the days when phones were bricks, I never lost them then.
Odd to think of Prada letting anyone else make a phone for them. An image like that needs to be managed with am iron fist- and with LG? Sounds a bit like Porsche doing a one off for Dyson.

Comment by NP

But Dyson has style.
Well, they certainly used to.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I always thought that where Nokia were sensible was ensuring their ‘key accessories’ always were interchangable with other phones – alas the quest for profit changed all that so if you buy a new phone, half the time you need a completely new charger, desk holder, software upgrade etc etc.

I’ve not had Nokia for years now – almost bought the N95 but went back to Sony Ericsson, mainly because I actually think it’s more intuitive and simple than the much vaunted Nokia menu system. Jill has a Nokia and there’s about 800 menus, all with different icons – whereas SONY fit them all into 12 key headings which makes things much easier. At least for me 🙂

As for the size issue NP talks about – he’ll be happy that a couple of manufacturers are launching phones that will make him happy – giants of a thing – but maybe he’d prefer the ultra basic Motorola one [7 quid] or the French ‘disposable cardboard’ mobile [5 quid, I think] so that if he loses it, he doesn’t give a toss, ha!

Very interesting debate today – thanks folks – and for the questions to ask at the conference.

Comment by Rob

Did you read the link I posted about Samsung and Georgio Armani?

Comment by Rob Mortimer

Errrrm, maybe it’s because I’m rushing to the airport or maybe it’s because I’m as blind as a bat – but where they hell is that link you’re talking about Mr M?

Comment by Rob

http%3A//www.efluxmedia.com/news_Samsung_and_Giorgio_Armani_Partner_for_Co_branded_Gadgets_08942.html&cid=1121186387

There! (also above your previous post)

Comment by Rob Mortimer




Leave a Reply