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

Despite your slight on Virgin Galactic (we’re bringing intergalactic space travel within the reach of millions) I like this post and I like the idea you suggest.

As you correctly point out, it would require an organisation who has the courage of its convictions rather than one who just sees it as a marketing ploy, but it could be a very strong platform if handled correctly.

I suppose the biggest issue is whether there are enough people with this viewpoint to make it financially viable for a brand to invest in. That and the fact that from then on, they would have to always represent societal value which could affect shareholder value.

Maybe it’s not such a good idea afterall.

(I do like the thought really, I’m just getting a sly dig in. Don’t complain, you started it.)

You’re getting soft Lee, normally your comments have an air of ambiguity so no one can be sure whether you are angry, offended or just having fun at their expense. Robert gets off the hook again, Andy will be disappointed.
Unfortunately I think your view is in the minority Robert. I’m not saying it’s wrong, just that if people are willing to pay outrageous sums of money for blinged items, can you blame companies for making them?
I do like the idea you have though and even though I get what Lee is saying, I think it would work, especially for brands who have a heritage of consumer value retailing.
I would have suggested Virgin but having been reminded about their ego space business, I’ve changed my mind now 🙂

I love your thinking Rob. That is a golden opportunity for K-Mart etc… I think the bling thing is fast reaching a point of parody (as that TV proves so well) so it’s the PERFECT time for someone like them to do something like that.

“Actually what I’d really like to do is get a client who represents ‘consumer value’ [someone like K-Mart or Kia] and convince them to take a stand against vulgar displays of wealth.”

Ditto Age… That’s fucking genius. Pitch winner no doubt. Awesome.

He’s giving even more of my payrise away? Soon I’ll qualify as a fucking charity. Neat idea though, I think we should do it before Age or Chaz take all the credit 🙂

Oooooh a post with some genuine, healthy debate in it. Now that is unusual, ha!

Hello Jenny Clarke … there’s a lot of new women on this blog and I have to say I like it.

The fact you’re not in advertising means you are far better placed to pass comment than the folk who think a quick lunch is a 10 course meal at The Ivy.

It is at this point I should state that whilst I am in advertising, my version of a quick lunch is NOT a 10 course meal at the Ivy, it’s a Chili Chicken at Wild Bamboo – the only place where I can get some food within a short walk.

PS: I LOVE your comment Lauren. Pure bloody gold. And as a half-Iti, I have to agree with Lee, the image of Italians always having effortless style is very open to debate. You should see some of the furniture in my families houses, haha!

PPS2: You’re right Lee … Virgin Galactic is bringing space travel to the ‘masses’, it’s just the masses still need to have a fuck load of money to blow, haha! In all seriousness, I do think you could take this issue on – but I still feel it would be more appropriate for K-Mart, Target or even Tesco’s – but hey, if I can sell the concept before Charles [Chaz?] or Age, I’ll take anyone, hahaha!

PPS3: What would your charity be called Billy? “Fraud?” 🙂

You know what Poor\, I’m not sure if I agree with you. Let me rephrase that … I don’t know if I agree with ALL of what you’re saying.

I know many incredibly successful business people [including some under 30] who do not feel a need to ‘flaunt their wealth’.

Infact, their attitude is that their success naturally brings attention so they neither have to announce it or court it.

Admitidly these individuals are not Asian or Middle Eastern [who culturally almost are required to ‘flaunt their riches’] but it’s not true that all who have cash need to scream about it!

OK, that’s the bit I didn’t agree with 🙂 now the bits I do …

It is a competitive environment and everyone wants to associate with a winner – however what I find interesting is that there is a shift going on and people are starting to regard companies who make money via a social philosophy far more attractive than those who simply look at maximising the bottom line.

Of course this adoration is limited to the general punter on the street rather than the money market whores, but this is a significant shift because this pressure could manifest itself into fundamentally changing corporate attitudes.

I’m not saying this WILL happen – but it could – and I for one hope so. As I said before, I am pro-making cash – it’s what you need to make things change – however my view is that making money is fine as long as you do it the right way and then use it the right way.

History is littered with organisations who have raped employees and consumers of their rights only to rose-tint history by setting up ‘charitable causes’.

To me, how you make it is as important as what you do with it … and if you are going to charge more, embrace it rather than try and create an illusion.

I’ve said it a million times, but if [RED] came out and said they were the Robin Hood of Charity [stealing from the brand label obsessives to help the aids victims] I’d feel far more positive about them than this ‘We All Care’ approach – which, when you look at who are main partners in the program, is obviously a crock of shit.

I’ve read the report Mark and it’s really good.

I must admit, I do think some of the findings are overly optimistic because you just have to see what/how/where/when society is consuming [especially in Asia and the Middle East] to realise eco-luxury is more often about ‘sentiment’ than fundamental change in behaviour.

I was talking to a sociologist recently and he commented that whilst the wealthy are looking for more eco-life experiences, they still demand all the external trappings they’ve got used to.

Climbing a mountain doesn’t mean much when you have a helicopter drop you off half way … owning a Toyota Prius is pointless when you still have three Bentleys … planting trees every time you fly isn’t actually making a major change.

I know I’m being cynical – but I can’t help but feel the illusion of compassion is more harmful than the arrogance of disbelief because at least then you know exactly what needs to be done rather than having this misguided belief things are beginning to change.

As much as it kills me, Andy wrote a great comment about his sort of thing so if you go …

http://robcampbell.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/an-inconvenient-personality/#comment-15576

… and scroll down, you’ll see why environmental luxury has the potential to alienate society rather than encourage it to get on board.

Slightly off topic here, but it’s all connected.

OK but in all seriousness. Comments like Jenny’s are very welcome. Very welcome indeed.

Of course you own Bling, you’re the ‘Huggy Bear’ of adland.

Having looked at the item, I can’t tell if it’s actually expensive or not [hahaha] however this isn’t about the odd bit of self-indulgence [I bought a fucking R2D2 robot for christsake!] it’s about brands who create over-priced, over-rated products for people who are obviously lacking in self esteem and wanting acceptance from a body of people who wouldn’t be worth pissing on if they were on fire.

In my opinion, the definition of ‘vulgar display of wealth’ is when extremely expensive options are added to a product/service despite it having no direct affect on the performance of the experience. I’m sure there are countless examples of this definition not proving to be tight, but for today – that’s what I think a brand could fight against.

To be honest, flying into space is not nearly as an offensive use of money as buying a US$130,000 television – at least that would be something life changing, a television with diamonds encrusted into it is about as much fucking use as a pill which makes you shit gold glitter.

[http://robcampbell.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/valuable-shit]

[And for the record, I didn’t praise spacetravel in an attempt to get back into Lee’s good books 🙂 ]

That TV makes me feel ill. Things like this are not about self indulgence. It’s about self-humiliation. The whole thing just screams of lack of self esteem, not to mention lack of taste.

Blimey. You’ve all been busy (even Lee managed more than his usual three sentence comment). Excellent post with fantastic comments (and it all seems to be staying on topic).

Well done. Morning.

Maybe it’s because I’m a mother or simply a case of women sticking together but I completely related to Jenny’s earlier comment which is why I am fairly confident a brand that took a stand against “vulgar spending” (I love that phrase) would experience a huge reaction, especially from Mums.

Oh my god … this post is still on track and not only has it got George out the luxury holiday woodwork [bit ironic you’re writing about ‘vulgar displays of wealth’ when you’re living it at the moment 🙂 ] but it has attracted a couple of new commentators – and they’re lovely Mum’s to boot.

Wonders will never cease and we haven’t even got the UK regulars on board yet.

Hello Jasmin …

It is spelt that way isn’t it?

It’s just that I always thought it had an ‘e’ on the end.

Mind you, if anyone is going to know, it’ll probably be someone who is actually called it.

You probably don’t want to get in touch now do you?

For what it’s worth, you can email me on …

rob at cynical-world dot com

… then we can sort out a phone conversation.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Not sure why this came to mind but where does the Bugatti Veyron fit into this. A car that retails at £800,000 is clearly a “vulgar display of worth” but, on the other hand, they cost £4 million to produce so it’s actually a smart piece of thrifty shopping.

Now the economics are clearly mad, but is it the actual price of something that makes it vulgar, is it the nature of the item or is it the notion that companies are making a profit from “vulgar displays of worth” that is the most offensive?

Good point John … I think alot of it has to do with the intention of creation and/or purchase.

For some reason, I find an $800,000 handcrafted car less offensive than some blinged up Hummer.

Of course if the Bugatti was pimped up to the nines, then the owner would need to be shot, obviously.

I wrote in an earlier comment that for me, the definition of ‘vulgar display of wealth’ is when extremely expensive options are added to a product/service despite it having no direct affect on the performance of the experience.

It is open to debate, but it sort-of works for me – and hopefully it’ll work for the client we’re now trying to buy it 😉

Something for the ladies:

@Abba James – how on earth does this site get a welcome visitor like you? What mad combination of words have to be googled?

@JasminGlass – don’t be surprised if your email ends up filtered into his spam folder (or is that just mine Rob?)

I kid you not, there was just an item on the radio about the world’s most expensive marmalade. It has gold leaf in it and this means it costs £5000 per jar which equates to £76 per slice of toast.

Oh, on another note… found Ferrari aftershave reduced to 9.99 in town yesterday!

We’re working on it Jem and on tonight’s [Fri]videocon, I’ll tell you more about it.

This post led to a very interesting ‘development’ … doesn’t mean anything will happen from it, but it opened the door to someone thinking very differently about what they can do with their brand.

Be good … 🙂