Talk:Lifestyle brand/Archives/2012

A&F IS NOT the prototypical example

I agree, Abercrombie is not a lifestyle brand. There so-called lifestyle brand concept neglected the inclusion of minorities. Cigarettes are the better concept.

Abercrombie and Fitch was very successful marketing itself as representative of a specific demographic from the mid-90's to mid-millennium. The campaign was, as you've illustrated, quite specifically focused, on what could be defined as middle-class, Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon high-school- & college-aged persons. The fact that people outside this demographic are ignored does not make it less of a "lifestyle" brand; the absence of other racial persons more acutely defines the demographic upon which A&F focused. The firm's success in sex-based marketing helped define modern marketing campaigns across many markets. It's success is made evident by the company's fiscal liquidity and expansion into three new companies (Hollister, Ruehl, Gilly Hicks)

"Lifestyle brand" is, IMHO, a shady classification for a company that markets by plastering naked people on walls. However, by the definition given in this article, the company fits the classification. 173.72.214.210 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

rofl, there's also NO way A&F is "upper-class". infact, it's about as far from upper-class as it gets. ;/ gg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.63.125 (talk) 18:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

A company's actual social status is not directly correlated to the image it portrays within its marketing campaign. A&F's price-point, and the focus within its marketing, make the statement that the lifestyle it represents is affluent. 173.72.214.210 (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks?

I'm curious about the rationale behind saying that Starbucks has struggled, especially in music. See main Starbucks article and the Hear Music article. Seems pretty successful by those accounts?

I think who ever wrote this should stop writing articles. Your attempt at using large words is pathetic, especially since half of them are in the wrong context. Also, as the people before me mentioned, your information is simply wrong.

Sources

Lack of sources for this article makes me laugh, clearly who ever wrote this simply read something off an online article. Here are some simple web articles the author could have used.

http://www.stepinsidedesign.com/STEPMagazine/Article/28615

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/07/not_every_brand.html

Thats all I could find in such short notice. But its clear not all of what is written is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.51.130 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)