Same VS Relevant
In centuries past, branding a makers mark on ceramics and hand made goods was done to prevent copies or recreations of the real thing. Their purpose was to guarantee the future integrity of their brand and encapsulate the design and style from which they stemmed, (timelessness). Todays marks do just that for businesses; a successful visualization of a business’ experience ensures its longevity through the ages and cements its purpose in the future of a modern social environment.
This might seem to be a clear chain of thought, but identifying which brands practice what they preach is a different matter. The true nature of endorsement now only works with high end + durable products, such as Patek Philippe. Oddly though, brand owners from many other industries think otherwise which is perhaps why they like to endorse products needlessly. Everything from food to electronics is falling into that very same category. Not because they want to remain relevant, but because they don’t want to be the same.
Same versus relevant. The parameters that define “same” are consistent quality assurance defined by the era of its relevance.
Lalique, the French glass maker, would not release new products with their respective parameters (methods of glass making like blowing, which was the standard or wax moulding which created one offs every time, greatly increasing the price and value of the product). But when they did, they looked to redefine relevance. Apple began their reign doing just that: taking available technology and crafting a timeless amalgamation that would remain the standard for decades to come.
Is stretching appropriation the standard now? Could the brand mark purpose grant the same consolation prize. A heritage or belief system in a service that is just as sworn by as a Patek Phillipe. Why stop at Apple? Could perhaps the service from the Four Seasons or the Ritz be placed in that category for their consistency. Managing to keep opulence relevant.
