Insidb said:
It's more affordable, maintenance is cheaper and less frequent, a far smaller percentage of them have a tendency to burst into flames, reliability, etc. While one might try to argue that those are brand associations, they are the reasons I would answer a survery for "Why did you buy a Ford?" Meanwhile, no one can refute that Ford sold about 250,000 cars to Ferrari's 7,000, because Ford is simply a bigger brand. |
Like I said previously, I think thats an oversimplification.
Ferrari is luxury and Ford is utlity. Even if you could get one or the other for the same price. A Ferrari just wouldn't be useful in certain situations.
In fact, this line of thinking has got me wondering if the question being posed even makes much sense at all. Considering reliance on brand is simply relying on the expectation of qualities that the user wants, not necissarily if they sell more. For instance, in the 90s the Sony brand of TV and electronics in general was synonymous with reliability, quality, and performance while now Sony brand TVs are seen as overpriced.
Whats important to brand strength, or really what brand strength means is that how strong is the association of desirable traits with the name alone and how valid is that association in consumer purchasing habits.
i.e if you have money to burn and you want a cool looking car, Ferrari is your brand. If you need something to get to work everyday, you are gonna buy a ford/nissan/toyata/etc.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
