If they're buying for the brand, then perhaps. The headphones are objectively worse than other models in the same price range. I'd guess that most buyers are not aware of this and just think it's cool or it must be good because it's higher priced.
It's brilliant marketing, sure. But it's like taking a $2 bottle of wine, rebranding it, and saying it's worth the value at $19.
That's the whole point of the brand though. I don't think Beats is trying to convey the image that they're the objectively best brand of headphones. However, they are saying - these are endorsed by Dre, popular athletes & other profile musicians & that wearing them is "cool".
That's like complaining that Nike can markup a pair of Jordans for $150 even though they're objectively "just as good" as a pair that costs $70-$100. A "brand" is valuable.
Case in point - that "rebranding" of the wine, just got you an extra $17 in margin.
Comments
If they're buying for the brand, then perhaps. The headphones are objectively worse than other models in the same price range. I'd guess that most buyers are not aware of this and just think it's cool or it must be good because it's higher priced.
It's brilliant marketing, sure. But it's like taking a $2 bottle of wine, rebranding it, and saying it's worth the value at $19.
That's the whole point of the brand though. I don't think Beats is trying to convey the image that they're the objectively best brand of headphones. However, they are saying - these are endorsed by Dre, popular athletes & other profile musicians & that wearing them is "cool".
That's like complaining that Nike can markup a pair of Jordans for $150 even though they're objectively "just as good" as a pair that costs $70-$100. A "brand" is valuable.
Case in point - that "rebranding" of the wine, just got you an extra $17 in margin.