elmundo.es
Balenciaga: Brand Image vs. Profitability
Balenciaga, founded in 1937, has evolved from a high-fashion house focused on quality under Cristóbal Balenciaga to a luxury brand prioritizing viral marketing and high prices, resulting in questions about its profitability despite its widespread cultural presence and significant counterfeiting.
- How does Balenciaga's current business model, prioritizing viral marketing and high-priced products over quality, impact its long-term financial sustainability and brand legacy?
- The Spanish fashion house Balenciaga, founded by Cristóbal Balenciaga in 1937, has strayed significantly from its origins. Today, the brand prioritizes viral marketing and product launches over product quality, evidenced by the high price points (nearly €700 for a t-shirt, €2000 for a tracksuit jacket) and prevalence of counterfeit products.
- What is the relationship between the cultural significance of brands like Balenciaga and their actual profitability, considering the prevalence of counterfeit goods and the focus on symbolic value over inherent quality?
- This divergence from Cristóbal Balenciaga's focus on craftsmanship is exemplified by Omar Montes' appearance on El Hormiguero wearing a Balenciaga tracksuit jacket. This highlights the brand's transformation into an aspirational luxury label driven by marketing and image rather than inherent quality, raising questions about profitability despite its cultural presence.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of a consumer culture that prioritizes brand recognition and "experiential" value over the intrinsic quality and craftsmanship of products, and how might this affect the future of luxury brands?
- The disconnect between Balenciaga's cultural visibility and potential financial performance suggests a broader trend. Following the theories of Daniel J. Boorstin, many products are now primarily symbols or "experiences," prioritizing image and brand recognition over intrinsic value. This model may not be sustainable in the long term.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the current Balenciaga brand negatively by consistently contrasting it with the founder's principles and highlighting its perceived flaws (lack of quality, focus on virality). The headline itself, though not provided, would likely reinforce this negative framing. The choice to lead with the anecdote of Omar Montes wearing a Balenciaga tracksuit further emphasizes this contrast and sets a negative tone.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language to portray the current Balenciaga brand negatively. Words and phrases like "obsesión con la viralidad," "necesidad permanente de atención," and "no demasiada preocupación por la calidad" carry negative connotations. Neutral alternatives could include "focus on viral marketing," "strong emphasis on brand awareness", and "variable product quality." The phrase "esta mierda" (this crap) is highly subjective and negatively loaded.
Bias by Omission
The article omits financial details about Balenciaga's profitability, hindering a complete understanding of its business model. While it mentions rumors of unprofitability and cites an expert's opinion, concrete financial data is lacking. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed conclusion about the brand's success.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between Cristóbal Balenciaga's original designs and the current Balenciaga brand. It implies that the current brand is inherently inferior because it differs from the founder's vision, neglecting the possibility of both coexisting and appealing to different markets. The article also presents a false dichotomy between the cultural presence of the brand and its profitability, suggesting that the two are not correlated which might not always be the case.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the disconnect between the original Balenciaga brand, known for quality, and its current iteration as a luxury brand focused on viral marketing and high prices, regardless of quality. This points to unsustainable consumption patterns and a lack of focus on responsible production methods. The prevalence of counterfeit products further exacerbates the issue.