[WaLaoEh]

This was posted by one of the Head-Fiers here,as a comment if I'm not mistaken, so I decided to make his idea known,and think of the possible outcomes of his idea.
 
Just an idea I thought I would like to share, no hate please!
I'm only 16 and I'm pretty new to this world of audio. xD
 
So here it goes...
Beats is "famous" for their smart marketing, and is very popular among the youth for their flashy looks and strong bass, this is definitely due to how they advertise their products, such as celebrity endorsements...etc.etc.etc.
 
So...what if.. a reputable company...lets say...Shure, decides to follow suit and advertise their products, highlighting their durability and sonic abilities, through TV ads, and stuff like that..
 
Instead of targeting professional musicians, DJs , etc.etc.etc.. which is a smaller market compared to the big consumer market,
they target the bigger crowd,non audiophiles,etc.etc.etc..
 
And so if one company jumps on the big consumer market, it is possible that the other companies , say Audio Technica, Etymotic,Phonak Audeo..etc.etc.etc.. will follow suit, and this will create more awareness of such brands, and their products. Consumers will then be more well-informed of the audio market...and know that there are definitely many other brands which are better than *ahem ahem*,
beats.
 
And then these companies will be able to make more money, which will then drive them to be more creative and innovative, to invent even better products,making it a even more competitive industry.
 
Share your thoughts!

 

[soundstige]

Shure would also have to double or even triple the sale price of all of their headphones, in order to create the funds to put out all this marketing. No one would go for that, so that's why it doesn't happen.

 

[Parall3l]

Audio companies does advertise their products in the audiophile community. Beyerdynamic for example, did this:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/585000/beyerdynamic-happy-holiday-promotion-in-the-u-s-and-canada-get-15-discount-until-january-2-2012
 
TV ads are also used by companies like Audio Technica.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZPSgfnxz7I

 

[WaLaoEh]

Quote:

Shure would also have to double or even triple the sale price of all of their headphones, in order to create the funds to put out all this marketing. No one would go for that, so that's why it doesn't happen.

 
So maybe that is why Beats are so overpriced? But there are certain audio companies that advertise or promote their products without them being expensive.


Quote:

Audio companies does advertise their products in the audiophile community. Beyerdynamic for example, did this:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/585000/beyerdynamic-happy-holiday-promotion-in-the-u-s-and-canada-get-15-discount-until-january-2-2012
 
TV ads are also used by companies like Audio Technica.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZPSgfnxz7I

Didn't know Audio Technica does advertising.. o.o
But from what I see, they don't seem to advertise to the general public through media such as the newspaper and television..
Maybe they do through social media, but my thoughts are that the general public are poorly informed where audio is concerned..

 

[tomscy2000]

That's not necessarily true. Yes, Monster has a great marketing machine, but they were only able to do it with substantial help from Interscope --- a music company. The marketing thrust comes more strongly from the music end than from Monster --- you must imagine Monster as more of an OEM than anything else. Interscope handles more of the marketing end. Revenue and profit generated from the Beats line most likely lines Jimmy Iovine's pockets (and other Universal Music Group executives' pockets) much more than Noel Lee's (CEO of Monster). The only real benefit from this deal for Monster is substantially increased brand recognition and sales volume (mere bragging rights) --- profit isn't necessarily increased by much, if at all.
 
You also have to give Dr. Dre more credit for the Beats phenomenon. He and his Aftermath think tank, along with his sugar daddy Jimmy Iovine probably sat down one day and began thinking of ways for his name to stay relevant in the music game. Clearly, Detox (the music album equivalent of vaporware) wasn't going to come out anytime soon, and a guy in his late 40s wasn't going to have any credibility rapping about gang banging in Compton anymore ---- thus, he and his marketing team decided to milk his reputation as a big time producer. So they came up with the idea to partner Interscope with Monster.
 
Why did they choose Monster? Well, let me offer up some plausible reasons: at that time, Monster was not a big player in the headphone market, although they were pushing pretty hard, so they were most likely looking for any deal they could find that upped their marketing capability. UE already had Van Halen in their stable, and even then, like companies such as Westone and Shure, even Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic, and AKG ---- all these companies have a reputation for being stodgy and up tight about audio. UE/Westone had hearing aid backgrounds, and the others all thought they didn't need help with products. Dre needed an edgier brand to partner with, as well as one that would allow him to singularly stand out as the face of the brand. The natural choice was Monster (its name is Monster), and the rest is history. If you notice the progression of Beats --- all of Beat's products are branded, 'Beats by Dre' with a small attribution to Monster. Artists that endorse the Beats line --- Lady Gaga, Diddy, Justin Bieber, LeBron James, Yao Ming ---- all still fall under the 'Beats by Dre' name. This is a masterful coup by the Interscope/Aftermath marketing team. Both HP and HTC, like Monster, are riders of the coattails of the 'Beats by Dre' phenomenon.
 
Coming back to the original issue --- the point is that if Shure, Westone, or even UE wants to make their sales like that of Beats by Dre, they need to make a paradigm shift in the way they do things. Instead of just allowing individual bands or artists to endorse their products, they need an entire record label (and the parent company) on its side, and give them the upper hand. It is only through their distribution channels that marketing can really blossom. Frankly, however, it's not such a good deal for these guys. First off, they already have a piece of the pie in the audio market. They didn't need to hustle their way into the market like Monster did. Profit margins are steady; growth is steady. So why partner? Just to move more products at barely any profit? This is not the way conservative companies operate. The flip side is that record companies are also quite conservative themselves and may not be willing to partner with the likes of Westone or whatever. Interscope took a big gamble in starting the Beats by Dre line ---- trust me, a lot of peoples' careers were riding on the brand. If it tanked, it would've been pretty bad for Interscope. Luckily, with help from a very hungry Monster Cable, they executed it well, and ran away with the mainstream market.
 
Quote:

Shure would also have to double or even triple the sale price of all of their headphones, in order to create the funds to put out all this marketing. No one would go for that, so that's why it doesn't happen.

 

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Very good post by tom there.
 
For me this is why:
-They look flashy
-Sound "good" to a noob
-Now another thing: One person has it, then another one gets it, and the other and other.
 
No offence to iphone4s users or 4 users, but why the hell would you buy it (specs wise) when u can get a samsung galaxy s or s2 for half the price and 2x the performance/capabilities.
 
Its because the "general public" have it so you get jealous and want it too.
i bought an ipod back 3yrs ago, without really thinking if there was anything else out there, as i followed the trend.
Now that I opened up my eyes, I laugh at myself for doing that (partially lol)
 
Anyway long story short, apart from the celebs and the looks, it also is due to a trend.
 
Now why do other companies not do it?
Because if they marketed heavily like beats do, first of all they would need people to get out of the beats trend, secondly the price would be vastly more expensive, and finally because I think they realise that getting people to change brand is not an easy task.

 

[goodvibes]

Monster made their name with IEMs on turbines. The interscope connection is smart marketing for greater market share. The greater market share more than offsets the royalties involved. Monster is still making the bulk of profit but I'm sure Lovine and Dr Dre are also doing quite well. LOL Plenty to go around.

 

[Parall3l]

Quote:

Very good post by tom there.
 
For me this is why:
-They look flashy
-Sound "good" to a noob
-Now another thing: One person has it, then another one gets it, and the other and other.
 
No offence to iphone4s users or 4 users, but why the hell would you buy it (specs wise) when u can get a samsung galaxy s or s2 for half the price and 2x the performance/capabilities.
 
Its because the "general public" have it so you get jealous and want it too.
i bought an ipod back 3yrs ago, without really thinking if there was anything else out there, as i followed the trend.
Now that I opened up my eyes, I laugh at myself for doing that (partially lol)
 
Anyway long story short, apart from the celebs and the looks, it also is due to a trend.
 
Now why do other companies not do it?
Because if they marketed heavily like beats do, first of all they would need people to get out of the beats trend, secondly the price would be vastly more expensive, and finally because I think they realise that getting people to change brand is not an easy task.

 
Definitely agree with you on the competing with Beats part. Beats by Dre have already brain washed most people out there with their marketing making them believe the Beats signature is the "correct" signature, not to mention a lot of the products sold by the audiophile companies require an amp to sound its best.
 
 

Off topic: I've yet to see evidence that the Samsung Galaxy S2 has double the performance of the iPhone 4S, but I do agree on the more feature part. (I am an Android fan boy)


 

 

[Totally Dubbed]

Quote:

Definitely agree with you on the competing with Beats part. Beats by Dre have already brain washed most people out there with their marketing making them believe the Beats signature is the "correct" signature, not to mention a lot of the products sold by the audiophile companies require an amp to sound its best.
 
Off topic: I've yet to see evidence that the Samsung Galaxy S2 has double the performance of the iPhone 4S, but I do agree on the more feature part. (I am an Android fan boy)
 

s2 wise:
-Screen quality
-Size of screen (i saw the 4 fanboys crying when the 4s was the same)
-Lighter
-Thinner
-Gorilla glass
 
Most importantly:
-512mb extra ram
-removal battery = I speak from experience here, my battery lasts half the time that my mum's one does (SGS 1) so I got a new battery off my cousin, and now I'm back on par with my mum's phone's battery life
 
Then add price difference between the two:
-£550
vs
-£350-400
 
Why pay an extra £100, 150 or let alone £1 more for an iphone 4s?
 
Then add the non-restrained OS, literally you can make your own ROM if you want = 2x better.
 
I didn't even go into rooting etc...
 
 
Back on topic:
That said, the beats and beats pro do sound good, but:
1. They are not comfortable
2. They are heavy
3. They should be priced around $100-200 max for the beats pros -> I'm only paying extra here for: style, wire, foldable function
 
Also note, the MTPG, MTPC's and the in-ear lines are excellent, but yet again not for the price.
 
Another thing i came to realise. Literally its all about the looks/showing off.
 
When is it that you have seen 1 single person wearing the MTPG's?
They won't buy good IEM's but instead would buy some over-priced headphones? 
Is there reasoning behind it?
 
now that's a good question to ask yourselves.
Why buy headphones, when you could buy IEM's -> they are cheaper and BETTER - I'm speaking of the Monster line here, please don't misunderstand me
 
I'm NOT TALKING about us the audiophile, I'm talking about the general public too...
 
I have both head and earphones, both serve their purposes.
Indoors vs outdoors (at least for me)

 

[tomscy2000]

Well, I don't know if Monster actually makes much profit. 'Low-tech' hardware manufacturers really don't make much with every product sold. It's the increase of global market share that gives them leverage with respect to procurement clout, lowered transaction fees, etc. Beats Electronics LLC is its own company and was begun majority owned by Interscope. It holds onto the brand name and the associated IPs. Therefore, Monster is sort of 'licensing' its brand on its products, although the split is a little more even, since I'm sure Monster bought into the company at the onset. Now, Beats LLC is held by a plethora of companies that want a piece of the pie, like HTC and HP. I used the Iovine/Dre thing to signify the whole company of Interscope, Universal Music Group, its associated ad companies, etc. Although, if Dre gets $0.05 for every Beats product sold, he's already making a ton.
 
Quote:

Monster made their name with IEMs on turbines. The interscope connection is smart marketing for greater market share. The greater market share more than offsets the royalties involved. Monster is still making the bulk of profit but I'm sure Lovine and Dr Dre are also doing quite well. LOL Plenty to go around.

 

 

[RealSlimSeto]

Why do I forsee this turning into a Apple v.s Android debate?
 
Back on topic, I would say Audio Technica spends a bit more than the other companies on marketing, especially in Asia.