jim.shamlin.com

2: Premium is not Luxury

The word "luxury" has become commonplace, used for virtually every product, and the misuse and overuse of the term progressively drains its meaning. Everyone thinks they understand it, but nobody can agree on exactly what it means.

The fact that luxury is not an absolute category, but subjective to the individual and relative to a specific culture, confounds attempts to define it. The evolution of luxury, how it changes over time, further middies the waters. And further, luxury is linked to a multitude of concepts.

Because it describes items that can be bought and sold, it has been further corrupted by manufacturers and markets who wish to position themselves in the luxury segment, or change the definition of the segment so that their offerings may be included. What has resulted is a "staircase" of brands (discount, standard, and premium) with a multitude of vague categories at the upper end.

All of this confusion is damaging from a conceptual point of view, and makes it difficult to manage and position products. Given that is the purpose of the present book, a functional approach to luxury is considering the application of the marketing practices for premium products, and to discover the point at which they break down - and what is left, where the rules no longer seem to apply, is luxury.

The multiple approaches to the concept of luxury

The authors describe six principle approaches to luxury:

1. The democratic method. Use market research to determine what "luxury" means to your potential clients. Different segments will have very different and opposing ideas p what is the epitome of luxury to some will be distasteful and vulgar to others
2. The elitist method. Consider the consumption habits of the wealthy to define luxury. This, too, will be market specific: the wealthy Chinese have an idea of luxury that is different their German peers, which is different to their American peers. This route can define luxury for a small market, but not globally.
3. The expert method. Consider the purveyors of high-price and unique items to have knowledge of what constitutes luxury. Aside of a mercenary agenda, this still has the problem of being specific to a local market.
4. The empirical method. Rather than considering consumptive behavior, look to the concept of the word "luxury" itself, consider what brands meet these criteria.
5. The corporatist method. Consider products at the upper end of a given market, with high price and low quantity, outside four or more standard deviations from the norm. Again, this may be relative to a culture.
6. Ask the creators of luxury, not about their actual products, but about the qualities they seek to achieve in them and the interests they seek to serve. This may be an exploration of luxury, but it cannot be the definition - as you must have a definition in order to know whom to interview.

None of these routes arrives at a problem-free answer. It is likely that you may have to accept that luxury cannot be defined with any degree of specificity.

Denying the specificity of luxury

The difficulty in defining luxury suggests that the concept cannot be defined - it represents an "extreme limit" or perhaps the products that go further than defined categories. We have a grasp of what a premium product is, and can define some items as being super-premium, but categorize those that are even above that category as luxury.

The problem with this approach is it does not correspond reality, and provides very little enlightenment. Anything that is slightly better can claim to be luxury in some regard. But we can see that some premium brands have failed to establish a foothold in the luxury market, whether in attempting to extend their brand or create a separate brand.

Interestingly enough, the financial markets seem to recognize the premium brands in corporate valuations. For example, Luis Vuitton is valued at twice as much as L'Oreal, even though it has about a fifth of the revenue. Toyota and BMW have similar market capitalization, even though BMW sells one-eighth the number of vehicles. But these are merely premium brands.

Luxury is a class above premium, and we must therefore go further in examining the difference between the two in the management of a brand, and the reasons why premium cannot simply raise its prices to become luxury.

There is no continuous movement from premium to luxury

While a common brand can elevate itself to premium status, the same strategies o not succeed in elevating luxury to premium. There are many examples of premium brands that attempted to elevate themselves to luxury status, all resulting in miserable failure. Merely raising the price or changing the product does not elevate the brand, nor have premium brands been particularly successful in maintaining the status of a luxury brand they have purchased.

Consider Ford's acquisition of luxury (Jaguar and Aston Martin) and premium (Volvo and Land Rover) brands, then attempting to apply their usual methods to make these brands more profitable. In spite of several years of massive investment, it failed to do so.

It has been able to achieve some success with the Volvo and Land Rover marks, as these were merely premium brands, but failed spectacularly with the two luxury brands. It was able to divest itself of Aston Martin for a fair price, but had done considerable damage to the reputation of Jaguar, and had to sell it to the Indian Tata group, and has fallen into the premium category.

The failure of a consumer manufacturer to maintain a luxury brand cannot be attributed to management errors, but a fundamental failure to understand what luxury entails.

It is not easy to exit luxury through a 'downwards' strategy

Downgrading a luxury brand is also more difficult than it might seem, particularly when attempting to maintain the prestigious reputation while selling to more customers.

The authors consider Mercedes, who decided 15 years ago to pursue the mass market. Its attempt to merge with Chrysler failed terribly, and its Smart line has been a financial failure. Worse yet is that this has caused considerable damage to the Mercedes brand, such that it fell from luxury status, and regaining a foothold in the luxury market required the firm to launch a new brand, that of Maybach, and accept that Mercedes was not a premium brand.

The friction between Mercedes and Chrysler, itself, is telling of the incompatibility of luxury and even premium consumption. There was a sizable and ultimately irreconcilable difference in the cultures of the two firms.

From where has the current confusion arisen?

The authors consider the source of confusion between premium and luxury products to be the result of two fundamental mistakes: the first is confusing luxury with high price, and the second from the overabundance of genres.

It may be the case that luxury products sell at a higher price than premium ones, but price alone is not the differentiating factor. Luxury is social distinction of the highest classes of society from the middle class, and given that the disposable income of the middle class has increased, manufacturers have been able to charge more for products across the board, even to the point that certain mass-production goods are sold in a range that sell in the lower end of the luxury scale. Those who believe price to be a one-dimensional determinant of luxury are quite naturally confused.

Another source of confusion is an accumulation of brands, many of which attempt to escape commoditization by projecting themselves as quality, leading to fine gradation. Moreover, a single firm may attempt to position itself in various categories, and evolve over time.

Take the example of Yves Saint Laurent, which began as haute couture when YSL was creating unique gowns for wealthy clients in a workshop in Paris. From there, it became ...

• A luxury brand, in which garments were designed by YSL himself and sold only in a limited number of boutiques
• A premium brand when YSL created designed to be manufactured in greater quantities and sold in shops other that YSL boutiques
• A premium brand of perfumes and makeups, to which YSL lent his name but had minimal involvement in their design
• A mid-range brand for fashion accessories that became available in department stores at reasonable prices

There is also some convergence in genres when premium brands are strongly imitative of the qualities of luxury brands: a premium brand may be well designed, manufactured in limited quantities, made of quality materials, etc. but still remain beneath the luxury category.

Towards a definition of luxury

The authors reflect on the function of a definition: it provides a set of characteristics that encompass a concept, against which things can be compared in a binary or probabilistic manner to determine if they are a fit.

Definitions become harder to pin down when a term is applied to a range of things: there is luxury as an absolute concept, a relative concept, an individual assessment, a sector of business, and a business model - the latter being the focus of the present book.

Luxury, a luxury, my luxury

Luxury, in itself, implies something inaccessible to the common man, the possessions and services accessible only to the wealthy. Brands do not make a difference - when a person has a yacht or a private jet, the maker of that object is irrelevant because the thing itself is a luxury. It is the demesne of nobility, out of reach of the common man.

When a thing is called "a luxury" this introduces the notion of relativity. An item is a luxury for a certain person, compared to something else. In many parts of Europe, simply owning a car is a luxury: something most people cannot afford, and have to do without, and would be pleasant and convenient to own. This speaks to the dispensability of luxury - it is not strictly necessary, and for many its price does not justify the functional benefits that can be served by cheaper means. It is an extra expense, however small, that cannot be rationally justified, but is linked to the fulfillment of desire and the delivery of pleasure.

As such, when a person declares something to be "my luxury" it is a very personal concept about individual emotional desires. This notion of luxury often deals more with time than objects - taking a vacation to a remote island, spending time with their grandchildren, climbing a mountain. It is experience rather than ownership, and its highly personal nature does not create an opportunity for business.

The ambiguity is likely of little concern to customers, each of whom decides what they consider to be luxury, though producers and retailers must have a clear view of the situation in order to manage their brands accordingly.

Luxury as a sector, a market or a strategy

When we speak of the "luxury market" we are referring to the producers, sellers, and buyers of luxury items. Business, being indifferent to the motivations of buyers, defines the segment as consisting of any expensive product - making no distinction as to the reason it should be so.

It is sloppy and a bit unintelligent, but such is the nature of business to seek a simplistic way of categorizing things: it is easy to determine when a product is expensive (calculating the average price and observing the deviation of a given product from the norms), but more difficult to quantify the factors that constitute luxury.

A "luxury strategy" is likewise loosely and awkwardly defined as a firm that intends to vie for the a seat in the pantheon of products - that is, to be the most expensive brand in their product category. The quality of the product and customer experience are not the primary objective, but are often pulled along because buyers must have a reason to pay an unusually high price. The "reason" is contrary to the notion of luxury.

Luxury defined

There is not a consistent definition of luxury, and the authors do not wish to add another competitor to the dozens that exist, but instead seek to consider the common features of the existing ones:

1. Luxury is qualitative and hedonistic, concerned with the pleasure derived from an object rather than the object itself.
2. Luxury commands a price that far exceeds the value of the mere functional benefits of a thing (it is not tied to tangibles)
3. Luxury is tied to a heritage and culture
4. Luxury is available in restricted quantity by purposeful intent
5. Luxury is accompanied by personalized services (EN: the authors haven't mentioned this before)
6. Luxury is a social market that distinguishes the owner, and makes them feel a sense of privilege

These are criteria of inclusion, such that a candidate must match in a binary sense against all of them, but their weight may differ according to the type of luxury.

Some specific ways in which these criteria differentiate luxury from similar concepts: The first criterion differentiates luxury from fashion. Criteria two, three, and six differentiate luxury from premium products.

Nothing specific is said about price in a comparative sense - if a given brand is significantly more than competing products, it is not a luxury item. Many premium brands seek to charge a high price, but fail the second and fourth criteria of luxury.

Finally, rarity is not a criterion of luxury. Per the fourth criterion, luxury does seek to limit availability, and its esteem is derived in some part from scarcity, but mere scarcity is a function of productive capabilities and not of the way in which a consumer regards the product itself.

The case of the car

The authors consider the automobile to be a product that yields itself readily to the consideration of luxury. The producers in the industry seek to hold a portfolio of brands to serve a wide array of customers, and has undergone significant changes in the last few decades, with various successes and failures in their attempt to appeal to the luxury market.

Transportation has a long history, whether men walked or were carried, used horses or rode in carriages. The car signifies the progression of this into the present day, and is very much a symbol of status among owners. It is likewise an area in which brands are used internationally, where new brands compete with old and prestigious ones. It also begs the consideration between luxury and technology as well as with artisanship and tradition.

Relativity of luxury in cars

We know that luxury is subjective to the individual, so it follows that it is also relative to the market or location. Consider that Mercedes is a common working sedan in Germany, used as taxicabs. Meanwhile it enjoys proper luxury status in China, India, and Russia and a premium brand in the United States.

Is automobile luxury the pursuit of perfection?

Also consider Lexus, which has displaced Mercedes as the premiere premium brand in the US. The brand scores well in surveys of wealthy customers in the following regards:

• It completely meets or exceeds my needs
• The staff are polite, attentive, enthusiastic and trustworthy
• The cars are well made and aesthetically pleasing
• The vehicles have a reputation for reliability
• Problems are resolved quickly and effectively

All of these are functional benefits of a premium brand. Luxury brands do not yield to the same criteria. Consider that a Ferrari "has fragilities that are part of its charm," BMW is routinely criticized for being uncomfortable, and Porsche's performance is deeply compromised by the poor design consumer features such as electric windows and air conditioning (which degrade performance significantly).

In this sense, a premium vehicle justifies a higher price because it is functionally better than the standard offering, but luxury customers seem little concerned with function and will accept characteristics that the premium customer sees as defects that undermine its value. The allure of luxury is not based on suitability to a functional purpose.

Top-of-the-range and premium cars

From one perspective, there does seem to be some overlap in the upper ranges of automotive categories, but Ford's mishandling of the Jaguar brand demonstrates that there are clear boundaries between a luxury and a premium vehicle.

Ford's strategy in acquiring Jaguar involved increasing sales by making the vehicle appealing to more customers, which is instantly recognizable as contrary to a luxury strategy. They pursued improvement in the areas that would make the vehicle competitive in the premium market, quality and reliability, but in doing so neglected the factors that distinguished the brand as a luxury.

• They launched a low-end model that was significantly lower in price than the traditional models
• This debasement led to an increased sales of the vehicle, such that it was no longer unusual to see one (the CEO of Porsche is rumored to have said that he feels a bit worried when he sees two Porsches on the same street)
• There were no "upward innovations" - quality and reliability improved, but the cars became cheaper
• Jaguar's performance in racing venues, where prestige and emotional attachment are won, faltered significantly.

The result was the vulgarization of a once-luxury brand by making it attractive based on the criteria of the "premium" category, but more importantly, it became accessible to a lower class of customer.

Top of Range

A "top of range" vehicle is not inherently premium of luxury, but represents the option with the best quality and the most features of a given make or model. There is a top-of-range trim level for even the cheapest of automobiles (the Honda Civic Si is the top of range trim for that model, at nearly double the price of the basic Civic DX, which is among the cheapest cars made).

In that sense, the upper range is entirely relative: the top-of-range for one make or model is well below the bottom-of-range model of others. Within the line, it represents the price/quality ratio for decisions pertaining to a given brand, once the customer has chosen the brand they want to purchase. It does seem to be a matter of personal choice, as there is little differentiation in the prestige granted to the owner by others (whether you drive a Civic DX or Civic Si, you are still a person who "drives a Civic").

In terms of marketing, it's common for advertisers show off the top-of-range model and present the bottom-of-range price, such that the customer who is attracted to the brand is pushed toward the upper ranges once they have entered the showroom.

For luxury vehicles, marketers would do well to avoid comparisons at all costs. In terms of features and quality, the lower range of a luxury vehicle delivers less, and at a higher price, than the upper ranges of premium ones. Which is to say that luxury vehicles do not measure well against the criteria that are most important to the non-luxury customer.

Premium

Even non-luxury automobile brands are used by their owners to reflect their social status - it can be observed that the purchase of a new car correlates to a significant milestone in the progression of the owner's income. In the same way that a luxury vehicle communicates the wealth of its owner, the first-time purchase of a premium vehicle likewise suggests that the customer has matriculated from middle to upper-middle class. The premium, super-premium, and upper-premium automotive brands denote fine gradations within the class.

For premium cars, the determinant of value remains functional usage. There may also be intangibles related to the quality and esteem of the brand, but it is still a consideration of the needs and desires of the driver for their everyday practical use of the vehicle: getting to work, taking the kids to soccer practice, picking up groceries, and the like.

This is not the first consideration of someone buying an Aston Martin or a Lamborghini - the day-to-day use of a vehicle is a concern of the lower classes and functional needs are considered bourgeois, which are considerably different than the considerations of the aristocracy, for whom a vehicle is a symbol of rank and not a working vehicle.

Consider that the automotive press, which caters to a mass-market readership, sets the criteria for ranking vehicles according to their functional value. Premium vehicles generally fare well on these lists, because they are designed to suit the functional needs of the typical driver. Luxury brands are absent form the "top ten" lists.

Said another way, premium brands are comparative, whereas luxury is superlative - their value is not justified by functional concerns.

The luxury car

Finally, the authors turn to luxury cars, suggesting that their price, rarity, and prestige are recognizable signals of a luxury vehicle, though not dependable indicators that an item in question is luxury class, for which determination we must return to the foundations of luxury.

Consider that nobility justified their rank and social preeminence by the purity of their blood lineage, their expenditure, their glory, and their heroic exploits - which is to say, things other than their work. In the same way that a luxury item is not valued for its functional utility, a person of luxury is not measured by his social function. The working classes, meanwhile, are made wealthy by their work, and measure themselves in more pedestrian terms to gain distinction among their peers, in ways that seem undistinguished and vulgar to the noble classes.

Consider the modern car to be the descendant of equestrian rites and objects: the workhorse is valued by his ability to work, but a thoroughbred is gauged by his bloodline. This carries forward to automotive brands.

The authors chase the metaphor a bit further, differentiating the kind of vehicle that represents a gilded coach (Rolls-Royce) in being lavish and sumptuous, while other brands represent the horse itself (Ferrari, whose very logo is a horse) in terms of power and agility.

The upper echelons of premium vehicles may take on some of the qualities of the luxury brand - in very much an imitative manner, wishing to mimic some of the symbols and matters of the luxury class, but to offer it in greater quantity to a broader market. Even so, these remain non-luxury cars for the non-luxury customer.

Luxury brands convey prestige and a sense of a lineage, and are not subjected to functional criteria. In a sense, a luxury car is the embodiment of a legend, which is built over time. Time itself is a luxury, or at least it has the ability to be treated as such, such that luxury brands represent timelessness and have a sense of leisure.

Consider that the fabrication of a Rolls-Royce Phantom requires 2,600 hours, ten or more times as much as a mass-production vehicle. Quantity is guarded against the dictates of the stopwatch and clipboard, and the buyers have no sense of impatience to posses their vehicles, but are content to wait in anticipation.

In terms of history, it does not necessarily need to be a long one, as new luxury brands can emerge at any time. Also, history is not enough. There are many mass-market manufactures that have been in business a century or more - but there is an essential difference in "having been in business" and "having a history."

The authors turn again to the Lexus mark, which is in the upper ranks of the premium brands but is not perceived to be Luxury, A newcomer to the field, Lexus excelled at providing a product of remarkable quality accompanied by attentive service, but failed in two regards:

• First, the vehicle was designed for engineering perfection, not for the experience. In the typical Japanese fashion, it patterned itself after a western product (the Mercedes E-Class) and quickly excelled its rival. The consequence of imitation, however, is a lack of distinctiveness.
• Second, there is no history around the brand, in the sense of legend or mythology. It was a brand created to be competitive in the market, not to inspire a sense of awe. It achieved what it pursued, and failed to achieve what it neglected. This is the result of seeking to be liked, rather than being admired. The latter requires taking the risk of making mistakes.

Looking again to metrics by which luxury products are measured, the author recalls the LCEI (based on customer experience) and LBSI (based on reputation). The former is of great interest to the premium class, which seeks to deliver an experience that is worth the price, but the latter is likely more indicative of luxury, as it pertains to the esteem of the brand and the sentiments it evokes, independence of its functional performance and customer satisfaction.

Among automotive marks, Porche dominates the LBSI metrics. Those who rate the brand highly communicate sentiments such as:

• Its power and style stimulate the imagination
• It is remarkably built
• It maintains its aura over time, having timelessness and youth
• It has historically been at the pinnacle of its category
• It has a sense of mystique and a heritage in racing
• It has integrity, and has been highly coherent over time
• It is recognized worldwide
• It creates a positive impression on non-owners
• It is an expression of the virtues and unique stile of Germany
• It is associated with glamor and celebrities

In the last regard, the author observes that Lexus has become a Hollywood symbol of altruism - celebrities who want to humanize and humble themselves do not drive luxury brands. In effect, they are debasing themselves and lowering their social status to have mass appeal.

What link does luxury have with technology?

There can be no prestige without respect, so while luxury is not based on technical sophistication, neither can it ignore technology altogether. The symbols of power cannot be embodied in weakness, and timelessness is negated by obsolescence.

Consider that Jaguar's pursuit of technical sophistication did not save the brand from bankruptcy; and also that a Ferrari build half a century ago is still regarded with a sense of awe, all the more for its timelessness, though it has historically been a step behind the technology of the day, with the exception of engine performance.

An aside on antique and collectible cars: some can be quite high priced, but the value does not derive from luxury. Perhaps some could be considered such, but it takes on more the characteristic of art - an object to be owned and regarded with aesthetic appreciation, but not used.

Back to the topic of technology and luxury, technology can contribute to luxury, in an extreme form:

• The Lamborghini Diablo employs technology to excess - to the point that it ceases to be a method of improving performance and evokes a purely emotional reaction.
• In Rolls-Royce, there is a legend of perfection (a coin can be balanced on end, can drive at 150 mph without vibration) but this is technology used to deliver a superlative quality of experience. It is the rarity of such perfection, rather than the quality of technology, that contributes to luxury.
• In Ferrari, the technology is used to drive performance, often at the expense of comfort. In this instance, the performance of the vehicle is superlative, being able to literally surpass all others. It is the distinction and superiority that contribute to luxury.

As such, technology in luxury is seldom a thing unto itself, but a means to achieve the qualifications for being considered luxury.

The constituents of the myth of the luxury car

The authors consider some of the elements that factor into the myth of luxury cars:

• The personality of their creator, driven by enthusiasm and creative vision rather than commercial interest and practical engineering
• The creations themselves, which demand admiration and inspire a sense of awe and respect. The authors suggest that a Lamborghini is not a target of petty vandals (being scratched with keys) in the same way that a BMW is.
• It is inaccessible to the common man, in terms of the price and the difficulty of obtaining it.
• The wealth of its owners, which is well beyond the local country-club class (consider that Rolls-Royce targets individuals with a net worth of $30 million or more)
• Association to genuine nobility. Particularly in England and France, the firms that are providers to royalty or nobility (or were so in centuries past).
• A sense of history and authenticity
• Association to the "fields of glory" such as Le Mans or Forumla One racing
• An association with celebrities or heroes, real or fictional
• Epic stories, true or unconfirmed, that pertain to the vehicle
• A sense of mystery: things that are unknown, purposefully concealed, or believed in spite of their preposterousness
• Luxury loves time. Whereas premium brands are outdone by the next year's model and their value plummets, Luxury models maintain their value over time. Consider the prices offered for old luxury models at acution.

The authors position automotive brands on two axes: the vertical considers whether a vehicle is technologically sophisticated or has aesthetic appeal, the horizontal considers traditional and modern. Closest to the center of the diagram are average vehicles, who possess none of these qualities and are "simple mobility objects" that are unremarkable whereas luxury brands lie at the edges.

Luxury and expressions of national identity

Luxury embodies the persona of its maker, who is himself a member of a given culture. In the era of globalization, where vehicles and made piecemeal in many locations and designed to be as generic as possible, the national and cultural identity of a product becomes a part of its charm.

The authors consider that Bentley and Rolls are both managed buy German companies, but the character of the brands remain distinctly British. While they are manufactured goods, they still have the sense of uniqueness and rarity.

Contrast them to the Italian luxury brands, with a sleek design that communicates the Latin sensibilities in art and aesthetics. They are Italian cars, and would not be mistaken for a car of a different nationality.

Likewise, German cars speak to their national characteristic: they are reliable, safe, and durable - but at the same time low-key and unemotional. While Italian cars pride themselves on being noisy and ostentatious, "Silence is the music" of a German car. Everything is controlled, and nothing is useless.

Much of these are functional qualities, which likely explains why the German makes excel in the premium market, but "German luxury would be as an oxymoron." The same can be said of Japan, which is likely the reason the two compete in the same market, and neither has a luxury brand.

They also pause to consider that there are no French luxury automobiles. The egalitarianism of their national culture, and their dedication to maintaining tradition, cuts it off from the modern world. The few upscale brands (Delage and Bugatti) have disappeared or become entirely irrelevant.

Beyond the product: services and privileges

One of the central tenets of democracy is the abolition of privilege, but yet the desire for privileges did not disappear.

In spite of its failure to enter the luxury segment, Lexus recognized this: its dealerships are "salons" that take on more of the character of a country club than a showroom and the company caters to the needs of its customers.

The ownership experience includes outstanding service from the dealership, which will pick up the car from the owner's home for routine maintenance, provide a replacement in case of breakdown, and owners receive personalized attention from their service department. The brand maintains special parking for Lexus drivers at major sporting events, and there are "a thousand and one" services that are utterly unnecessary and seem lavish.

Premium brands seek to leverage customer relationship management to address the needs and interests of their customers after the sale, in a mercenary sense of securing the next one. Luxury brands do so in order to reinforce the notion of affluence: the owners of their products merit privileges by virtue of their class, because they appreciate luxury itself.

The magic of cult objects: licenses and boutiques

A luxury mark, in itself, can convey distinction and reverence. Consider that the brand is extended to logo merchandise that has a high level of demand. Harley Davidson (a premium rather than luxury demand) makes a third of its revenue from the sale of associated products, both Porsche and Ferrari draw significant income from the sales of logo merchandise through exclusive boutiques. Ferrari also licensed its mark to a PC manufacturer and has a branded theme park in Abu Dhabi.

(EN: While this demonstrates a reverence for the brand, it also vulgarizes it. The accessories are relatively cheap and end up in the hands of those who can't afford the product itself. Consider the kind of person who might have a Ferrari jacket and cap, a Ferrari key ring, and a room in his home that is decked out like a shrine, but who is lower-middle class. Does his enthusiasm serve the interests of the brand, or undermine its cachet?)

An aside the author speaks to Formula One racing as a modern jousting competition, in which drivers like knights promote and defend the prestige of their noble houses.

Back on topic, the sportswear, accessories, and paraphernalia of a brand often link to its product. Consider that the belts and other leather goods sold at Ferrari stores are made of the same leather as the seats of the cars, and the engines of older Formula One cars that are no longer in use are sold and displayed as sculpture.