Here's an idea.
The value of a brand is proven by knockoffs.
The knockoff exists in a near infinite number of forms.
There are knockoff movies, music, furniture,
even knockoff theme parks.
Copying, knocking off, counterfeit
goods, whatever you want to call it,
it is a huge cultural force, but it's probably best known
in the fashion industry.
You know, like maybe you're walking down
Canal Street in Manhattan and there's this guy
and he's like, you want to buy a watch?
And these aren't Seiko, or Casio, or whatever,
these are Rolexes, normally as expensive as two weeks
in Monaco, or 8,000 jars of peanut butter,
or whatever you're into.
And he is like, 50 bucks.
How is that even possible?
And you're like, I could buy this Rolex for $50
and everyone will think I am the coolest.
Whether or not they're actually Rolexes,
which we'll talk about in a second,
might not even matter because that's not really
what the knockoff provides-- or, depending on how
you look at it, preys upon.
It's either a mean trick played on an unsuspecting buyer
or an adventure in consumerism.
The common gripe is that low-grade phonies misrepresent
the, you know, of a brand.
And it's not even a particularly modern phenomenon.
It's been happening for about as long as products have.
Ancient Romans had knock off dyes
because the good stuff made from mushed up snails was pricey.
In his book "Knockoff," Tim Phillips
describes the lengths a first century BC wine
merchant went to disguise cheap French wine
as the fancy Italian stuff using fake bottle tops.
Over the course of about 3,000 years,
we've gone from snails, bottle tops, bibles, and cheese
to sunglasses, watches, and even consumer electronics.
And not much at the heart of counterfeit goods
has really changed all that much.
Sellers want to cash in on fashion trend,
consumers want to feel awesome and maybe not spend a lot.
It's even easy to imagine that the ripping off process
looks pretty similar.
Some operation bottling fake dye,
or turning bad cheese in secret, some operation
slapping together shoddy purses or sunglasses
in a basement somewhere.
Except when it's not.
And this is the modern twist.
With easier access to production and distribution channels,
there's a kind of knockoff unicorn.
The counterfeit goods that is the real thing,
they just get to you differently.
The product is made with the exact same laborers, material,
and quality, just not the same ships, trucks, stores,
or salespeople.
And before you say, well, that's not a thing,
some folks claim the diverted goods, or gray market,
is worth $40 billion a year in stuff.
Beats headphones, iPods, iPhones, fashion accessories,
and even cars.
Now, this might lead you to wonder if those products can
still be considered knockoffs.
I mean, there's some stuff to think
about when buying diverted goods from some guy on the street.
You might, in some sense, be supporting the knockoff
or diversion industries in general, which might not employ
the best business practices.
You want finger?
You just tell me which one.
I'll get you a finger.
But also consider when buying something
from Shady McHandbags, the original designers don't
see any money, the retail workers don't see a sale,
you don't pay sales tax to the state,
or contribute to the sales numbers of that company.
So while the product itself isn't a knockoff,
the process can make it one and can contribute
to the-- ready for the marketing language--
devaluation of the brand in the same way a knock off would.
But stop the dolphin here.
Isn't the reason that you would buy a knockoff or diverted
product because of the value of the brand?
Let's talk about this for a second.
Who ultimately decides the value of a brand?
Is it the consumer willing to fork over the cash?
Is the corp determining the amount of cash to be forked?
Or is it some kind of critical mass of people, and press,
and corporation, and history, and who knows what else?
Communication and media scholar Lana Swartz
writes that fashion, perhaps more than other creative forms,
depends on use by consumers to activate its meaning.
For consumers, some objects resonate
within the network and some do not.
An official authorization is not necessarily
a precondition of tenability.
Consumers can deny diverted goods
their officialness, their meaning,
based upon their less-than-honest distribution
route.
But this also means that their knockoff can be meaningful,
maybe even more meaningful than the real thing
because they worked so hard to get it,
to learn where to get the best knockoff, which probably wasn't
just some store at the mall, unless you
live in Shenzhen, China.
But weirdly, isn't it that someone would make or buy
a knockoff, go to all of that trouble,
which proves a brand's value?
For example, would anyone knock off
or divert Fruit of the Loom men's underwear?
Like imitation, the knocking off process
is the highest form of fashion flattery.
Which means maybe whatever this guy sells-- Eyy-- adds value
to the brand, even if he's not actually doing it,
like with money.
What do you guys think?
Where does the value of a brand come from?
Does it come from the mind of the consumer?
The company?
The product?
The store?
Let us know in the comments.
And when subscribing to an Idea Channel,
make sure to check for the Idea Channel seal of approval.
(WHISPERING) That's how you know it's official.
I know that it's LEGO and not LEGOS.
There's just a part of my brain that just adds an S. So
let's see what you guys had to say about Minecraft,
AKA, first person LEGO.
To Julian Montelongo, the thing actually, I think,
Glass might change the most will be
the way that we think about the perspective of other people.
In that, it might actually be something more
like what we talk about in the overview effect episodes.
Maybe that's another sort of overview effect thing
we'll talk about some day.
To Nimbythestarkid, I do love "Community."
Not the new season though.
I don't think anybody likes the new season.
To our Latvian subscribers, sveiki.
Am I even-- am I just miles away?
I also heard that I could say labdien, labdien?
Hm?
Fablehill thinks that Minecraft isn't
the ultimate educational tool because once you assign
something to students they tend to lose interest,
and that it is not necessarily as all purpose
as it might seem.
Which is a fair criticism, but also, you know,
there are not many all purpose educational tools,
other than maybe teachers.
Awesomelightning, I hope for everybody's sake
that that is not true.
Cpmckeown makes a point about the possible exploitative
nature of educational games based upon something Ian Bogost
wrote, which is yeah, that's a fine line that you
would have to walk.
But I think also there's a difference between gamification
and game aided learning.
But yeah, we'll post a link to the Bogost
piece in the description.
Anderson Medlen makes the point that games
might be great for teaching but they will never replace
real world physical experience, which,
as much as I don't want to, I think I totally agree with.
To kolfoy, I guess GTA would be like the school of hard knocks?
Rim shot sound?
To James York, this sounds amazing.
Everyone should go check this out.
A bunch of people also pointed out
that these ideas were tackled by "Extra Credits," which
is a show that I'd never seen before.
So thanks for pointing that out.
You should really check it out.
We'll put a link in the description.
It's good stuff.
To foowombats, I was considering what
this world might look like.
And instead of just being solipsistic about it,
I thought maybe I would invite Dan Brown to discuss
this with me.
Hey.
So what do you think Dan?
Would we preside over a just and verdant world?
Yeah.
Let's go with that.
What would be your first action as co-ruler?
Well, first we have to figure out who is ruling ruling?
Because there needs to be some place where the buck ultimately
stops.
Who's taller?
Me.
Who's taller now?
I'm still tall.
Oh.
This won't be our first action.
I don't know, I mean, I think information freedom is
something that's important as people who
exist in the digital sphere.
You're really going for it.
I really am.
I'm dead serious about this.
I was going to say free hot dogs for everybody.
Well, you know, that sounds a little bit socialistic to me.
It's not necessarily a bad thing.
We need to get rid of the scarcity of hot dogs
and figure out how to digitize hot dogs.
And then we can--
So there you have it.
--duplicate them infinitely.
Digitized hot dog.
And transfer them immediately--
First act.
--to any point on the planet.
The ruler of the world.
Subsequently eliminating the value.
We just solved every problem.
A lot of nitrates in hot dogs.
Thanks for coming by, Dan.
And one other bit of news, Idea Channel
is a on year old this week.
So thank you to everybody who came on this amazing idea
journey with us.
That's weird.
But really, thank you, everybody.
Thank you so much.