Truth really is stranger than fiction. Seems that some really great brands are really great liars; really excelllent at the art of deception. I just contacted Harman-Kardon, the legendary maker of higher end speakers and other stereo/surround sound equipment. I have this system I bought for my computer and one of the speakers developed a hiss that wouldn’t go away. So, like any loyal brand guy, I wrote and asked if I could buy a replacement speaker so I could keep the system intact.
24 hours later, I got a response that blew me away…totally unexpected. Here it is and I quote:
“Hello Larry,
Thank you for your inquiry.
The HK 395 speakers are supported, sold and serviced by Dell. They are only licensed under the Harman-Kardon name. We do not manufacture or sell this product. Please contact Dell for more information. Their number is 800-624-9896.
Thank you.”
Unbelievable. Turns out that Harman-Kardon has nothing to do with the product they offer online…but touts its brand as being special, distinct, terrific, etc.
Question then: Given the total lack of involvement H-K has with its own product…does it still merit being called a brand?
Does anyone else have any stories of ‘Lie To Me’ brands?
By Dan Dimmock
26 JUN 2011, 15:17 GMT
Whilst I personally don’t have an example of such an experience where a brand has openly relinquished ownership and accountability, but as we know, franchising brands is Big Business – just look at the fashion industry. For example, designer label sunglasses and luxury timepieces, referring to both Luxottica and Swatch respectively. I think the email you received is perhaps more a display of poor customer service training and a distinct lack of internal communications than deceit.
By Tony Spaeth
26 JUN 2011, 21:47 GMT
Dan, I’ll side with Larry on this one. When the brand’s promise is merely one of style, or personality, you’re correct: its use by others is barely a white lie, and the customer is in on it (or should be). But when the promise is one of superior skill, technology or other proprietary ingredients, then its use by others is abuse.
By Andrew Sabatier
27 JUN 2011, 11:56 GMT
The Harman-Kordon brand is not necessarily a lie. That you believe it is a lie says more about you than it does about Harman-Kordon. When pressed Harman-Kordon have been honest with you. That you express your experience about the limitations of the brand is another issue. In other words, the Harman-Kordon brand experience is not as you expected. This does not mean you’ve been intentionally deceived. Based on this kind of feedback Harman-Kordon may be wise to consider the impact on their brand because that is what they, in partnership with Dell, are selling, a brand. That your expectation was false doesn’t mean the Harman-Kordon brand is a not true.
By Andrew Sabatier
27 JUN 2011, 12:14 GMT
And, contrary to the popular opinion among branding professionals, a brand is not a promise. It is only sometimes useful to hold a brand as a promise. One of the limitations of holding a brand as a promise is that brands get measured in terms of truth and falsity. Brands help us to make sense of the world because they help us to make our way in the world. Truth is not necessary to understand how we make our way in the world. The view of ‘brand’ as the same as ‘promise’ is naive philosophy. On balance, in my view, holding a brand as a promise is a gross oversimplification of what constitutes a brand.
By Gabi Toth
27 JUN 2011, 12:52 GMT
As I’m passionate about speaker systems, I have a great respect for HK, and Bose. Owning what I consider a fairly powerful home speaker system (Harman Kardon HS 500) has completely changed my listening experience. The only thing that didn’t quite match the brand promise was the buying experience - their local representative was located in a warehouse, and they didn’t even bother to help me out loading the expensive package in the trunk (we’re talking something the size of a small fridge). I also doubt they can service it if something happens.Another not-so-perfect experience I have is with Apple. Buying the latest iMac featuring a processor that was speedier than what they had in stock was not a good idea. I suspect they manually changed the processor with one bought from the local romanian market, and so the plexiglas screen is catching, and is now partially covered with electrostatic dust on the internal side - which is unacceptable considering there’s no way one could wipe that area at home without some seriously specialized hardware at hand.
So I think great brands can be also be affected by supply chains bearing the same brand name - this way, what otherwise are truly awesome products can easily get a dented image.
By Dan Dimmock
27 JUN 2011, 16:50 GMT
Don’t get me wrong Tony, I am not suggesting franchising the promise of a brand is acceptable; I simply drew a comparison to an industry where transparency and/or open disclosure means, as consumers, we are happy to allow it to exist. However, I might argue, there is a fine line between the two sets of criteria you suggest as acceptable and not acceptable, and I am sure a true timepiece connoisseur would agree with me. For example; licensed luxury watch brands charge a premium based on the promise of history, craftsmanship and precision engineering (all of which relate back to your second list) and yet, “we” still buy in. I still believe Larry’s experience and surprise is the result of transparency and communication, or a distinct lack of both. Deceit was perhaps the wrong word to use — after all, a hidden truth is still a lie. [DD]
By Andrew Sabatier
27 JUN 2011, 17:12 GMT
@Dan
A hidden truth is only a lie if the measure of the value of things is based on a binary system of opposites; in this case truth and falsity in relation to brands. This is the same kind of binary system as morality, which is deeply flawed by the logic implicit in such a space. And, in other words, truth and falsity cannot be separated from personal agendas. Truth is not required to intervene effectively (and credibly) in the world. We are no longer dependent on a recourse to truth to understand the world.
By Seamus
13 JUL 2011, 22:04 GMT
I once tried to use a Starbucks Gift Card at a Starbucks in a Barnes & Noble book store. They refused to take it stating that they weren’t actually a Starbucks, even though, they had a giant Starbucks logo, food, packaging, and uniforms. It made no sense to me. I wonder if they would have taken a B&N gift card?
By Kevin
03 OCT 2011, 18:00 GMT
Forgive me if I sound childlike here, but if I don’t know how to get from here to there, I’ll need someone to tell me the truth when he’s been asked for directions. Truth is still integral in finding one’s way in this world. So a brand that foregoes a promise because it doesn’t want to get bogged down with truth and falsity and were advised to do as such, that’s squeamish. Worse though is for Harman Kardon to “promise” they make the highest quality, most technologically advanced sound systems, except when they’ve made intentional efforts to the contrary and hope they get away with it. That was a lie when I was 8 years old and it’s a lie today. I never dodged a spanking over shades of grey.
By Alan Brew
05 OCT 2011, 9:03 GMT
For a particularly egregious example of a”lie-to-me” brand, take a look at Westinghouse: http://tiny.cc/lad5e
By Brian Weck
05 DEC 2011, 20:17 GMT
Sadly, it happens every day in every business model known on Earth.