Tiffany & Co. is an iconic brand, with decades of high-profile celebrity figures showcasing the company’s fine jewels and millions of brides hoping for an engagement ring that comes in a little blue box. Few would argue a piece of jewelry from Tiffany’s is a highly valued status symbol. So how does a new entry into the jewelry market compete with Tiffany’s 173 years history of establishing itself as “the world’s premier jeweler,” according to the company’s website.
Working against nearly two centuries of reputation and prestige is easy but in a recent survey, I conducted for my Writing, Research and Reporting class, I found that when people are looking at expensive jewelry, they could be swayed away from the glamour of Tiffany’s if they were offered a similar ring but the money was going to charity. In my survey, I found that 62 percent of people would choose the charity ring over the Tiffany’s ring. But the gap widens even further if the rings listed with no price. In this case, 69% of people surveyed would choose the charity ring.
To conduct this survey, I passed out three variations of the same survey. On the survey, there were pictures of two blue sapphire and diamond rings. Some of the surveys listed no price, some listed the Tiffany’s ring at $5,000 and the charity ring at $2,500 and others listed the Tiffany’s ring at $2,500 and the charity ring at $5,000. What was interesting about this survey is 36% of the people surveyed, who were primarily comprised of college students, were even willing to pay $5,000 for the ring. The top reason? Eighty-three percent of people who chose the charity ring on all three surveys said they wanted to support a good cause.
Another interesting point about the survey is the proceeds of the charity ring did not go to a person they might know knew but rather East African miners. The story behind the ring was that the sapphire in the ring was from a mine in East Africa, recently purchased by a non-profit organization that gives all of the profits to the miners. They bought the mine from rebel forces that were cruel and crippled many of the miners, now benefiting from the non-profits efforts. Under the picture of the ring, was the caption “Cruelty Free Ring.” On the other hand, the Tiffany’s ring was simply referred to as perfectly flawless, with not mention of its origins. A few surveyed picked up on this and said he would pick the Tiffany’s ring because the sapphire could have come from those charity mines as well, even though it was explicitly stated. But that is not what advertising is about. It is about putting what you believe to be your best foot forward.
In this case, a luxury name isn’t enough to overcome people’s natural inclination to root for the underdog. This point was even further illustrated by the first question on the survey, which showed two cats, both described as being in animal shelters and needing to be adopted. But the first cat was described as a fancy, award winning show cat and the second was described as a cat found on the street. Overwhelmingly, people chose the street cat at a rate of 93%, even when he was listed with an adoption fee and the show cat was free. The number one reason was they felt she needed it more and the second reason was they could relate to her better. So whether is a luxury purchase or picking up a stray kitty at a shelter, the majority of people prefer to put their money towards a product with an underdog story or a charitable cause to a status symbol item.
No comments:
Post a Comment