“Typically, aspirational products are not affordable by the majority of the consumers, but about 30%-60% of the market either can afford the product or believes they will be able to do to so in the future,” Mark Hibben reports for Seeking Alpha. “So an important feature of an aspirational brand is that it’s just slightly out of reach of most consumers, but not so far out of reach as to be unattainable forever.”
“Aspirational brands typically enjoy a high reputation (for quality, innovation or some other discriminator) that allows them to charge a premium price,” Hibben reports. “So, is Apple an aspirational brand? The answer really depends on what part of the world the consumer lives in. In the United States, Apple clearly does not meet the criteria of an aspirational brand, since its products are affordable by the masses. On Verizon, the 16 GB iPhone 5s sells for $100 with contract, putting it on par with the $100 Samsung Galaxy S5. Despite pretensions to the contrary, the iPhone is a mass market item, like every other smartphone.”
“Apple’s smartphone ownership share also belies the concept of the aspirational iPhone. As was widely reported earlier this year, NPD Group found that Apple’s ownership share of the U.S. smartphone market had grown in 2013 from 35% in 2012 to 42%. Such a large ownership share clearly indicates that iPhone is not out of reach of most consumers in the U.S.,” Hibben reports. “The definition of aspirational is fuzzy enough that one could call Apple an aspirational brand in BRIC, but the problem for Apple is not the lack of exclusivity, but the lack of attainability. In BRIC, Apple needs to become more aspirational, in the sense of becoming closer to the reach of more consumers.”
Much more in the full article here.
One metric will not fit all. Yawn. I will not get that 2 minutes back.
It’s doubtful that you would have used those two minutes for anything more productive than hanging around websites like this.
Stupid article. Just a long winded way to say ” Apple needs to make a cheap iPhone “.
People get paid to write this crap ?
only aspirational people.
Will they make one for exceptional people?
Getting a little funnier every day, botvinnik. Keep it up!
We need a happy Bot instead of the crabby Bot.
make a new category: semi-aspiratational.
The author is making an issue where none exists. Red herring.
The area where Apple is with most of its products is called “the sweet spot.”
When any writer states that something only costs $100 on contract, its obvious that the article is pointless. The cost is $100 plus around two years of further payments.
I can buy a brand new Mercedes for $500 ( plus some further payments ).
⭐️
As ever, smart shoppers take into account:
1) Total Cost of Ownership
2) Return On Investment
Every single claim that Apple charges a ‘premium price’ looks ONLY at shelf price. When Total Cost of Ownership and Return On Investment are ALSO considered, the ‘premium price’ argument is consistently destroyed, evaporating into mere mythology.
IOW: Apple gear consistently costs LESS than comparable products.
TCO on the iPhone 4s was not so great. We had (have) four of them, two with batteries dying after 18 months and two with the bad switch problem.
That sucks. I hope Apple did the right thing by you.
Sorry to hear it. New battery at iResq is pretty cheap and will double life.
Switches cost more. Sorry.
The author knows sod all about branding that’s for sure.