I’m a die-hard MEC fan. Their products are amazing, and as a scout leader, hiker, skier, etc. I need high performance (100% functional need satisfying) clothes for when I’m outdoors. It’s important that when I go to their store, I get product guarantees, practical information from their experienced sales team, options to suit my specific, personal camping needs, and the opportunity to consider each product’s application and benefits in an open environment. In short, I’m willing to spend. MEC satisfies not only my camping needs, but as a leader, when we want to buy lasting equipment for the youth, MEC is usually the first name in mind. We know that not only will we be getting premium, tailored products, but also ridiculous exchange/refund policies in case the youth break the equipment; if the product description is not met (say, ten years waterproof), it will be replaced, no questions asked. Of course, the store doesn’t provide coupons, never hosts store-wide sales, and doesn’t even have “customers”; I myself am a proud co-op “member”. This value-added approach has built the biggest local provider of outdoor clothing and equipment in the city, and in fact, when MEC wants to open new stores, neighbourhood retailers often complain about being crowded out.

So the obvious joke here is how a local retailer is threatening the community of… local retailers? Not too long ago, MEC was just another store, started by some concerned campers. But I think this store’s success is an excellently clear example of the power in maximizing a sustained, competitive advantage. On top of which, if you still can’t see the signs of their success, I would recommend popping by a store for a visit, talking to a sales person (try not to buy anything), and watching this service phenomenon unfold. And maybe you’ll agree that sometimes, all you might need to do to succeed is pick the right business/marketing philosophy. And then (borrowing from game theory) even a regular operation like customer service with can be a dominant business strategy.

Just wow. Really? Architecture? Talk about moving beyond being a clothing brand. Just wow.

Class-actions are a marketer’s bane. Or so illustrates an article in the August 26-September 1 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. Lawyers who made their fortunes suing tobacco companies for misrepresentation have converted to litigating less directly harmful food companies, such as Ben & Jerry’s and Breyers being sued for claiming that their ice cream is “all natural”. Plaintiffs are arguing that these products should instead report that they contain alkalized cocoa processed with potassium carbonate, and other such trivialities.

Although it is unlikely that any of these lawsuits will successfully charge companies for money, it is nonetheless important to assess the business environment in America; while it is incentivized for law firms to indefinitely expand the scopes of their litigations, one may question whether or not the simple exchange of money is useful business operation. Indeed, such symptoms of inefficiency are unsurprising in any well-established bureaucratic organization, and countries are no exception. Society as a whole often suffers from the selfish pursuit of gains, weighing once again against Adam Smith’s arguments if French capitalism was not enough practical proof. But, instead of beating a dead horse, we who are so much smarter in the 21^st century know about value-based marketing and marketing to mission statements; we have existential crises, and question the ends of what we do, generally emerging unsatisfied by psychological egoism; these lawyers, I would say, break the mould. Or somehow, being in an industry or an organization, individuals find the justification to do things that they otherwise would not.

Considering the use of language and technicalities in branding, let us not forget that value-based marketing is nothing without its prerequisite of wanting to live a life of value. So when we think we are cheating the system with our own egoisms, we are really cheating ourselves out of participation. I mean, I don’t think all we want to do is market a life of being rich – rich and… what, happy?

Vague, much? Or does anybody know what this means and would care to comment?