Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Cartier's Deception

 I found the New York Times article covering Cartier advertising on MySpace quite interesting. At first glance I thought nothing more than just another company finding new mediums in which they could bug us with junk mail and those annoying pop-ups that never seem to leave me alone.  Apparently, Cartier is starting a new campaign in hopes of reaching out to a new genre of clientele, the Myspacer. While the company is attempting to break the mold of "luxury goods" by making their products accessible to the average person instead of just the economically privileged, I have found some contradictory statements that have led me to believe that Cartier is putting on a facade in their promotion of equal opportunity consumers. 

Since Cartier was founded in 1847 (wikipedia.org), the company's standards have been set high. With their flawless jewels and sleek designs, Cartier has been found on the bodies of the most elite people. The jewelry company has always emphasized the elegance of their timeless pieces and has secured a top spot  on the luxury brand pedestal. With this new switch to advertising on a site that is easily accessible by anyone who has a computer at his or her fingertips, it appears that Cartier is attempting to erase it's snooty past and connect with a much larger population than their normal high rollers. Do not let them fool you! 

By working with MySpace, Cartier does not have to get their hands dirty. They can appear to be reaching out to the everyday consumer and saying, "Hey, you could wear our jewelry too", but really, not everyone passes the Cartier criteria. According to the New York Times article, the company pays an undisclosed amount to MySpace for the advertising space and, in turn, MySpace selects who is "accepted" as a Cartier friend based on Cartier's standards. So essentially, Cartier is still  discriminating against certain types of people. Even though they are trying to appear to be breaking away form their exclusively attainable aura, they are still implementing high standards by paying MySpace to do their dirty work of saying who is "good enough" to be associated with Cartier. Of course, MySpace does not mind taking on this role because the price is right. 

Cartier is not making a revolutionary advertising campaign, they are simply disguising their old ways. If you visit their website they have a Cartier club with the description reading "a privileged relationship with the maison and with advantages to be discovered. You will receive benefits from personalized offers and privileged information" (www.Cartier.com). Cartier wants us to believe that they think the average person can obtain their merchandise, but one look at the website and their elitist attitude is obvious. Maybe I am being too harsh and looking too deep into the matter, but I do not think that Cartier is being as honest as they are portraying themselves to be. 

2 comments:

deanw87 said...

Essentially all Cartier is doing is making a cleaver business move. They notice the popularity of Mypace and is taking advantage of the audience that the website reaches out to. I don't think its necessarily about "disguising their old ways", but instead finding a faster route to reach a more substantial amount of potential consumers for their product.

Between Paper and Machine said...

I am so glad you linked your post to Cartier’s website. This is something we should have looked at in class because it is fascinating, given the company’s recent foray into MySpace. I appreciate your reading of the “Cartier Club” and the word choice such as “personalized offers” and “privileged information”—this close reading bolsters the argument you are making. The website signifies many things about class position and certainly is not intended for people who baby-sit or mow lawns. Of course, that latter point only works if we accept that the intended audience for MySpace is not a member of the leisure or elite class. Moreover, as you write, the relationship between MySpace and Cartier is a bit more complicated than we might have known, given the policing of “friending” and so on that was reported in the NY Times. I do want to know more about the correlation you are making between the company’s long history and its high standards. Finally, do you think Cartier is actively disguising, or is the company simply (well, it is not so simple, I guess) and actively participating in capitalism? Capitalism relies on secrets and deception. I would push Dean on his response to your post too; it may not just be a good business decision, or a conscious act of deception—there may be something in between.