Dan Gilberts Retail Renaissance to include 70-90 retailers, including Target & Apple

[Honky Tonk]

First off, I'm not the one all pissed off about this topic or the constant references to your stream of conscience regarding pee in Midtown.

Secondly, if you think you're going to get shanked for wearing a suit in a dive bar, you really need to take the leap and join us all in reality. You won't get shanked. In addition to this, "established brands" also have a tendency to become mediocre over time. Do you know where Ralph Lauren is primarily manufactured? Because it sure as shit isn't America or Italy, bucko.

You're not going to forget that thread, are you?

[nain rouge]

I think that an Apple store would work especially inside a building such as the First National building or Chase Building. There are tech support businesses that had opened downtown and midtown. Why not have Apple downtown as well. Naysayers always say that this or that will not work in Detroit.Many times visionless naysayers had been proven wrong. Apple shiuld be inside s building where shoppers have to go through a secured lobby to get to it. The lobbies of t

Oh, you have a vision, alright. Your ideas remind me of the "secured" shopping centers in Phillip K. Dick's dystopian novel A Scanner Darkly, a place Robobcop would be perfectly at home shopping at. The whole city within a city concept is bunk - look at the smashing success of the Renaissance Center. Why Apple would have any interest in an idea like that is beyond me. And, by the way, beyond Apple.

[davewindsor]

Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the article anymore but I highly doubt they actually they are on par with Gucci. They probably think they can become on par with Gucci without being Gucci or Hugo Boss or Brooks Brothers. They can make quality suits, with the material the best labels use, and be a Detroit-based company. There's all the bespoke tailors on Saville Row, many of them younger than others. They are "no-names" here but that doesn't mean they aren't on par with the international labels. They just have worked to make the moniker of "Saville Row" prestigious. Maybe that's what these guys are trying to do.

Yes, they said their product is on par with Gucci.

[motz]

You're not going to forget that thread, are you?

I think it needs to be remembered so we have a frame of reference when it comes to a poster. Similarly to how I didn't want people to forget about how terrible 48009 is. Luckily I don't forget dumb crap!

[bailey]

Yes, they said their product is on par with Gucci.

the actual quote was "....that he considers to be on par with Brioni, Gucci and Ralph Lauren."

Again, he is setting a market expectation. If you want "buy 1 get three free", go to Jos A Bank... if you want something more high end AND custom tailored, we're your guys. How is that so outrageous a statement to make?

[davewindsor]

First off, I'm not the one all pissed off about this topic or the constant references to your stream of conscience regarding pee in Midtown.

Secondly, if you think you're going to get shanked for wearing a suit in a dive bar, you really need to take the leap and join us all in reality. You won't get shanked. In addition to this, "established brands" also have a tendency to become mediocre over time. Do you know where Ralph Lauren is primarily manufactured? Because it sure as shit isn't America or Italy, bucko.

Established brands become mediocre over time? Your opinion? I guess century old luxury brands like Rolex, Mercedes, Porsche, etc are all mediocre since they've been around for so long, yet you go to a country club and you don't have enough fingers to count everyone who has one.

Yes, I know Ralph Lauren is manufactured in countries like Vietnam. So is Nike. Why do so many people buy Nike? Probably costs a couple bucks to make in those countries... Walmart sells some cheaper no name running shoes too, but I don't personally know anyone who buys them.

[davewindsor]

the actual quote was "....that he considers to be on par with Brioni, Gucci and Ralph Lauren."

If he considers it to be on par with Gucci, he's saying it's on par with Gucci. It's the same thing.

[Honky Tonk]

I think it needs to be remembered so we have a frame of reference when it comes to a poster. Similarly to how I didn't want people to forget about how terrible 48009 is. Luckily I don't forget dumb crap!

It is one of your most endearing traits.

[jt1]

Established brands become mediocre over time? Your opinion? I guess century old luxury brands like Rolex, Mercedes, Porsche, etc are all mediocre since they've been around for so long, yet you go to a country club and you don't have enough fingers to count everyone who has one.

Yes, I know Ralph Lauren is manufactured in countries like Vietnam. So is Nike. Why do so many people buy Nike? Probably costs a couple bucks to make in those countries... Walmart sells some cheaper no name running shoes too, but I don't personally know anyone who buys them.

Isn't there a dead horse somewhere around your house that you can go beat [[Perhaps it is dead from wearing Polo in the local neighborhood bar). I think we understand the point you are trying to make and people [[1) either disagree with you or [[2) agree with you.

As for my opinion: If you judge the quality by the brand name then I have a bridge to sell you. Equating quality to marketing $$ is about as naive as it gets.

[davewindsor]

I think it needs to be remembered so we have a frame of reference when it comes to a poster. Similarly to how I didn't want people to forget about how terrible 48009 is. Luckily I don't forget dumb crap!

Dumb crap. Like you eating peed on cheerios. Hahaha.

[jt1]

If he considers it to be on par with Gucci, he's saying it's on par with Gucci. It's the same thing.

Since when does 'consider' equate to fact. I consider your act tiring, that doesn't make it a fact. You 'consider' Midtown a cesspool but again, that doesn't make it

[Honky Tonk]

Isn't there a dead horse somewhere around your house that you can go beat [[Perhaps it is dead from wearing Polo in the local neighborhood bar). I think we understand the point you are trying to make and people [[1) either disagree with you or [[2) agree with you.

As for my opinion: If you judge the quality by the brand name then I have a bridge to sell you. Equating quality to marketing $$ is about as naive as it gets.

You mean like $250 "made in Detroit" blue jeans?

[jt1]

Dumb crap. Like you eating peed on cheerios. Hahaha.

Where did he indicate that he eats peed on Cheerios? I would consider you to have limited reading comprehension.

[jt1]

You mean like $250 "made in Detroit" blue jeans?

Exact same thing: Anyone dumb enough to buy something because it says Polo is just as dumb as anyone dropping $250 on jeans because they say Detroit. luckily for these companies, there are a lot of suckers out there.

[davewindsor]

As for my opinion: If you judge the quality by the brand name then I have a bridge to sell you. Equating quality to marketing $$ is about as naive as it gets.

I wouldn't buy a bridge from you because buying something from someone who hasn't established their credibility is a very naive move.

[jt1]

I wouldn't buy a bridge from you because buying something from someone who hasn't established their credibility is a very naive move.

Well, in that case Matty Maroun has a bridge to sell you or Bernie Madoff had some securities to sell you [[back when his credibility was as solid as a rock).

But, back on point: How does spending a ton on marketing improve credibility? The original point of your argument was marketing dollars. Bud Light spends millions to say it is a good beer but, you being Canadian, would hopefully know better. Does that marketing dollars make their statement credible?

[davewindsor]

Where did he indicate that he eats peed on Cheerios? I would consider you to have limited reading comprehension.

In another thread we've debated it. It's getting pretty lame.

[jt1]

In another thread we've debated it. It's getting pretty lame.

So lame you have to continue discussing it? You're losing credibility. I guess I won't be buying any of your arguments.

[davewindsor]

Since when does 'consider' equate to fact. I consider your act tiring, that doesn't make it a fact. You 'consider' Midtown a cesspool but again, that doesn't make it

I never said it was fact. My issue was that he made the comparison. Do you have any analytical skills at all??

[davewindsor]

So lame you have to continue discussing it? You're losing credibility. I guess I won't be buying any of your arguments.

It would be pointless to sell you an argument because you lack comprehension no matter how many times I repeat it.

[jt1]

I never said it was fact. My issue was that he made the comparison. Do you have any analytical skills at all??

It isn't a matter of analytical skills, it is a matter of differentiating language. The quote was' ....that he considers to be on par with Brioni, Gucci and Ralph Lauren." You may consider it semantics but he did not state that they are the same, he stated that he considers it on par. There is a difference between "They are on par with" and "I consider them to be on par with"

Minor difference but a significant one especially from the mouth of a business owner. I bet most chef's would consider their cuisine to compare with anyone in the world but that doesn't make it fact.

I take it you haven't found that horse to continue beating.

[jt1]

It would be pointless to sell you an argument because you lack comprehension no matter how many times I repeat it.

Repeat it all you want, it doesn't make you correct. Too bad you're Canadian, you'd fit in perfectly in Washington.

[davewindsor]

Well, in that case Matty Maroun has a bridge to sell you or Bernie Madoff had some securities to sell you [[back when his credibility was as solid as a rock).

But, back on point: How does spending a ton on marketing improve credibility? The original point of your argument was marketing dollars. Bud Light spends millions to say it is a good beer but, you being Canadian, would hopefully know better. Does that marketing dollars make their statement credible?

No, marketing dollars establishes the company. It's up to you as a smart consumer to decide whether Bud Light's value statements are credible to you.

[davewindsor]

It isn't a matter of analytical skills, it is a matter of differentiating language. The quote was' ....that he considers to be on par with Brioni, Gucci and Ralph Lauren." You may consider it semantics but he did not state that they are the same, he stated that he considers it on par. There is a difference between "They are on par with" and "I consider them to be on par with"

Minor difference but a significant one especially from the mouth of a business owner. I bet most chef's would consider their cuisine to compare with anyone in the world but that doesn't make it fact.

I take it you haven't found that horse to continue beating.

He's saying the same thing.

[jt1]

No, marketing dollars establishes the company. It's up to you as a smart consumer to decide whether Bud Light's value statements are credible to you.

Before they can say they're on par, they've got to spend hundreds of millions on advertising just like well known brands;

So does marketing dollars establish the company or the quality?