What is the difference between a mere brand and an actual manufacturer? These days, the distinction can be opaque, constantly changing, and filled with gray areas due to incredibly complicated supply chains, outsourcing, and marketing obfuscation.
The difference still exists and it still matters.
“Those are nice shoes,” someone said of my canvas and leather saddle lace-ups that I pull out this time of year. “What kind are they?”
I pointed out that they are Cole Haan.
“Oh that’s a good shoe.”
The real answer is: not necessarily. My memory in my time in the men’s shoe industry is that Cole Haan is a designer, not a manufacturer. It’s a brand of what are considered high-end fashion shoes marketed to a knowledgeable customer. They can come from anywhere on the planet. Sometimes the results are wonderful, and other times not so much.
This is what happens when your company gets big after several major acquisitions, public offerings, takeovers, and so on. Yes, it began as a manufacturer in Chicago in 1928 and established itself as wonderful. But that ended in 1975 when it was sold and built into an international brand that was acquired and later sold by Nike to another group of investors, to become an international retailer.
At some point, “Cole Haan” became an idea only, malleable and migratory. Most brands today are that and that only.
I’m not putting down the quality of the shoe, simply observing that it is hardly the first consideration in a company of this size and scale. The brand for Cole Haan is everything, far more valuable than the shoe itself. Indeed, and this is true for all brands in our marketing-soaked culture, the pitch and the buy is the goal while the after-market customer experience is neither here nor there.
This is in contrast to a company like Alden or Rancourt. These are also old American shoe makers but they have stayed in private hands, manage their own manufacturing process, and assemble everything in plants they also own and manage. Their quality is impeccable and reliably so. Without exception.
Notice too that the designs of Alden and Rancourt are not seasonal and constantly changing. They are stable year-to-year. My favorite Alden shoe (shell cordovan, open last oxfords) has been in the catalog since the 1940s. My own pair came from an older gentleman who inherited them from his own father, which means that my shoes were likely made in 1960 or so. They look absolutely flawless and have been resoled more than a dozen times.
Alden is a brand, yes, but it is also a genuine maker of shoes. There is a huge difference. Hardly anyone understands this, much less knows to look for the difference. They seem ever more rare today on a national much less international basis. It’s hard to find any companies that maintain direct control of the processes that go into making their product.
Still, it remains true: if you want the best-possible quality for a lasting product, this is the only way to go. It’s a miracle these exist on a national much less international level.
If you shop at farmers’ markets or attend local fairs, or even if you shop Etsy and are careful only to buy from people who actually make their own stuff, you know this. It’s possible to assure this in food and soap and other small items. It is much more difficult when we are talking about large brands with international marketing and vast sales and infrastructure to support.
The temptation of any company to sacrifice its quality for marketing and reach is overwhelming. Some resist. I knew a man who developed a line of clothing that was crafted with utmost care with perfect fabrics and designs dating from the golden age of men’s fashions. His designs landed him several major movie contracts and the brand became epic practically overnight.
That’s when the venture capitalists showed up with piles of money. His company took the money and started expanding. It was a wild whirlwind of drama and money-making and it went on for two and three years. But then the crucial time came to cut corners and become the new Ralph Lauren. My friend refused to go along since the whole point of his clothing line was to have the best off-the-rack experience available in the retail sector.
He became dogmatic about it and dug in his heels. Immediately the frustrations began and the company became gummed up. But he would not compromise. The VCs pulled out, the network shrunk, employees were let go, and the whole thing unraveled. The brand eventually became a small shop of bespoke designs, available only to a few. Fortunes were foregone simply to retain product quality.
That is the choice for many of these brands and manufacturers. They all face the problem: if you want to exploit one, you will have to let go of the others. You are surely aware of a shoe company called Johnson & Murphy. They are in every airport and have thousands of outlets. For most all existing purposes, these shoes meet the need in every way. But keep in mind: this is a brand and only that.
You can know by the price point. They run about the same price point as high-quality shoes from 40 years ago. In that time, we have seen 200 percent cumulative inflation even according to official data. A shoe that cost $150 in 1984 should be $450 today. If the shoe today costs $150, it would have cost $50. This much I promise you, and speaking as someone who was very much involved in this industry: a shoe in 1984 that cost $50 was not worth owning.
But what does it mean to say that something is not worth owning? That’s according to my own valuation. To my mind, a shoe should last a lifetime. It should be resoled several times or maybe many times. That means developing a good relationship with a cobbler. Such cobbling shops are vanishing one by one. This is because people no longer want a shoe to last a lifetime, much less two. They want to wear something for a year and throw it out.
Most shoes you buy at the store are in this category. I personally regard them as dismissible junk but I’m not the market. Clearly most consumers disagree with me. They buy the brand, not the manufacturing. Which is fine: freedom of choice and all that. Still, it would be nice if people knew what was what. It’s not clear that anyone does anymore.
Let me give another example. The Tumi luggage store in the mall was irresistible. Everyone seems to know that this is a high-end brand of excellent quality. Looking at the offerings, it was rather obvious to me that this was simply not true. What I saw was a line of “quiet luxury” products that have the aesthetic of iPhone apps but with a price that seemed 2 to 5 times too high. I was very easily able to discover on eBay beautiful items that are much more wonderful at a fraction of the price and made by companies that still unite brand and manufacturing, such as Trafalgar.
The reason is that Tumi, once a private company with very high standards, sold to Samsonite, also once a private company with very high standards. Now both are brands only and with manufacturing that could take place anywhere in the world with varying results. The people behind both companies have come to believe that the brand is worth far more than the product they are selling. And they are probably correct about this point.
I’m not here to condemn these companies one way or another but only to illustrate the point. There is no sense in going into the market with a myth in your head about what you are buying. That goes for absolutely everything, from footwear to food to furniture to pharmaceuticals.
It’s always best to greet any and all marketing with a raised eyebrow. Sometimes the best products are the least fashionable ones.
