Peter Conquet RR2

Judith Williamson makes a valid point. There isn’t a very big difference between products in the same category. They all do the same thing but are all positioned to different people even if the end result is the same. Judith uses to ads for perfume for different companies as an example of positioning the same product in a different way. Chanel uses Catherine Deneuve’s face as a comparison to Chanel No. 5. The beauty and ideals that Catherine stands for are reflected to be the same as what Chanel No. 5 stand for. For the new perfume babe they use Margaux Hemingway. She signifies youth, and a tomboy style. Both of these products are chemicals in a bottle but are positioned to reach two different audiences. Chanel is trying to position itself as sophisticated beauty while babe is positioning itself to not be the normal cliche of beauty. Babe’s perfume position speaks more a younger audience and gives the product more of a emotional feel. Chanel keeps it classy and is positioned for a older women. Now this doesn’t meant that the ads still don’t speak to the competitors target audience. Women who are young might want to be older and use Chanel thinking of the association it brings to them. Older women might use babe because they want to feel young and be different. I agree with Judith Williamson because the products aren’t very different, in the end its all how you position the product to your audience that defines the feel for your product.

One thought on “Peter Conquet RR2

  1. rmichals

    You have a clear understanding of Willanson’s basic point. While the products themselves are very similar, advertising creates very different images for these products. I think Williamson goes even a bit further to say that these images only mean something in relationship to each other. The Babe ad gets its meaning from its contrast to more traditional perfume ads like the Chanel No 5 ad.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *