are the Tiffany campaign failure reports true?

[ShockPop 7,747]

1. They targeted the wrong demographic.

2. Tiffany is cheap garbage at ridiculous prices.

3. No.

[Edonis 28,950]

1 minute ago, androiduser said:

the article didn't insinuate that she had something to do with it, but says that her campaign didn't prevent the decrease, which is what the brand hoped would happen

 

4 minutes ago, Edonis said:

Her inclusion in a campaign doesn't determine the "make it or break it" sales model that some of those articles are insinuating. If people want jewelry they're going to buy jewelry; the presence of a Lady Gaga advertisement isn't going to sway consumers on the fence about making a purchase aside from her more impressionable members in her fan base. Furthermore, insinuating that she has a causal link to a decrease revenue is even stupider. There is obviously something else wrong with Tiffany and Co. to cause sales to drop. 

I didn't say that article mentioned that; rather that there are articles out there (a simple google news search would show you some) with sensationalist headlines implying that she brought the company down. In that case, that's just not true. 

And I didn't disagree with her purpose of being there; she was there to make money, they wanted to capitalize off her image. It didn't work. Thats all. 

[androiduser 7,438]

[alp0707 5,626]

16 minutes ago, androiduser said:

come on, she was hired to give the brand more visibility and have a positive effect on sales. They didn't hire a huge start like her so they would get worse sales. If anything, it's their fault that they hired the wrong celebrity.

It is jewelery. People won't say Gaga is on ad let get some stuff

[androiduser 7,438]

Just now, alp0707 said:

It is jewelery. People won't say Gaga is on ad let get some stuff

of course, they didn't expect kids and middle class people to start spending on jewellery but they definitely wanted to get a boost of some sort by hiring someone unexpected and cool

[venusfly 17,885]

They're not blaming Gaga for this, they're saying that Tiffany is still failing as a company after recruiting Gaga to promote them which indicates something is wrong with their business model, not Gaga.

[StJames 376]

58 minutes ago, androiduser said:

There have been reports about it from serious media outlets, do we know more about this?

Seems like Gaga didn't bring any profit to the company?

 

The company has been struggle for a while. Like for like sales don't represent profit. While I'm sure they used gaga as a means to drive sales it's been an ongoing down hill struggle for the brand which sadly she wasn't able to help. Retail as a whole has been struggling massively. One of the only brands to turn a healthy profit in the luxury market last financial year was Louis Vuitton. Plus it doesn't fall on gaga, she would have followed the direction the brand wanted and in turn was probably given payment and the pieces she modelled 

[babs 5,093]

I get it tho, I wouldn't say it's the aesthetic only, but all of ads are just visually unstriking. And let's be honest here, hardly any monster is going for that aesthetic.

[manicholic 3,694]

Not a failure for Gaga's bank account though!

[artpopulace 1,657]

"Tiffany management attributed the lackluster performance to “lower spending by both foreign tourists and local customers." [x]

[River 116,265]

It's even expensive to eat breakfast at Tiffany's so to buy their jewelry it's even more expensive..

The luxury brands will struggle even more, there are not a lot of middle-rich class people anymore that can buy their products..