Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Cool Ink, Bro.

There are some people who get tattoos to commemorate a family member or friend who has passed away. Some get inked to mark a milestone or chapter in their life. And then there are people who get tattoos to save $2.50 on their next purchase.


(Branded. Literally.)

Marc Ecko is offering his customers a 20 per cent discount for the rest of their lives if they have the cojones to roll up their sleeves and put a needle to their skin. Er...to get a tattoo. Fans can either get the Ecko rhino or the Cut & Sew shears, both clothing lines owned by Ecko.

While this lifelong promotion is redefining the terms 'branding' and 'customer loyalty', I think the most peculiar part about this is whole ordeal are the people who are actually getting these tattoos. Look at it this way:

1) Tatts cost hundreds of dollars, and most parlours have a $100 or so minimum that you must spend.
2) Ecko is definitely not a bargain line, so it can be safe to assume that someone who shops at Ecko might spend somewhere near $80-$120 per visit; an average of $20 in savings.

So, you throw down $100 to get the smallest, simplest tattoo you can get, but then you'll have to spend an additional $500 at an Ecko store to break even on that cost. So, it's not until you spend an initial $600 until you can start "saving" money. Now you have to start thinking how much/long it would take if you got a more elaborate tattoo with colours and intricate designs to go along with the logo (you can redesign that tattoo whichever way you want, s'long as the logo stay intact), that will cost another couple hundred, which delays this saving process even more.

If the financial aspect isn't a concern to you, I hope people realize that they'll have a logo tattooed to to their body. No cool story or special meaning behind it. Those who give up their skin are basically converting themselves into living, breathing ad space and a meaty mobile coupon.

To me, it's just not worth it. But I guess this promo is for the more audacious, seat-of-one's-pants individual. At least it's not as embarrassing as this:


(Ouch.)

No comments:

Post a Comment