Bittersweet "Journey"?
When the Diamond Promotion Service launched its Journey campaign, it seemed like a sure winner to me. It had nice designs (although, I will admit, this area is not my strong suit) and an easy to understand concept, even for a male like myself. And it had an extremely strong first year.
But according to most people I’ve talked to, last Christmas "Journey" sales sputtered. Now, granted, last holiday was pretty bad for the industry in general. But what I am struck by is how many people in the trade have mixed, and sometimes hostile, feelings about the Journey campaign. Here are the three main reasons why:
- It got cheapened. This is by far the number one gripe I’ve heard. Apparently, the majors were the first to jump onto "Journey," and they produced what some saw as low-end versions of the concept. Once that happened, the high-end independents, who largely embraced three-stone, didn’t want to touch it.
- It wasn’t a staple. The genius of the three-stone jewelry campaign is that it took an established product (three-stone rings) and gave it a new positioning ("past, present, future.") By contrast, most jewelers say that graduated diamond jewelry is not the same basic item that three stone rings are. (Again, this is what I’ve heard. This is not really my area …)
- Inconsistent advertising support. When the three-stone campaign was launched, it had the full support of the DPS. That was also the period when the De Beers/JWT axis was very generous with co-op dollars.
But the "Journey" campaign never seemed to come together the way the "three-stone" ring campaign did. Furthermore, while I will go on record as saying I loved the opening "Dandelion" commercial, I know some in the trade have described as a little too off-beat for their tastes. (Last year’s Christmas commercial seemed like a retread, with the exception of the very effective music.)
Now one could certainly argue that "Journey" has been a success. Any product that sells $1.5 billion in its first year is certainly impressive. And maybe, if the economy turns around, so will Journey sales. But at this juncture it seems unlikely to be another three-stone, as it was initially touted. Which is a shame, because the trade certainly could use one.
I am interested in any further thoughts on this ….
Hedda Schupak commented:
I think a big part of the problem has been the styling, rather than
the concept. The "love grows with time" concept is a good one; PGI
is making it the centerpiece of their advertising as well, and with
good design to execute it, it could be solid for years. But
speaking as both former fashion editor and permanent fashion-loving
female, the squiggle was a cute idea that has outlived its
cuteness. It was a bit different, but not too "out there," and
customers responded to it. But 18 months later, we've been there,
done that, and it no longer has the appeal of being different. It's
just that squiggly snake thing, again, yawn, I'm outta here. The
industry has to start thinking a bit more like fashion
people--because if everything is marketed as forever, who needs to
buy another one?
Mall Jewelry Boy commented:
From what I've seen, the number one category absolutely canibalized
by Journey was the three-stone pendant, and to a lesser extend, the
diamond circle pendant, both of which were running low on steam.
Journey's featured holiday item was the "seven-stone squiggle"
pendant, so of course diamond fashion pendants were hit hardest.
Ben Janowski commented:
People have always wondered about the efficacy of DPS promotions,
but no doubt that it attracted the public's attention. Spend that
kind of money and it will happen. In this case, the Journey concept
simply does not have the "legs" to continue to attract consumers.
Three stone rings do. The key life passage events of marriage and
then anniversaries that recur every year maintain the interest in
the product, as it does, for example, with a basic like studs. But
once a Journey idea is bought, it's over. And once people who liked
the idea made their purchase, the concept is over. It is an easy
item to debase, as you say, as happened years ago with the tennis
bracelet, and that does keep it out of upscale stores. I think it
is an error to say that it generated $1.2b is sales because that
makes it sound that it was all incremental sales. It might be true
that Journey accounted for $1.2b in sales, but how much of that was
diamond sales that would have been made anyway? Considering that
last year was a down year, we could say that Journey helped retain
sales that could have gone to other products.
Mall Jewelry Boy commented:
The other day I heard a couple of salespeople in a very large
jewelry store that does quite well. They were complaining that the
Journey "concept" is too broad and that stores have invested in too
many differing styles. Their argument was that everyone should be
pushing the 7-diamond squiggle (I personally prefer to call it
"Path of Light"), instead of diverting money to purchase and market
other styles. I don't neccesarily agree with this, but they make a
point. I know people complain a LOT about the "sameness" of
merchandise, especially at the mid-market and in chains, but the
fact is that EVERYONE carries diamond studs and diamond solitaire
rings. Why? Because they sell. Why? Because they are considered
basics that everyone will buy and wear. Why? Think about it.
Someone somewhere at some time must have started to push solitaire
engagement rings and solitaire diamond earrings, and then everyone
jumped on the bandwagon...and yes I know we can talk about De Beers
forever, but the fact remains that with so many people complaining
about Journey, it might turn out to be more of a Right Hand Ring
than Three Stone campaign...expanding awareness and creating a
market, but not dramatically uplifting sales.
