9. ETA promoted Swatches by sponsoring sports 10. There were many kinds of Swatches: some even tasted of strawberries 11. It wasn't 12. eta didnt produce as many Swatches as customers wanted 10.3 Brand names Readin Read this article and then fill each gap below with one word Are brand names being pushed off the shelf? According to the Wall Street Journal: More and more shoppers are bypassing household names for the cheaper, no-name products one shelf over. This shows that even the biggest and strongest brands in the world are vulnerable It has been clear for some time principally since recession began to be felt in the major economies of the world -that the strength of brands has been under fire. during the second half of the eighties, the Japanese, for example, showed themselves willing to pay a huge premium to but goods with a smart label and image to match: they were fashion victims par excellence, be it in choosing their luggage (Louis Vuitton was much favored)or in buying their booze, where a 20-year-old version of a good malt whisky could fetch the equivalent of $60 or more. Over the past year or two, that enthusiasm to spend big money on a classy label has waned markedly But we may be witnessing the death of the brand First, every story that now appears about the troubles being experienced by makers of luxur good triggers wise nods and told you so frowns Two days ago, LVMH in France, which owns Moet et Chandon champagne, Louis Vuitton and the Christian Lacroix fashion house, reported lower earnings for the first half of 1993 than it did a year ago. As David Jarvis, in charge of the European operations of drinks company Hiram Ealker, puts it: A few years ago, it might have been considered smart to wear a shirt with a designer's logo embroidered on the pocked; frankly, it now seems a bit naff. This conclusion fits with one's instincts. In the straitened nineties, with nearly 3 million out of work and 425,000 people officially classed as homeless in England alone, conspicuous consumption now seems vulgar rather than chic But just because flashy, up-market brands have lost some of their appeal, it does not follow that all brands have done so. Cadburys Dairy Milk is just as much a brand as Catier watches Tastes may have shifted downmarket, but that does not mean that they have shifted from flash-brand to no brand The second strand of the brand argument is tied intimately with the effects of rec one yet knows to what extent the apparent lack of some brands'appeal in merely a temporary phenomenon. It may well be that, deep down, we would still love to own a Louis Vuitton suitcase9. ETA promoted Swatches by sponsoring sports. __________ 10. There were many kinds of Swatches: some even tasted of strawberries. __________ 11. It wasn’t possible for customers to buy a Swatch at a discount. __________ 12. ETA didn’t produce as many Swatches as customers wanted. __________ 10.3 Brand names Reading Read this article and then fill each gap below with one word. Are brand names being pushed off the shelf? According to the Wall Street Journal: “ More and more shoppers are bypassing household names for the cheaper, no-name products one shelf over. This shows that even the biggest and strongest brands in the world are vulnerable.” It has been clear for some time – principally since recession began to be felt in the major economies of the world – that the strength of brands has been under fire. During the second half of the eighties, the Japanese, for example, showed themselves willing to pay a huge premium to but goods with a smart label and image to match: they were fashion victims par excellence, be it in choosing their luggage (Louis Vuitton was much favored) or in buying their booze, where a 20-year-old version of a good malt whisky could fetch the equivalent of $60 or more. Over the past year or two, that enthusiasm to spend big money on a classy label has waned markedly. But we may be witnessing the death of the brand. First, every story that now appears about the troubles being experienced by makers of luxury good triggers wise nods and told you so frowns. Two days ago, LVMH in France, which owns Moet et Chandon champagne, Louis Vuitton and the Christian Lacroix fashion house, reported lower earnings for the first half of 1993 than it did a year ago. As David Jarvis, in charge of the European operations of drinks company Hiram Ealker, puts it: “ A few years ago, it might have been considered smart to wear a shirt with a designer’s logo embroidered on the pocked; frankly, it now seems a bit naff.” This conclusion fits with one’s instincts. In the straitened nineties, with nearly 3 million out of work and 425,000 people officially classed as homeless in England alone, conspicuous consumption now seems vulgar rather than chic. But just because flashy, up-market brands have lost some of their appeal, it does not follow that all brands have done so. Cadbury’s Dairy Milk is just as much a brand as Catier watches. Tastes may have shifted downmarket, but that does not mean that they have shifted from flash-brand to no brand. The second strand of the brand argument is tied intimately with the effects of recession. No one yet knows to what extent the apparent lack of some brands’ appeal in merely a temporary phenomenon. It may well be that, deep down, we would still love to own a Louis Vuitton suitcase