Where the Boys Are: How Trump Won The Manosphere --- Eighteen-year-old Barron Trump helped his father connect to a world of bros, dudes, online pranksters and ultimate fighters

 

"One day in the midst of a vicious election campaign whose outcome, Donald Trump had warned, could threaten America's very survival, the former president spent 90 minutes with a foul-mouthed 24-year-old who has achieved a certain kind of stardom by playing videogames for an online audience.

In meeting Adin Ross in August for a livestreamed chat, Trump was entering the manosphere.

It is an online universe of YouTubers, podcasters, live-streamers, online pranksters and more. They vary wildly in their tone, substance and obsessions. Some are jokey; some are vile. Running through them all is a certain unreformed notion of "Bro-dom."

Trump may have been a pilgrim in this strange land. But he had a native to guide him: his 18-year-old, 6-foot-9-inch son Barron, a freshman at New York University.

"My son Barron says hello," Trump told Ross at the outset of their chat. "He's a big fan of yours."

"What's up, Barron?" Ross chirped. "Yeah, Barron's awesome. Amazing. Great kid. He's tall. Very tall."

This week, the manosphere, the kind of secret that young men tend to hide on their laptops or at the bottom of a sock drawer, was dragged into the spotlight when Trump won a commanding election victory. It was fueled, in part, by vigorous support from the kind of young men more typically concerned with videogames than voting.

In his victory speech in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, the triumphant president-elect saluted Dana White, the bullet-headed boss of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the manosphere's sport of choice and the sun at the center of its universe. White, in turn, called out Ross and two other manosphere stars, including the Nelk Boys and Theo Von, for mobilizing their vast followings on Trump's behalf.

In the crowd that night at the Palm Beach County Convention Center, cheering alongside well-heeled donors and evangelical organizers, were an abundance of fresh-faced MAGA dudes and the women who love them -- many with Ivanka-like platinum tresses.

To Blake Marnell, a 60-year old from San Diego who has gained his own MAGA fame for attending rallies in a suit whose pattern resembles a brick wall, the manosphere is an organic phenomenon that grew out of terrain abandoned or overlooked by traditional media outlets. It has some of the DNA of now-defunct lads' magazines and raunchy television shows from a previous generation, like "Jackass" or "The Man Show," unlikely to be greenlighted in today's culture. It loves crypto, energy drinks and Elon Musk.

"If you were in college recently, you knew about it," Marnell said. "If you're over 35, probably not."

Older men can congregate around CNBC or golf. But not so much the younger guys. "You've got a show named 'The View.' Five women sitting down talking," Marnell noted. "Is there an equivalent for men?"

It is hard to say with precision where the manosphere's boundaries begin and end. ("There's no credentialing board," as Marnell put it.) Joe Rogan, America's most popular podcaster, is probably too old and mainstream to qualify. Think of him more as the manosphere's winking uncle who slips beers to underage nephews like podcasters Ross and Von, a stand-up comedian and self-styled streamer who also bagged a Trump interview.

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian academic who blames modern society for castrating young men, is a sort of manosphere intellectual. There are female fellow travelers, like H. Pearl Davis, who has gained TikTok fame with her tart anti-feminist takes.

The group known as the Nelk Boys are its jesters. Their online pranks have spawned an empire that includes a YouTube channel with 8 million subscribers, 4.7 million TikTok followers and a popular podcast called "Full Send," on which Trump, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and JD Vance have all appeared this political season.

Arguably, the crown princes of the manosphere are Jake and Logan Paul, beefcake 20-something brothers from Ohio who began building their audience more than a decade ago by posting videos on Vine. They have since moved into boxing. Jake is set to fight Mike Tyson next week, an event that will be streamed on Netflix and has already proved a content gold mine.

In June, Trump appeared on Logan's ImPaulsive podcast and spoke knowledgeably about his favorite UFC fighters. (Paul's Prime is the sport's official energy drink.) Asked if he'd ever been in a fistfight, Trump replied: "Probably not." Then he quipped: "I'd like to say I fought my way out of the Wharton School of Finance."

Finally, moldering in the manosphere's darkest corner is Andrew Tate, the British-American kickboxer and self-proclaimed misogynist who is accused of rape and human trafficking in Romania and sexual assault in the U.K. He has denied the charges.

Spending months under house arrest in Romania has not appeared to hurt Tate's standing in the bro world. Being kicked off an online platform for hate speech and offensive imagery, as Ross has been repeatedly, has only increased his buzz.

There is an incestuousness to the manosphere. Its stars hop back and forth on each other's streams, mutually promoting one another. But UFC is what binds them all and, more recently, provided a link to Trump.

The president-elect may be a boxing fan at heart, but the promoter in him sensed mixed martial arts' juice among a younger generation. He sat cage-side with White in June, drawing a raucous ovation as Kid Rock's "American Badass" roared from the sound system. Time and again, manosphere stars like the Nelk Boys' principal members will recall having met Trump through White and UFC.

"The strategy is reaching an audience that maybe isn't being recognized. Or an audience that loves Trump, and they're just not being acknowledged," Bo Loudon, Barron's best friend, told journalist Piers Morgan, explaining Trump's outreach. Loudon was the subject of a recent Vanity Fair piece that described him as the force shaping the candidate's "podcast offensive."

Asked about Barron's role in his father's strategy, Loudon told Morgan: "He's definitely playing a hand . . . He's in my age group, he knows who's popular at this time."

Trump said as much when he sat with Ross, who later gifted him a Rolex watch and a custom-wrapped Tesla Cybertruck. The latter was stamped with the image of the bloodied but defiant candidate after surviving an assassination attempt in July.

Said Trump: "All I know is, my kid said, 'Dad, you have no idea how big this interview is!'"" [1]

 

1. REVIEW --- Where the Boys Are: How Trump Won The Manosphere --- Eighteen-year-old Barron Trump helped his father connect to a world of bros, dudes, online pranksters and ultimate fighters. Chaffin, Joshua; O'Brien, Sara Ashley.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Nov 2024: C.1.

 

Ar prabanga prarado savo blizgesį? --- Klientai skundžiasi, kad prabangioje parduotuvėje gauna mažiau naudos

  „Pirkėjai to neįsivaizduoja: šiais laikais prabangos prekės kainuoja daug daugiau, o kokybė nepagerėja. Silpni pardavimai atrodo labiau įsišaknijusi problema, nei pripažįsta kai kurie prekių ženklai.

 

 Paprasti medvilniniais marškinėliai su Christian Dior logotipu dabar atsieis 1000 dolerių. Paprasčiausi „Gucci“ juodi arklio batai kainuoja 990 dolerių. Kaip apie Brunello Cucinelli megztinį už 8 995 dolerius? 

 

Pirkėjai moka už prabangos prekes būtent todėl, kad išskiria juos, kaip žmones, galinčius joms išleisti dideles pinigų sumas. Tačiau prekės ženklai gali stumti tik tiek, kol neprasidės įtrūkimai.

 

 Psichologai, tiriantys vartotojų elgseną, atkreipia dėmesį, kad dizainerių prekes žmonės perka dėl emocinių priežasčių. Svarbiausia – atsiskirti nuo minios ir signalizuoti, kur jie sėdi socialinio pešimo eilėje. Prabangos prekių ženklai per metus reklamai išleidžia milijardus dolerių, kad jų produktai taptų turtų ir sėkmės totemais vartotojų sąmonėje.

 

 Kai kurie prabangos pirkėjai labiau mėgsta telegrafuoti savo turtus, nei kiti. Žmonės, norintys pareikšti savo nuomonę, kreipiasi į etiketes su didesniais logotipais, kad siųstų akivaizdų signalą. Kita vertus, ultraturtuoliai ne taip linkę šaukti apie savo turtus. Jie perka brangiausius, bet diskretiškiausius prabangos prekių ženklus, tokius, kaip „Hermes“. 

 

Vienas tyrimas atskleidė, kad kaskart pabrangus prabangos prekei 5000 dolerių, prekės ženklo logotipas susitraukia centimetru. Kitaip tariant, vaikinas, dėvintis logotipus nuo galvos iki kojų, vargu ar bus vienas didžiausių prabangos išlaidūnas.

 

 Kadangi vartotojai prabangos prekes vertina, kaip statuso simbolius, jie yra pasirengę už jas mokėti didžiulę priemoką. 

 

Pasak Bernsteino, prabangūs prekių ženklai įprastai taiko aštuonis–dvylika kartų padidintą savo prekių gamybos savikainą. 

 

Dėl to prabangos pardavimo verslas yra labai pelningas. Populiariausios etiketės gali sukurti veiklos maržą į šiaurę nuo 30 %, palyginti su maždaug 7 % masinės rinkos prekių ženklų, tokių, kaip Gap ar H&M.

 

 Prabangos prekės ženklai yra vadinamosios Veblen prekės: plataus vartojimo prekių kategorija, kuri apverčia įprastus ekonomikos dėsnius. Užuot mažinusios paklausą, kylant kainoms, prabangos prekės gali tapti labiau paklausios, jei pirkėjai aukštesnes kainas supras, kaip ženklą, kad prekės yra brangios ir jų mažai.

 

 Išskyrus tai, kad šiandien tai nevyksta. HSBC analizė rodo, kad vidutinis prabangos produktas šiandien yra 60% brangesnis nei buvo 2019 m. Tačiau pramonė išgyvena vieną iš sunkiausių laikų per pastaruosius metus.

 

 Aštuonių prabangos prekių ženklų, kurie iki šiol pranešė apie savo trečiojo ketvirčio rezultatus, pardavimai vidutiniškai sumažėjo 4%, palyginti su praėjusiais metais. Etiketės labai skiriasi: kokybe ir kūrybiškumu garsėjantys prekių ženklai, tokie kaip Hermes ir Miu Miu, vis dar gerai parduodami. Dauguma kitų kenčia. Prasčiausiai sekėsi „Gucci“, jos pardavimai per ketvirtį smuko 25 proc.

 

 Sulėtėjimas gali pasirodyti laikinas. Kinijos vartotojai, pastaraisiais metais sukūrę daugiau, nei pusę prabangos pramonės augimo, lieka nuošalyje, nes jų namų vertė krenta. Tačiau vartotojai taip pat abejoja, ar prabangūs prekių ženklai yra verti šiandien taikomų kainų.

 

 Nuo 2019 m. pabaigos prabangos sektoriuje bendrasis pelnas išaugo. „Louis Vuitton“ savininkas LVMH per tą laiką padidino savo bendrąjį pelną daugiau, nei 2 procentiniais punktais; „Cartier“ savininkas Richemontas padidino 7 procentinius punktus.

 

 Tai iš dalies galima paaiškinti padidėjusiomis Kinijos vartotojų išlaidomis per pandemiją žemyninėje Kinijoje, kur prabangos prekių kainos yra didesnės. Tačiau didesnis bruto pelnas taip pat rodo, kad prabangos įmonės kainas pakėlė greičiau, nei investavo į savo žaliavų kokybę.

 

 „Kainos buvo naudojamos kaip būdas susidoroti su prabangių prekių ženklų paklausos lavina pandemijos metu“, – sako Luca Solca, „Bernstein“ prabangos analitikas. „Tačiau jei klientai turi mokėti didesnes kainas, turite jiems suteikti kažką naujo ir stebinančio."

 

 Vienas iš būdų sužinoti, ar kainų šuolis nepakenkė jų patrauklumui, yra pažvelgti į tai, kaip prekės ženklai aptariami internete. Remiantis vyraujančios socialinės žiniasklaidos įrašų nuotaikos analize diskusijose apie prabangių prekių ženklų kainas nuo šių metų sausio iki spalio, daugiau, nei 60% įrašų pagrindinė emocija buvo pyktis, pasibjaurėjimas ar liūdesys, teigia Brandwatch.

 

 Be abejo, prabangos prekės ženklai gali naudoti didesnes kainas, kad suvaldytų augančią įtampą savo versle. Per pastaruosius du dešimtmečius jie padidino pardavimus „demokratizuodami“ prieigą prie prabangos. Stumdami į pigesnes kategorijas, tokias, kaip kosmetika, akiniai nuo saulės ir mažos rankinės, jie sąmoningai pritraukė milijonus naujų vidutinės klasės vartotojų.

 

 Nukreipimas į šią platesnę pirkėjų bazę nuo 2000 m. daugiau, nei trigubai padidino pramonės pasaulinių pardavimų vertę ir sukūrė vienus didžiausių turtų Europoje. Bernardas Arnault, LVMH įkūrėjas, t.y šiuo metu yra trečias turtingiausias žmogus pasaulyje. Kurį laiką jo įmonės buvo vertingiausia akcija Europoje, o praėjusiais metais ją aplenkė vaistų „Ozempic“ gamintojas „Novo Nordisk“.

 

 Problema ta, kad dėl prekių ženklų demokratizavimo jie daug labiau priklauso nuo patogių, jei ne turtingų vartotojų, kad gautų didžiulę pajamų dalį. Daugiau, nei pusę prabangos prekių pramonės parduoda pirkėjai, kurie dizainerių gaminiams per metus išleidžia mažiau, nei 3000 dolerių. Atskirkite juos aukštomis kainomis ir neišvengiamai nukentės pardavimai." [1]

 

1. EXCHANGE --- Heard on the Street: Has Luxury Lost Its Shine? --- Customers are complaining that they are getting less bang for their buck at the luxury store. Ryan, Carol.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Nov 2024: B.11.

Has Luxury Lost Its Shine? --- Customers are complaining that they are getting less bang for their buck at the luxury store

"Shoppers aren't imagining it: Luxury goods cost a lot more these days, with no improvement in quality to make up for it. Weak sales look like a more deep-seated problem than some brands will admit.

A basic cotton T-shirt with a Christian Dior logo will now set you back $1,000. Gucci's plainest black horsebit loafers ring in at $990. How about a Brunello Cucinelli cardigan for $8,995? Shoppers pay up for luxury goods precisely because they set them apart as people who can afford to spend large amounts of money on them. But brands can only push so far before cracks start to appear.

Psychologists who study consumer behavior point out that people buy designer goods for emotional reasons. The main one is to separate themselves from the crowd and signal where they sit in the social pecking order. Luxury brands spend billions of dollars a year on advertising to make sure that their products become totems of wealth and success in consumers' minds.

Some luxury shoppers like to telegraph their riches more than others. People who want to make a statement gravitate toward labels with bigger logos to send an obvious signal. The ultrarich, on the other hand, don't tend to shout about their wealth as much. They buy the costliest, but most discreet, luxury brands such as Hermes. One study found that for every $5,000 increase in the price of luxury goods, the brand's logo shrinks by a centimeter. In other words, the guy wearing head-to-toe logos is unlikely to be one of luxury's biggest spenders.

Because consumers value luxury goods as status symbols, they are willing to pay a huge premium for them. Luxury brands routinely charge a markup of eight to 12 times on the production cost of their goods, according to Bernstein estimates. This makes the business of selling luxury very profitable. Top labels can generate operating margins north of 30%, compared with around 7% for mass-market brands such as Gap or H&M.

Luxury brands are so-called Veblen goods: a category of consumer products that inverts the usual laws of economics. Instead of crimping demand when prices rise, luxury goods can become more sought-after if shoppers interpret higher prices as a sign that the goods are precious and scarce.

Except that isn't what is happening today. The average luxury product is 60% more expensive today than it was back in 2019, an HSBC analysis shows. But the industry is going through one of its rockiest patches in years.

Sales of the eight luxury brands that have so far reported their third-quarter results are down 4% on average from a year earlier. There is huge divergence between labels: Brands known for quality and creativity such as Hermes and Miu Miu are still selling well. Most others are suffering. Gucci has been the sector's worst performer, with sales plunging 25% in the quarter.

The slowdown might prove temporary. Chinese consumers, who generated more than half of the luxury industry's growth in recent years, are staying on the sidelines as the values of their homes fall. But consumers are also questioning whether luxury brands are worth the prices they charge today.

Gross margins have risen across the luxury sector since the end of 2019. Louis Vuitton owner LVMH boosted its gross margin more than 2 percentage points over that time; Cartier owner Richemont gained 7 percentage points.

This can partly be explained by Chinese consumers' increased spending during the pandemic in mainland China, where prices for luxury goods are higher. But beefier gross margins are also a sign that luxury companies have raised prices faster than they have invested in the quality of their raw materials.

"Prices were used as a way to cope with an avalanche of demand for luxury brands during the pandemic," says Luca Solca, luxury analyst at Bernstein. "But if customers have to pay higher prices, you have to give them something new and surprising."

One way to find out whether price hikes have hurt their appeal is to look at how brands are being discussed online. Based on an analysis of the dominant mood of social-media posts in discussions about luxury brands' prices from January through October this year, the main emotion of more than 60% of the posts was anger, disgust or sadness, according to Brandwatch.

To be sure, luxury brands might be using higher prices to manage a growing tension in their business. For the last two decades, they have increased sales by "democratizing" access to luxury. By pushing into cheaper categories such as cosmetics, sunglasses and small handbags, they have intentionally drawn in millions of new middle-class consumers.

Targeting this wider base of shoppers has more than tripled the value of the industry's global sales since 2000, and created some of the largest fortunes in Europe. Bernard Arnault, the founder of LVMH, is currently the third-richest person in the world. For a time, his company was the most valuable stock in Europe -- then it was overtaken by Ozempic drugmaker Novo Nordisk last year.

The problem is, brands' democratization has made them much more reliant on comfortable, if not rich, consumers for a huge chunk of revenue. More than half of the luxury-goods industry's sales are from shoppers who spend less than $3,000 a year on designer products. Alienate them with price hikes and sales will inevitably suffer." [1]

1. EXCHANGE --- Heard on the Street: Has Luxury Lost Its Shine? --- Customers are complaining that they are getting less bang for their buck at the luxury store. Ryan, Carol.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 09 Nov 2024: B.11.