The most successful surfing company in the world - Hollister.
The number of sponsored riders - zero.

God help us.

Bottom Line Answer: Yes....

1. Yes.
2. Yes, but they are a bit slow on the uptake and so are being left behind. They are lumbering dinosaurs in a different media age. t's another contributing factor to their contraction.
3. I'd like to say, "not me". However, in all reality it all depends on circumstances. More goes into the decision to purchase than marketing.

Now, while we are here does this mean I am not really Slater, Parko, Reynolds, Florence, Fitzgibbon and Fanning's friend on social media. I mean, even if I 'follow" them and "friend" them and "like" them? FFS. It's a lie! Fuck they are sooooooo off my Fantasy Surfer team.

now that im a grumpy old cunt that grew up in the era when a leg rope was a piece of string attached to your fin through a hole you had drilled and the other end was tied to a scarf round your ankle that had been ripped from your sister, you pose me the question..
" Could a surfing company exist without celebrity riders? Could they use another form of marketing? And would we still buy their products?"...
my answer is...who gives a rats arse ?

So if it's gay, they come straight to you hey?

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

don't you dare compare Dungeons & Dragons to fantasy Surfer. D&D was and will always be AWESOMMMMMMMEEEEEEE Geekin' out around a table slashing monsters, teaming up with dwarves, hangin' with wizards, and finding bags and bags and bags of gold? WIN.

Fantasy Surfer, well ...

Well just couldn't help commenting with all this talk about gay fantasy surfers. I do have a bit of a phobia, but nothing out of the norm. Could you possibly change your profile pic as your positioning sorta make me want to puke now that I know, if you know what I mean.

http://business.transworld.net/123285/features/quiksilver-and-dc-cut-ath...

Geez Shaun put a sock in it will you, it's not against the law anymore and it is Sydney.

Didn't Cult do it in the mid 2000's when Bobby M was riding for them?
Instead of paying fleshy humans they released a whole bunch of CGI looking pictures (With a cartoon surfer that looked suspiciously like bobby)...

I think there will always be celebrity surfers to some extent (in my sometimes humble opinion). Not because of the ol' 'So and so uses that product, therefore if I do I'll surf like him', but because a company needs a human face so people can relate to it - it really helps bridge between non-feeling corporate machine and humans with their squishy emotions.

Besides, imagine how thin the ranks would get on the QS (and even the CT) if surfers had no backing (unless prize monies crank - currently a QS surfer has to have some bankroll to really make a concerted push)...

Ahem, yes less said the better about old Shauny's comments. Back on topic, I have been whinging for years cause I am a grumpy old bastard as well and as brilliant as JJ is (and he is a genuine freak of nature), there is absolutely nothing I would want to buy which he endorses. My son who is 20 is well over hero worship as well and that ended 3 or 4 years ago. The only thing he bought recently from the hero's was a 'T' shirt for Dane and the money went to charity. The older I get the more I look to my local scene and if I see another channel islands board I will chunda. Why the f&^%$ are we buying these things for when there are so many good shapers (and CAM machines) in OZ.

Isn't the majority of money made by the "Big" companies from the sales of clothing? and often in areas where there is little or no surf?

If it's the case then I would say they would need celebrity endorsement to get sales and survive.

Surfing influence in these areas is pushed by the big companies using a Pro with a good look and cool persona. Can they make a product look cool without using someone who is considered cool?

Good point Memla. How many surfers actually buy Surfing products apart from the essentials (surfboards and wet suits)?

There's a famous quote, "great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people, " and a similar distinction applies in advertising. All of the most successful advertising campaigns in history have been based upon GREAT IDEAS. They may include celebrities but never in an elemental 'Look, here I am standing a wetsuit' type way. I think surfing has a lot to learn.

I don't think the majority of the people buying the wonderful apparel from the 'Big 3' (or any surf brand for that matter) care one flying fuck who's in the ads, simply because they don't know who these people are. 90% probably only knows "snapper" from the fish and chip shop which is their closest connection to the ocean, next to the drainage of their toilets. Surf brands aren't about surfing, just as the tour isn't about surfing.

Carpetman make a good point above.

I read somewhere (may have been Swellnet) that there are only about half a dozen surfers worldwide that can really move product.

As much as he rips and he's probably a pretty cool guy, not many kids want to be a Bede Durbidge.

Long time since I bought surfwear (other than technical items like wetties etc.) so no, wouldn't affect anything. However I do enjoy pro surfing, I deeply respect their abilities, like watching them surf, and I'd really miss it if it wasn't around. And I do think that in a ideal world there should be a viable career path for emerging and proven surfing talent in.

I'm not sure how surfing as a sport is going to stay around when the business model is evaporating before our eyes.

Oh, and I do think that the economic rationalisation of surfing sponsorship over the last 10 years or so coincided remarkably neatly with the surfing brands losing any sense of being cool.

1.yes,but depends on which company it is. If its a brand thats already established perhaps....Would energy drinks survive without "celebrity endorsements"? Would anyone drink that shit if all the top "pros" weren't plastering their boards,bikes etc with the logos?

2.mmmm not sure. I guess if there was no sponsored surfers for a brand then we would be seeing the "big 3 " getting behind events if they had no-one in the events themselves? Im sure the powers that-be would have some sort of strategy in mind

3. Well what choice do have for a wetsuit,board,accessories etc? The clothing side of things most of us could easily live without but hardware would be a different story i suspect.

YES, of course they could survive without paying millions to sponsor riders.....
use that money to market/advertise their products. if any company has functional
products that look good and are reasonably priced they should succeed.

i think the trouble with the surf industry is that its products are way too expensive...
after all, we are just a bunch of bums that want to get barrelled everyday, drink beer and not work.
we dont have hundreds of dollars to spend on lame flashy tshirts and boardies..i havent walked
into a surf shop for years and i do not buy surf labels-but if i was to buy these products
i wouldnt be inclined to buy them coz of their team riders. i am quite opposed
to the corporate surf world/industry and i do not support it.....but on the other hand
the marketing and advertisements by labels
are aimed at kids, wannabes, label flashers and the rich city guy, who WILL buy the on trend gear
that has been designed and worn by Dane Reynolds....

so the question in return is- How will the professional surf tour survive without the sponsorship of said surfers????
being such an elite sport now...jet skis, personal trainers, world travel, experimental equipment....
they couldnt have and do all this without the big bucks?

remember when Billabongs logo was "only a surfer knows the feeling" yeh, that was when things were
pretty core, shortly after they hit the stock market, widened their audience appeal and stopped doing
it for the right reasons but the $$$....well it obviously didnt work, and they have lost the (core) buyers and are now effectively broke!.....................theres a lesson in there somewhere???

surf on brothers and sisters:)

As all the pro-surfer endorsements are a tax write-off it must have been easier to justify when the surf companies were actually making money.
The real problem is that people discovered their products were overpriced crap.
I like to support the surf industry as they put money back into surfing. I bought a pair of RipCurl jeans in the middle of last year and they didn't last 6 months. The dodgy thin denim split in he crotch area.
I just bought a pair of sturdy Levi's to replace them as I am sick of paying a premium for crap.

oh and just another thought.......Quiksilver have/sponsor/own the best professional surfer of all time- Kelly Slater and the worlds most exciting freesurfer- Dane Reynolds so across the board they have it stacked.
they are now going broke.....the question sorta answers itself.....the pros arnt selling...

Yes of course - social media and the internet are leaving brands like Quik & Bong in their wake.

Smaller creative brands with NO team riders now have a free platform to market with and in turn take a % share away from the established brands

Most tasteful younger people look for design rather then brands - in my opinion rip curl, billabong and Hurley are getting it all wrong.

I suppose I stand corrected... but how many of these companies are actually surfing brands and how many just market themselves as surfing brands? What makes a surfing brand? Is surfing still a hook/selling point?

I suppose time will tell but with most of these "surfing companies" experiencing problems it's either sink or swim. I'm interested what the impact will be in the long term on numbers of surfers in the water?

Everyone has got one...

Could a surfing company exist without celebrity riders? Depends. If the branded products of the company in question are more about high performance functionality than they are about form, like FCS, say, endorsement by high performing users will give the brand authenticity and recall, and get a lot more cut-through than just a bunch of technical stats. If the brand's products are just about form, meh; I reckon the post-modern consumer is getting far too savvy and the bombardment's getting far too intense for long-term interest to be sustained.

Could they use another form of marketing? See above.

And would we still buy their products? See above.

The surprise is not the current contraction of the surf wear market, it is that it didn't happen twenty years ago. I suspect that what we are seeing now is only the beginning of a sustained contraction that will probably, in time, destroy the whole concept. It is not out of the question that within a decade surf companies will have to derive 90% of their turnover from surf related products.
Under that scenario professional surfing, in its present form, is unlikely to survive. This would, in my opinion, be a damn fine thing. Professional sport, as a variety of recent headlines confirm, is a toxic environment. All this began with Coca Cola ads. By selling the rights to the pro tour for a pittance the surf clothing industry got a free ride on Coke's global surf oriented advertising and, against all the odds, managed to hold on to that market for three and a half decades.
The main consequences of this were a massive growth in casual surfers, an ever decreasing level of competency in the water and a ever increasing gap between grass roots surfing and the elite level.

Surfing company vs. surfwear market.

Different question.

Excuse my ignorance,what is Hollister?

Do enjoy watching high class surfing.Couldn't give a stuff about fashion.Long as it functions super well,is what counts in my opinion.

Could it be that these companies may have to go back to basics and actually make surfing products again?
Rather than iphone covers or socks or jewellery!!!!
Maybe focus on the stuff that works and is needed and that may go part of the way to solving the problems? Maybe......

I'm surprised they haven't tried harder to get into board labels. They did a half arse attempt at it several years ago but with the mass produced popout phenomena going on these days you would think it would be a no-brainer. Maybe we will see them get back into this market again in the near future?

Quiksilver should just get out of surfing altogether and into something profitable - like mining! Wouldn't even require a name change.

I bought my last rashie from Best & Less.

It was only $16.95 and is not covered in lame logos.

I love my Best & Less rashie too. No lame logos and an awesome Dorothy the Dinosaur print.

Lamé rashies. Cool. Mebbe a little gay....

Not that their is anything wrong with that, hey Stu.

what about a big company following a regular male or female surfer who goes to work every day, put a big picture of one of us standing in a filthy pit on a billboard we are the the ones who purchase the crap they make in china.

my opshop sourced hollister shorts are fine.
wouldn't go loking for them in shops though.
I prefer clothes with no visible brand.

what about RCJ and Hoyo - surely not??

I'd never heard of hollisters either before reading this forum, I'm not sure what makes them a "surfing brand". I'd go with whatever's cheapest cos I'm a grumpy old tightarse, rather than who's riding for who.
Maybe its all a good thing, surfing brands sell surfing stuff, clothing brands sell clothes.
Maybe we'll get cheaper better quality stuff all round.
Maybe they'll even go back to all 10 events in good locations on the dream tour and the local line ups empty out a bit.
Maybe not...

Hollister have a mega shop in NY city where the whole front of the shop is one enormous screen with live surfing footage from Huntington pier.

Kind of impressive at first viewing

Aloha.

I'd never heard of Hollister either.

Then one day I checked the label on a cheap pair of boardies my wife had bought for me and which I'd been wearing for a couple seasons.

Yep, Hollister. They worked fine.

I probably didn't surf quite as good as I would in a pair of Diamond Dobbies but thems the breaks for the working man.

I think that having no surfers on a team takes away from a brands credibility amoung actual surfers for sure. Is it possible to prosper without them? I dont know. But it's a super interesting concept.

I also think that one of the biggest modern day platforms for brand promotion is viral webclips. Having no surfers on your team really limits your presence on the WWW... And thats the future baby.

I may not understand the mechanics of big buisness, but if Bong are in so much finacial shit, how is it that they can afford to take on new team riders like Laura Enever?? Nothing against Laura of course, but I would have been nervous to accept a sponsorship from Bong at the moment. Are Bong trying to lift their profile?

Turns out most of it was a crock of shit.... http://www.shop-eat-surf.com/news-item/4686/mcknight-and-mooney-set-the-...

Screw celebrities. They put their surfboards fin first on car racks.

Try that in the jungle.

ps. I have never, nor will ever, surf like a celebrity.

Everyone who thinks that they are above marketing and have no influence of big names brands are either 1) kidding themselves, 2) fave a false sense of peity that they are above marketing or 3) are massive cynics with no shred of vanity left (I am guessing clif and the best and less rashie guys are in this category)

Of course big names sell, and are required for a surf brand (or any sporting brand). It doesn't work by direct worship of wct guys - it is a subtle, subconcious thing. Take for instance my annual indo pilgrimage usually requires a new pair of rashproof boardies or I end up looking like a schoolgirl who forgot her sanitary goods. There are 3 brands of rash-proof boardies, all for a massive $75. They appear exactly the same, and I have to make a choice. Somewherein my brain I see a little blonde kid doing a massive aerial in a perfect tropical reef wearing a pair of hurleys. I don't even know that I am thinking about this but the next thing Hurley have $75 bucks and the other big two have nothing. I reckon it works that way more than most of us realise.

For the record I am 32, hate advertising, don't own a tv, and had never heard of hollister. I do own three pairs of quicksilver diamond boardshorts and don't surf anything like Dane

Nice article Stu,

Sponsorship, marketing and sales now have a tangible accountability through hits on websites, social maedia, profit projections and KPI's targeted. Sponsoring a surfer who encompasses the youth (John John) or those who relate to the mature (T.C., RCJ) makes perfect business sense, as long as they pull the numbers.

The more perplexing issue as a casual observer of the corporate surf business is the decisions of surf companies to appoint former pro surfers to positions of consequence within their companies, most of whom have no formal qualifications whatsoever. Would you employ your mate just because he can throw buckets? The mentality of 'we take care of our own' is an honorable one, but it has been a disaster.

Growing up, the surf magazine was 'the bible'. Whatever stories that were 'fit to print' were lapped up by loyal readers and barely questioned. This is no longer the case. Despite the modern minute to minute media, pro surfers are still in the unenviable position to promote themselves with minimal accountability. Corporations are not in this position. Well trained, professional and dedicated staff are the core of any successful business. Corporate surfing has a decision to make, cut sponsorship to allow cushy jobs at high salaries, or be part of the real world where all staff are accountable for the direction of the business.

A discontinuation of sticks rattling swill buckets,... to be replaced by a different form of sticks rattling swill buckets? It's all good.... And I'd like to think that decisions such as this frees up more of the advert monies to go towards good folks like Stu and his net!

What got them in the trouble is their ridiculous pricing, they became big because they were manufacturing beachwear. But now this wanna be fashion brand charges $50 for a t-shirt and minimum $20 for thongs! I go to something like Cotton On and buy 10 t-shirts for $100, wear them for a season or two and buy them again. Last year I went to K-mart after summer and bought 3 pairs of thongs for $3. I thought it will be enough for the next summer (I'm on my second pair now and it's already autumn). What I'm trying to say is that the big guys saw their chance and taught these guys a lesson in capitalism. The average bloke that doesn't surf is not buying Billabong any more, he's buying no name brands from K-mart and Big-w for far less money.

@monk

Oh, I have vanity left (I wish I didn't, though) haha. And while I am a cynic of mass industry and marketing I agree we all at some time and some way get caught up by it. Pretty hard to avoid that if we live within capitalism. Yet, wriggling/fighting/pushing back against it is possible. In doing so, the subconscious can be made conscious. If "Somewhere in my brain I see a little blonde kid doing a massive aerial in a perfect tropical reef wearing a pair of hurleys" an alarm now goes off rather than a cash register ring.

I think they need a human face. If 2 of the big 3 dropped their riders I would consciously or subconsciously buy the gear I have seen in action. This idea of buying 3 no name tops or thongs is a waist of resources. Use your Brian and your money if something is shit quality no matter who is behind it save your money.

I save my money now I'm on the north shore surfing on my al merricks in my fancy board shorts having a ball.

@monk

Hell yeah I'm a cynic, but buying a Best & Less rashie is pure economics.

I don't have $70 for a rashie this week so I could wait till next payday to buy it. Or.. I could buy a $16 rashie today and put the saved $54 towards the next board.

I think of money in terms of new boards. A $70 rashie is 10% of a brand new custom board! Too much for me when there are cheaper alternatives. The big surf brands priced themselves out of the market. Simple as that.

As someone else here said, hero figure pros will only influence a small proportion of the market - teen consumers. If that's their key market then good luck to them. We need them in business to make our wetties.

As for "no shred of vanity", I take that as a compliment.

The paradox of surf marketing.

The only successful company in the downsizing the big 3 will be the first to pull ALL of their products from retail stores, then sell them exclusively on line at a rate that is fair and reasonable by market demands. This would then allow an heir of exclusivity while perhaps making it what it used to be. Cool. I think the deeper issue here is the cynicism of today's market in general. In the past, buying a branded t-shirt was like wearing gang colours to the surfer, it had a sense of belonging. People who didn't surf saw it as something that was cool, and bought it to gain an instant symbol of being cool. The surf companies had the perfect set up. Those days are long gone my friends. (Smirked apologies for using the word 'cool' too many times, it's just not cool.)

The writers of the Simpsons had the character Grandpa Simpson sum it up perfectly, "I used to be with it, but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it', and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you..." Well, it has happened to the big 3, what to do now?

Simple answer to the question in your article Stu. Yes. Surf companies can exist without sponsored surfers. The catch is what do you call a surf company? Mambo and Piping Hot are surf companies, right? Well they used to be, in the sense that they were marketed somewhat exclusively to surfers through advertising means directed solely to surfers. The more savvy operators of the time paid generous salaries to professional surfers and in effect pushed the competition out of the market. The other brands (Mambo, Piping Hot, etc) became marginalised and were swallowed by outside corporations, or just faded into obscurity. I wonder how those particular Big W lines are performing? Quite well one would assume.

When faced with imminent danger large corporations will outsource their operations to cheaper markets, which is not really an option for surf clothing manufacturers already operating in countries where the staff wages and overhead costs are some of the lowest in the world. The obvious room to make budget cuts in that situation are the sponsored surfers, but then how do you maintain a brand image if there are no professional surfers in your arsenal? The answer, keep the most influential, cut the rest. The issue of a sponsored surfer is then somewhat paradoxical. Can't sponsor 'em, cant brand without 'em.

Apart from trading solely online, the only other way a surf corporation could gain exposure is to inject one of their sponsored surfers into mainstream media, do you think Kelly and the Hoff are ready for a quasi Baywatch comeback with a nubile large breasted minx?? Perhaps some judging decisions will see Keanu Reeves as the new world champ?

Sponsored surfers will always be around, but I would hate to be surfing on such thin ice.

On a separate note to the core issues of the article, why do you think you were targeted as an interviewee on gay surfers? What perceived impact to the surf culture would there be if the Mardis Gras had a sponsored surfer donning leather and hand cuffs?

@camboboog

You could find out more and ask them here

http://outinthelineup.com/

The project looks fantastic.

Allot of interesting opinions this is a good read.
Im a 30 od year vic'o cold water veteran I have only used Ripcurl wetsuits because they last.NOW why do I pay so much for the wetsuits here when the same suit can be bought in the us for 1/2 the price.My suits have had at least a 600 percent price increase over the last 15 years witch was explained to me as coursed by the weakening ausie dollar 1992 -2005. The tide of currency has turned so why are'nt the yanks paying twice as much for a ripcurl wetsuit now ?. The thing is most large surf brand products are made in Asia country's with cheep labour and it cost them two fifths of fuck all to produce. The people that run the company's have forgotten about you and I, there fat ugly drunk cants at a golf course probably laughing about how dumb we are. AND THE QUALITY ? I don't were surf cloths any more just because there shit now and the fabric is itchy or gives out static electric shocks . people are probably setting fires at petrol stations all over the world right now.SURF CLOTHS ARE AN OUTRIGHT DANGEROUS DISGRACE AND ALL SHIT NEEDS TO STOP!

Interesting post Lazzy.

From my experience corporations that have longevity adopt an inside out approach to competition. What does that mean? Well, you get your most experienced executives and staff to sit in a closed environment and come up with strategies to take your own business down. By becoming your own worst enemy, the ability to quell opposition is greatly increased. You seek flaws in your product and look at ways to improve. Most corporations see profits as the key indicator of success, and therefore remain static. It seems counterintuitive, but when a business is reaping solid returns, is then that they are most at risk.

Customer sentiment and customer feedback are the two most important parts of of the retail market. Until recently, customer sentiment was easy to manipulate through traditional forms of media. The online, to-the-second world has destroyed all archaic means of swaying the general public. Customer feedback is no longer the private property of business. Consumers have a voice, and shout loudly through their keyboard, just like you.

We are witnessing an evolutionary shift in retail management, the response by surf companies will prove to be a litmus test for other corporations in similar situations. Overpriced sub-standard products with no practical applications will inevitably be viewed in the same regard as banging two stones together to create a spark.

The question still remains as to whether or not an elite surfer sponsored by a corporation has the end benefit of selling more product? I have a substantial answer in a business context, but for now if any of you are up for a bit of a giggle, ask ten people who don't surf this question; "Who is Julian Wilson?". Feel free to insert any professional surfer into this prose. Even Kelly. Let us know what the answer is.

Lazzy you are in every way encompassing the frustration of the consumer. My consultancy is wide and varied. In an interesting corporate discussion, one of my colleagues bought a particular brand of thongs sponsored by a professional surfer with a bottle opener on the sole. He held them up to highlight what you shouldn't do to create brand image. In a separate meeting, all of the delegates in the room were asked to take what was most essential out of their pockets and put those items on the table, they were then handed various pairs of surf shorts and asked to put those items into the pockets provided. The results were comical.

Let's finish with something I've heard a thousand times, but makes no less sense 'You can't polish a turd, but you can try to paint it gold.'

It unfortunately remains to be a turd.

Some good insights, Cboog.

The other thing you've alluded to is the ever-increasing fragmentation of what used to be fairly homogenic markets. Surfing is a great microcosm. For example, if you grew up surfing here in Vicco in the 70s, the uniform was a flannelette shirts, a lumber jacket with bad mock fur, red label Levis that you'd shrunk down by wearing 'em in the bath, and ugg boots or thongs.

These days, it's profoundly different. As is the yoof. So much easy access to so many great ideas and influences. Even the hipster dudes have their own sub-groups.

On the other end of the spectrum, grumpy old bastards like me are usually only interested in form if it's functional. But even we have egos big enough to want to make sure that what we wear, drive or ride makes that sort of statement.

The challenge for those in the design/manufacturing cycle has never been so hard. In twenty years, the lead time to market has gone from around 9 months to, in some rag-trade cases, days.

Trite, but true: the interweb is a double-edged sword, the full impact of which is just beginning to be felt, let alone understood.

Just ask the poor saps at Billabong Limited.

This answers the question and it's not good news for the celebs.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305130734.htm

Most "Surfers" don't buy clothes of the big brands anymore anyway so who knows what difference it would make to that demographic.
Nike definitely didn’t make inroads to that “core” market by buying poster boys and girls.
The only endorsement that impacts me is fin models. Looking at fins apparently designed by specific surfers how they surf and their physical build / weight will impact my purchase decision.
But then again…. It’s the mass market they need to sustain the monster revenue streams they’ve become accustomed to.

rasputamasafasin I think you nailed the problem. Surfers stopped buying those brands years ago. The only clothes of theirs I have are gifts. I was thinking of buying a Billabong t shirt so I could write "sell" in permanent marker above the logo but never got around to it.
Surfers stopped buying that stuff when it was mass marketed and every fat bastard from Alaska to Afghanistan was strutting their stuff in Quikbilly logos. Now that the flying fickle finger of fashion has moved on they have no core market to fall back on. It's surfageddon time! (Cue old Clash vinyl)

Never knew what Hollister was Stu, thanks for that. I thought it was something enabling a handgun to be worn around the waist, but that's a holster. I think.

Celebrity surfers surf really well. They could basically surf a door. As my primary interest is board design, I've witnessed 20+ years of damage done to the recreational surfers who purchase their labels; like Terry Fitz said, 90% are (were?) on the wrong board.

The recent drugs in sport/match fixing allegations in Australia have really taken the 'hero' out of 'sports hero'. Yet the sales pitch we are seeing on TV hasn't changed a bit, I wonder how people will react to the damaged brands? Combining with consumers withdrawing from purchasing image and actually focusing on function and value, and the market fragmenting, the rise of online group opinion, it's a real challenge I would imagine if you wish to keep a massive size to your business.

I'd say celebrity (or more precisely: 'good') surfers are important to a brand however. They are the ones who enable your product - core product like boards, wetsuits - to be shown in action. Who's the most amazing at my local beach? What do they ride? Who made it? What was the design theory? Could it work for me? Maybe I should talk to them.

The thing is, the inescapable trend is for this celebrity to fragment and get much smaller and become more localised/restricted to sub-groups, like the market is becoming. So in that sense it's very healthy capitalism: big, unnatural conglomerates are broken up and the people begin to design and market to each other on a much smaller, more democratic, individually catered and wonderously varied scale.