Which makes you wonder about Ray-Ban. Are they aware that their involvement with Meta risks hurting their brand? Those of us who are critical of Meta might be niche enough that it doesn't matter, but they must have factored that in.

▲

mft_ 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I doubt it is to any measurable extent.

The (literally) billions of people around the world using Facebook and Instagram don't care.

▲

wickedsight 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ray-Ban is part of EssilorLuxottica. They own pretty much every single (sun)glasses brand on earth. I'm sure someone in their organization has made the decision that Ray-Ban was the best fit for a brand in their portfolio to do something together with Meta.

Also, you're right about the niche. A lot of 'normal' people probably don't even have a clue that Meta and Facebook are the same thing.

	▲	mrweasel 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They probably had two brands that made sense, Ray Ban or Oakley, but just by listing those two, it's fairly clear that the products would be perceived vastly different, had they gone with Oakley. The rest of the brands are either luxury or fairly unknown brands. Picking a smaller brand would automatically flop the product and going with e.g. Burberry could limit sales or the risk to the brand would be to high.
	▲	brador 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Mark made the choice to go with RB (MIB inspired).

▲

incone123 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You would avoid ray ban conventional glasses in protest at their association with meta? Don't forget to avoid the rest of Luxottica Group's products. I would bet (on Polymarket) against such a boycott gaining traction.

▲

mrweasel 5 days ago | parent [-]

I wasn't talking about a boycott, I was talking brand damage. It's entirely possible to put less value in a brand, without boycotting it. Previously I had Ray Ban in the "Makes high-end expensive sunglasses" category, but now I mentally moved them to "Makes stupid smart glasses in collaboration with Facebook". This means that I'm willing to pay less for their products, compared to ten years ago, they are no longer a luxury brand, but a gimmick.

	▲	incone123 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I see what you mean now. But all Luxottica brand name glasses have a big mark-up on a quite cheaply made product. They are better made than what you find on the rack at the supermarket but the perception of luxury comes from marketing.

▲

gausswho 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Huh. I genuinely thought they were already acquired.

▲

ml-anon 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Luxxotica is already terrible, predatory brand that makes shitty products.