Wednesday, June 20, 2012

On brands and conspicuous consumption

I have had this debate on many an occasion with different people, and never seemed to be satisfied with any of the explanations/arguments I heard - Why is a brand so important? Especially when it comes to articles of consumption. At some level, I believe that advertising/branding often ceases to be what it is supposed to be - informative and begins to encroach upon the territory of mental subversion and manipulation. I have seen a number of instances where products brazenly appeal to a subconscious vulnerability that people might have and feed on their weakness. Some societies even regulate advertising to vulnerable groups like children and rightly so. But it is surprisingly easy to influence the minds of some adults too. Personally, I deem falling for such machinations as an insult to one's intelligence.

I have seen a number of instances where an individual chooses Product X over Product Y simply because he (often she) wants to be seen using the former, not because it ranks higher on utility in the pure sense of the term. If, therefore, the same person were to objectively evaluate the 2 products in terms of their utilitarian aspects - any or more of the qualities such as effectiveness, durability, ease of use and then also include cost into the equation, the choice would seem obvious. Instead, I see many otherwise perfectly rational individuals assigning an overwhelmingly large weight to a fuzzy criterion called 'brand' in their decision making, which then distorts the entire process of choice. The reason I have a problem with that - such irrational impulsiveness is meant for lesser mortals. Those of us who have been endowed with the ability to reason, go beyond image management and choose objectively, have the responsibility of putting such faculties to good use, not fall for clever tricks called brands.

Perhaps brands are meant to serve the need for conspicuous consumption. People say things such as 'the ownership of this product makes you part of a select group.' Of fools, I often think. Each of whom is falling prey to mass-hysteria and collective ignorance. Rich people often find innovative ways of cheating each other by inventing such things as 'labels' and segments such as 'premium' and 'ultra'. I don't really have a problem with that. More money changing hands is good for economic activity (can't say the same for economic progress). When the bourgeois begins to behave with such aspirational impetuosity, it pains me. If only we thought for ourselves before giving in to such depravity.

No comments: