Brands on Brands on Brands
The philosophy of manufacturing and marketing is one that many people buy in to. It is typically agreed that brand names are just overall better and trusted by users. The problem with this notion is that consumers become numb to what is really being sold to them. According to Klein in “No Logo,” Big names in the market focus less on selling their products and more so on the image of that brand. This is how brands become staples; with increasing images of these top sellers who can supposedly do it better people are lead to believe that name brands bare a mark of authenticity; are paragons of excellence for their generic counterparts and prototypes for their competitors.
The real reason that companies make it is due to increasingly clever marketing strategies that work to supplant the product with the image. Because of the similitude in the manufacturing of products, companies that want to become household brands work to create a marketing strategy that will set their generically manufactured products apart from the bunch. Klein writes “Customers are like roaches and marketers must forever be dreaming up new concoctions for industrial strength raid.” Meaning once the public becomes inelastic to the way a brand advertises it is time to think of something else bigger and better. Advertisers are perpetually thinking of ways to build brand image without reshaping the process of manufacturing.
It is because of this that advertising becomes an inundating experience, ubiquitous and even subliminal. Klein cites Calvin Klein’s lacing Ticketmaster concert tickets with his perfume “CK Be” and Levi’s ads in public washrooms. Regardless of place or time one is perpetually a recipient of some form of advertising. But the empty world of marketing is problematic as we see as Klein discusses the events of “Marlboro Friday.”
Marlboro Friday radically called brand values into question when Philip Morris announced a price cut of Marlboro cigarettes by 20 percent in order to compete with bargain brands that were cutting too deeply into the tobacco market. The fact that Marlboro was so quick to slash prices made people question whether Marlboro’s product price reflected its quality. Big trusted brands like Marlboro that sell their images make people accept the prices that are prescribed to their products. The belief is one that says this, Yes this cigarette has the right to be expensive because it not any old cigarette, it is a Marlboro cigarette.
But like Wall Street believes the companies who base their sales on the philosophy of selling their images will always be okay as long as they always believe that and never blink. Like the aspirations of Absolut Vodka, all brands want to “quietly become integrated into the heart of culture.” And the ones that we allow to become big, they already have, they have solidified their way into our culture. Apple, Nike, Burberry these are companies that have us convinced that they are necessities in the network of culture. These kinds of brands are the ones that make you stop and think, what would this world be without iPhones, Jordans, and absurdly expensive trench coats?
3 responses so far
According to Klein in “No Logo,” Big names in the market focus less on selling their products and more so on the image of that brand. This is how brands become staples; with increasing images of these top sellers who can supposedly do it better people are lead to believe that name brands bare a mark of authenticity; are paragons of excellence for their generic counterparts and prototypes for their competitors.
I agree with Klein’s claim that companies put more focus on the image section of their brand rather than the product. But when you think about it, for a company to be able to sell an “image”, their product has to be as good or better than that of the competition. I don’t believe that anyone would buy a product that is evidently inferior and of lesser quality than that of its competitors just on the mere fact that it s more expensive or how they market it. The point that I am trying to make is that for a company to reach the “staples” tag, their product has to be of quality(not necessarily better than that of its competitors). Once they have that “product”, they market it however they want and price it based on how much the consumers are willing to pay for it. That’s just great business!
What companies want more than anything is for when their brand becomes more than a brand. Think genericized trademarks when the brand names become synonymous with the general product: Xerox, Band-aid, Kleenex and Google (Microsoft worked extremely hard to think of a word that could catch on and came up with Bing). When it comes to trenches, it has to be Burberry.
Klein and what Draper in Mad Men say ring true, concocting dreams for people and manipulating the to believe the products will fulfill those dreams and bring happiness. But while they are concocting dreams, they are also creating an image of the brand for the client.
What Karl says as well is justified because veteran companies who have made a name for themselves need to continue to innovate to stay in the market (or retrograde back to vintage charm – the original, the emphasis on legacy). That is why we have over 50 types of toothpaste on the shelf claiming to do different things when, from my own experience, a box of baking soda goes a long way (without the chemically manufactured formula paste). There is so much noise in the market that of course, we eventually become numb – but unconsciously we are still being sold (think the two naked males that make up the Camel Cigarette Logo).
It is rather disconcerting that consumerism is such a large part of urban culture and with expendable cash and time, comes a rapid vying for place in the market to grab money. It is so ingrained in our psyche to aspire for better things, that what is put before us all glamored up by advertising agencies, is something we need – psychologically it works. I remember reading an article on testing endorphins in women when they see images of handbags – from the obscure brands to the high end retail. The sense of luxury from the house name brands: Coach, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, produced the most endorphins.
The point you made on having over 50 types of toothpaste when they all do the same thing is very interesting. Although we think that these are all different products from different companies, we have to be aware that they are really not. They are just smaller brands or sub-brands of a larger company. For example what many people don’t realize is that Gillete, Head & Shoulders, Olay, Pantene, Always, Tampax, Duracell, Vicks (and SO many more) all fall under the brand Proctor & Gamble.
Meanwhile consumers are led to believe that they have the freedom of choosing the best product for themselves when in reality, all the money goes back to the same place!
I agree that it is mainly psychological and it is a shame that more people aren’t aware of this.