Comments on: I buy adidas and don't know why.

I buy adidas and don't know why.

j-urb — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:53:57 -0800

"Brands are an important influence on our lives. They are central to free markets and democratic societies. They represent free choice. They also have a profound impact on our quality of life and the way we see our world. They color our lives. They reflect the values of our societies. Global brands can even embody the spirit of many nations, if not the spirit of an age. Most importantly, strong brands bestow value far beyond the performance of the products themselves. Brands that do this possess an idea worthy of consumer loyalty. The more inspiring the idea, the more intense and profound the commitment. And the more the consumer believes in the brand, the more value the brand returns to its owner."

By: quite unimportant

quite unimportant — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:06:19 -0800

CONSUME

By: shoepal

shoepal — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:10:08 -0800

SUBVERT

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:10:17 -0800

"the more the consumer believes in the brand, the more value the brand returns to its owner. "The more you don't understand slack the more slack understands you!"

By: slater

slater — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:10:31 -0800

something mumble something PEPSI BLUE! murmur something mumble

By: slatternus

slatternus — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:39:27 -0800

Slack is just another demographic like any other. They have you pegged with a thoroughness you can't even begin to imagine.

By: airguitar

airguitar — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:49:08 -0800

You'd PAY to imagine what you can't EVEN begin.

By: growabrain

growabrain — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:08:07 -0800

I heart my brands

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 01:15:24 -0800

I heart my brands too

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 02:31:36 -0800

In communist ameruka you don't identify with the brand, the brand identifies with you ! (or your lowest common denominator)

By: roboto

roboto — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 02:35:19 -0800

Century of the Self

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:21:00 -0800

By: gsb

gsb — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:00:35 -0800

Eideteker, I prefer the "They Live" version.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:02:44 -0800

Couldn't find a version of it, and I'm too boyscouty to have made a rip when I rented the DVD. This will have to do!

By: bukvich

bukvich — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:26:24 -0800

This post needs a poll to find out how many Dell's, how many HP's, how many IBM's, etc it is being consumed from.

By: doublehelix

doublehelix — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:57:21 -0800

Crazy, man - gsb, "They Live" just screened locally here in Astoria at a bar/cafe the other night. Wish I had gotten to see it.

By: bim

bim — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:44:09 -0800

This post needs a poll to find out how many Dell's, how many HP's, how many IBM's, etc it is being consumed from. I too was thinking something along those lines -- like aren't most of us sitting here typing on our souped up computers with all kinds of nice gadgets and gizmos? I like certain brands as well as the next person. Pencil me in as a Dell owner. I want a mac next, just for the hell of it! And leave my brands alone!

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:56:26 -0800

ike aren't most of us sitting here typing on our souped up computers with all kinds of nice gadgets and gizmos? I like certain brands as well as the next person. Are you sure you like the brand and not the gizmo ? If I branded a can of shit with "YouFavouriteLogo" would you buy it ?

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:00:02 -0800

A trait of capitalism (in comparison to pre-capitalist agrarian economies) is that it operates based on a surplus of goods, unlike the agrarians who operated based on a scarcity of goods. Thus the challenge is not how to deal with scarcity, but how to solve surplus. This is the origin of the "brand", the reason we have corn and soy in everything we eat, and most of the major characteristics of modernity - solving the problem of surplus. Marx thought surplus would be the downfall of capitalism, but he was wrong, because the producers have also become the consumers.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:11:56 -0800

I use work-enforced computer brands -- they buy, I use, even at home. But my last free PC purchase was a clone built by the guys down the street from cheap parts. I don't even remember the brand, though I think it had one -- Axel? Yes, Axel. It worked quite well for years, whereas the bloody Dell I got through work has given me problems, and of course Dell is not local. You don't need a big-brand computer if you've got a good guarantee and easy contact, preferably local, with the manufacturer or dealer.

By: bim

bim — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:14:51 -0800

Are you sure you like the brand and not the gizmo ? If I branded a can of shit with "YouFavouriteLogo" would you buy it ? Good point, papi. But in a world of uncertainty, brands CAN be an indicator or signal of quality (good or bad). For example, I recently bought a seagate harddrive because (1) the main drive I have is a seagate and it has been trouble free and (2) various reviews said it seagates were reliable among other things. I haven't had any problems with the new drive so far! Don't we all avoid certain car brands because they haven't had a good track record. How about certain appliances? If the last one of brand x turned out to be a piece of shit, I sure wouldn't be buying it again. Now certain brands or goods DO fall into the realm of "conspicious consumption" like Hummers and Land Rovers. That's a different matter as far as I see it -- more like branding a can of shit with your favorite logo as you mentioned. )

By: carsonb

carsonb — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:15:58 -0800

If I branded a can of shit with "YouFavouriteLogo" would you buy it ? sure, if I found it in the dollar bins at WalMart or something.

By: bim

bim — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:23:18 -0800

A trait of capitalism (in comparison to pre-capitalist agrarian economies) is that it operates based on a surplus of goods, unlike the agrarians who operated based on a scarcity of goods. Steven -- I don't think that this is true at all. What's your source (and rationale) for this? Free market economics is all about achieving the balance between supply and demand i.e., equilibrium. There is no inherent bias in capitalism towards either a surplus or a shortage. Now I'm not blindly extolling the virtues of the free market (unlike people like Milton Friedman), and I'm all for a little short run Keynesian tinkering in the macroeconomy (in the long run, we're all dead as Keynes pointed out). But I'm not sure where you're coming from. Let me know. I gotta go to worK!

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:38:29 -0800

I've got your brand right here!

By: diastematic

diastematic — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:41:32 -0800

It's funny, I have a love/hate relationship with brand. Love it because yeah, it pays my bills. (I work with brands for a living.) Hate it because there are so many who have done such a poor job in communicating brands properly. So which brands are yours? And which aren't? Fave brands: looking back objectively on some fairly recent decisions, the brands I've apparently trusted most recently -- meaning without question, whether I was aware of it or not at the time -- are the city of Portland (we moved there). Alaska Airlines. And Subaru (will buy anything they sell...including garbage cans). Clearly I'm easy to peg. Bad brands: again, trying to play this out objectively, my past tells me that I'm not likely to trust (nor pay attention to) anything associated with the following brands: Microsoft, GOP, Christian Coalition, Yankees, Cowboys, Chevrolet, In These Times. And Apple is creeping up higher on the dislike list, for the first time ever, due to a growing lack of trust and some increasingly complicated products. Yeah, it's sorta solipsistic of me to spout my own brand view -- who really gives a crap -- but it's interesting to think about why we do and don't trust brands, and what experiences contribute to those beliefs.

By: j-urb

j-urb — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:10:09 -0800

The interesting thing I find about "branding" is that it requires an emotional rather than a rational attachment (See Gallup's Married to the Brand). We can think of SUVs as a brand, for instance, that soccer mom's see as a vehicle which will protect them. This isn't quite so true because SUVs, in general, have a high instance of roll-over. If we want to get more specific, we can talk about Starbucks which has "premium coffee" which is, well I can't tell the difference, but then again I'm not a Starbucks customer. McDonalds is another example, the food is horrible in almost every regard yet they thrive on an this type of branding idea that has been effective in getting customers to return. There are a multitude of restaurants out there, why McyD's?

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:11:35 -0800

If I branded a can of shit with "YouFavouriteLogo" would you buy it ? Seems to me that selling a cheap t-shirt with a Nike swoosh or "Abercrombe"/"Tommy Boy"/whatever is doing exactly that. Rather than the brand indicating the value of the product, the brand is the value in and of itself. / Didn't RTFA

By: 3.2.3

3.2.3 — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:18:47 -0800

stay free, baby. just enter the word "brand" in the search widget on the site. it's a goldmine.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:21:50 -0800

THEY LIVE - WE SLEEP

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:32:19 -0800

But in a world of uncertainty, brands CAN be an indicator or signal of quality (good or bad) I see your point, yet I am not interested into suggestors, rather in measurement. If the price of the good I am buying is sufficiently irrelevant relative to my pocket, I may buy the branded product IF I associate it with an high average quality or high average value. Yet as Lordsludge indicates: Rather than the brand indicating the value of the product, the brand is the value in and of itself. And indeed evidence suggests that brands that have spent a lot of money on their amplification still are bought primarily for the reason they are -brand- and associated with something, maybe "beauty" or "freshness" or whatever. This goes into the apparent paradox of branding a can of shit with "Nike" and have some people think this shit smell of roses because it's Nike. Now what if brand starts demanding a price that no longer reflects instrict objectives qualities, but just celebrity level ? If that brand remains successful, minor but more competent/better brands may succumb or be delayed by the presence of big emotive leeches ; in other words, given that there are finite resources avaiable to consumers, when these resources are wasted into buying well branded inferior product there are less resouces for developement of better products. Therefore I guess that branding may adversely affect research and developement of products as "brand" becomes an irrelevant quality that is valued because of intensive suggestion, syphoning valuable resources.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:51:04 -0800

bim, we are talking about brands which are specific to individual companies. A company is either growing, or going out of business. So companies have to find new ways to sell (produce) more. So the challenge is always how to sell more (surplus). That's what brands do. Yes markets are very efficient. On that level, markets are so efficient they produce a surplus of wealth - the standard of living continues to rise - some people see a future of unlimited wealth for all. Others see a roadblock of sustainability. Capitalism only works if it keeps growing. Image the USA with a stagnant or falling GNP. The only way to keep growing is to to create more and more surpluses of wealth. If we all bought only what we need the system would fail. The idea of "rising up", bettering ones self, and ones position in life, is inherent.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:13:08 -0800

We don't want to leave out this story, do we?

By: Mach3avelli

Mach3avelli — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:14:44 -0800

Having worked at Abercrombie & Fitch, I can tell you people adopting a brand as more than a lifestyle is a very real phenomenon.

By: blackfly

blackfly — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:26:48 -0800

I trust American Brand Defense And Crelm Toothpaste, with Fraudulin!

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:41:01 -0800

stbalbach: A company is either growing, or going out of business Positively NOT. It's a false dicotomy. Companies can stagnate, either very slowly increasing or very slowly declining, sometime so slowly you can hardly tell there is any change at all. So companies have to find new ways to sell (produce) more. Nope, they have to find ways not to lose their profiteable revenue stream that justifies their existence or at worst maintain their value until they can start changing again. Yes markets are very efficient. Uhm not really. Some market is efficient, most have an high efficacy. Suppose I want to bring a condom on my schlong, I can do it at least two ways a) using the least amount of resources, not provoking a lack of erection, all in one single motion popping the aluminium ! Well ok not THAT efficient b) by screaming like tarzan, opening the condom by using only teeths (mine) and unrolling it by mere gravity. I will obtain by result (efficacy) but with an enormous waste of anotherwise useful erection (lack of efficiency). The girl will be so pissed , but hey the condom is on my dick ! Similarly, market use an amount of resources to produce/sell a product, but merely producing it doesn't increase the wealth, unless you measure it in terms of theoretical market value. I could, for instance, produce an instant on condom that requires 1 barrel of oil and some people would buy it, but that would be so wasteful it hardly could be considered efficient.

By: blackfly

blackfly — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:08:23 -0800

I bought The Rebel Sell after it appeared here a few years ago. Since the topic of branding and its social cache has surfaced again, I thought I'd re-link incase anyone is interested. It was a good read.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:12:43 -0800

If I branded a can of shit with "YouFavouriteLogo" would you buy it ? Damn right. And I'd go with the original and best, Manzoni brand artist's shit:

By: kid ichorous

kid ichorous — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:57:37 -0800

Thus the challenge is not how to deal with scarcity, but how to solve surplus. This is the origin of the "brand", the reason we have corn and soy in everything we eat, and most of the major characteristics of modernity - solving the problem of surplus. Our surplus of corn doesn't come from free market or capitalist forces, it comes from government subsidy. The market may resolve this problem of oversupply, but it did not create it, and surplus is not a necessary condition on which our market operates.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:08:26 -0800

diastematic, I would think it's worse for a brand not to be on your radar than to be on your bad side. jack_mo, is that shinola?

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:16:10 -0800

markets are very efficient At what?

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:14:16 -0800

jack_mo, is that shinola? Despite having used the relevant expression, I just had to look up what shinola actually is. Shoe polish, apparently. So, no. This is a canned poo direct from the famous bum of Piero Manzoni, squeezed out into a limited edition run of 90 cans in 1961 (now down to 89, after a can in the collection of a Danish museum sadly exploded.) A more recent brand of poo is Cloaca, produced by a special digestive system simulator these ersatz human turds were signed by artist Wim Delvoye and flogged off at $1,000 a poop. To the best of my knowledge, these shits were not, however, canned.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:02:58 -0800

jack mo : thanks for finding that picture :) I knew about it but didn't think about fishing for them. Indeed if one says canned shit is art, it is art. There's nothing wrong with that , except I am not paying good money for artistic shit unless, of course, somebody else immediately buys that shit from me for a premium.

By: Twang

Twang — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:53:42 -0800

Brands are an important influence on our lives. They are central to free markets and democratic societies. Whoever wrote that schtuff is one sick puppy.

By: Twang

Twang — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:56:56 -0800

... BRAND ...
That's something they use on cattle, isn't it ??? To prove ownership?

By: longbaugh

longbaugh — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:01:40 -0800

That's kind of the point of the word Twang.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:35:43 -0800

The whole Century of Self documentary on torrent

By: Ictus

Ictus — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:51:25 -0800

All this railing against corporate brands as dehumanizing and homogenizing misses the point. We've won. We're now our own brands. Each of us have developed a unique identity, including signature styles of dress, preferences in music and movies, and affectations of speech and manner. Self conscious, we chose our hobbies and friends and politics and lifestyles. We amass amusing or deeply personal or wry anecdotes about ourselves in different situations, each expressing our many different aspects. We advertise our identities through the m a n y markets that have sprung up to flatter our insatiable egotism. We're drama queens making performances of our identities and emotions and ideals. Our corporate brands are simply subsidiary parts of our personal brand. Threadless or Tommy Hilfiger, they exist as raw material that we fashion into ourselves.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:26:50 -0800

But in a world of uncertainty, brands CAN be an indicator or signal of quality (good or bad) I think there's a world of difference between a brandname and a brand. Buying nike because they make good shoes (I wouldn't know) is using the brandname. Buying nike because of the swoosh/Just do it/I heart sweatshops factor is buying into the brand. Most people do the former in some manner. The latter is designwank from people like diastematic ("Which brands are YOURS") who want you to think that way to line their wallets and justify the expensiveness of 'branding' as opposed to having a good name in the marketplace. (Nothing personal, diastematic, I just find it hard to agree with that line of thinking)

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:33:38 -0800

ictus: yes we can have our brand, but nobody gives a fuck about your brand aka nobody cares about you except a few. The many markets you are referring to just let us operate on them, we are not the markets actually we are used by a market to make our own content that in exchange builds a brand. Yet Metafilter is, from this point of view, a relatively open market, you don't have to put money (even if it costs you to partecipate) ...Hilshitter , you have to pay and all you get is a lousy t-shirt.

By: bim

bim — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:16:18 -0800

The bottom line is this, comrades. Everybody has their own preferences. Some people prefer simple and cheap but effective goods while others like and want a gucci handbag. I drive a honda but you want may want (and in your mind "need") a lexus. Some people want plain old "get the job done" condoms and maybe papi wants one that glows in the dark! What you "need" or I "need" are subjective. (And there's no point in distinguishing between wants and needs as economists sometimes do. Consumers view them as identical). I don't want you dictating what I can buy anymore than you want me dictating to you. People vote with their wallets in markets for the goods they want and don't want. People want ipods and so Apple is making a shitload of money making ipods. A lot of people want to eat at McDonald's even though I wouldn't touch that crap with a 10 foot pole. Yet more and more folks are willing to pay for organic food so it is becoming more commonplace in your everyday grocery store. If everybody thinks windpower is the best thing since sliced bread and are willing to pay for it (and allow the large scale use of land in that fashion) then you will see more of it. And if you aren't making something that people want enough to give you are reasonable rate of return on your investment (given the amount of risk involved), then you will fold up your tent and close down. And that's as it should be. It's a waste of resources to keep producing crap that nobody wants. Yes, its true -- utopian visions of everyone living in harmony off the land in a simple fashion may very well get chucked out the window under capitalism (no offense intended to the eco-friendly, live simply crowd...I like some of that too...to a certain degree). Unless you're going to try to turn the U.S. into a controlled economy along the lines of the long defunct russian economy, then we've got to "let the market operate" and it will allocate resources accordingly.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:25:56 -0800

Indeed if one says canned shit is art, it is art. There's nothing wrong with that , except I am not paying good money for artistic shit unless, of course, somebody else immediately buys that shit from me for a premium. Good art, too, if you ask me. A quick quip, but selling your shit to galleries and dealers is pretty beautiful (Manzoni also signed people, and suggested that artists ought to sell their fingerprints). Talking of a premium, the last time I remember a Manzoni can going on sale, it fetched something like £25,000 - there was a minor scandal, because the buyer was the Tate, and they were using taxpayers' money. (Probably a very good investment - I bet it'd go for closer to £40,000 nowadays.)

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:29:36 -0800

Shit (ha ha!), I should've Googled before commenting: The Tate values excrement more highly than gold - £22,300 for can #004, and apparently 45 of the 90 have exploded, not one. Er, sorry for the derail - still counts as branding, kind of?

By: slatternus

slatternus — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:20:27 -0800

Yes, its true -- utopian visions of everyone living in harmony off the land in a simple fashion may very well get chucked out the window under capitalism Thank God. Living off the land is a despicable waste of a human life.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:45:00 -0800

1) Build a brand by making quality product. 2) Sell lots of brand 3) Make tons of cheap junk with Brand name, but sell at the expected premium price 4) Profit! 5) Return to step one, with new name. This is the formula these days, it seems to me. I keep seeing crap sold under previously good brand names. (but then, maybe I only thought it used to be good)