Do brands have control over
society?
Within
this essay I will be discussing the power relationship between brands and our
society. In a world where commerce has become so powerful and manipulative,
branding itself has turned out to be equally as proliferative as it has
vulnerable. The increasing rate that fashion seems to shift creates insecurity
within all brands. When you look at the placement of branding in a society
where the opinion of the public is ever changing, you begin to question who it is
exactly that has the control and just how powerful it can be.
No
brand can truly predict the changes that occur within fashion. Popular Culture
is unpredictable and it often proves to be challenging for brands to keep up
with. As Wally Olins states,
“Customers can be loyal,
fickle, slaves to fashion, creators of trends or all of these simultaneously or
serially. Above all customers are unpredictable. We do what we feel like.” (Wally Olins, On Brand, 2005)
It’s
this impulsive nature that drives the public to search for that new and unique
style that supposedly defines who they are, but what’s really interesting is
how this is accomplished. In the new age people tend to define their
originality with the brands that they incorporate into their appearance. Brands
and their labels remove that uniqueness, therefore showing the power of
branding, as how can mass production create an original style? In this sense,
you could conclude that brands have the control over the customers. The
products become desirable through manipulative advertisement, to the point that
people feel the need to purchase items to display their social place in society.
In a sense, the customers become walking billboards for the brands.
Powerful
advertising has lead to fashion being not only functional but also symbolic.
Nike, for example, founded by Philip
Knight and his coach Bill Bowerman, 1964, was a company built for the
distribution and design of athletic wear. Nowadays, a person walks down the
street in a pair of Nike trainers with no intention to carry out any form
exercise but instead wears them solely as a symbolic social status. Through
highly influential advertising, using both sporting and musical ‘celebrities’
such as Michael Jordan (A), Nike has produced an emotional desire
with their products. Products are worn as a display of social status. What’s
more fascinating is that companies like Nike are fully aware of this, and
produce such a range of products that are applicable to a range of people.
There are designs within Nike that people associate with a certain lower class
and others that display wealth and a highly ranked social status. The branding
is so open that it appeals to such a wide variety of the public making it a
multi-billion pound influential business.
“When deep space
exploitation ramps up, it will be corporations that name everything. The IBM
Stellar Sphere. The Philip Morris Galaxy. Planet Starbucks.” (Fight Club, 1999)
This
quote emphasises the scale of branding and just to what extent it could potentially
go to in the future. Brands and companies pay such vast amounts of money to be
recognised worldwide. Advertisements
are everywhere. Supposedly, the average person sees about 3000 adverts per day,
whether it’s on TV or just walking down a street, branding is a huge part of
our everyday lives. It can be argued that branding brainwashes people into
purchasing the products they provide. When you think about how many
advertisements you see a day it does make you wonder just how powerful brands
are and how influential they must be.
“Brands are increasingly
disingenuous and duplicitous in their relentless pursuit of our money and they
will stop at nothing in their overwhelming imperative to manipulate us. It
doesn’t make any difference to them whether we are young or old, rich or poor,
can or cannot afford to buy, or even whether we want what they offer, brands
are after us and we have to stop them.” (Naomi Klein, No Logo, 2010)
This
view appears to portray the control of branding, arguing that it’s powerful skills
with manipulation need to be stopped. However, this also highlights the fact
that although branding has produced a certain control over the public domain,
it is in our hands to choose whether we allow them to do so.
Power is a relationship. For
someone to gain power, there must be someone allowing the control. For example,
women, in the past, have permitted men to gain a hierarchy of power and
therefore become the weaker figures of society. A world of conformity would
allow for a counter-revolutionary human race. We’re lucky in the sense that we
have the freedom to think for ourselves and to have individuality is what
drives people to be different. Therefore, the customers, in actual fact, have
complete control over brands. We decide what and what not to buy and what’s
supposedly in and out of fashion. This is what makes branding so vulnerable.
“Where
there is power there is resistance.” (Foucault,
1978) Foucault believed
that power is a practice that people can engage with. It’s an exercise as
appose to something that’s possessed. This relationship between brands and
their customers is exactly that. No one forces anyone to buy products. People
instead allow themselves to simply be influenced by advertisements. But it’s
this desire of individuals that develops from strong advertisement that makes
branding so powerful and successful.
In the growing competitive
fashion industry, brands can move swiftly from in to out of fashion, under our
influence. Levi Jeans are a perfect example of this; once being the most
desirable shop to purchase jeans from and now the company has been brushed
aside to new trends and styles.
This control is apparent in
almost every industry. As an example, McDonalds is at threat in the fast food
industry due to the apparent increase in obesity and general health awareness.
Many people are starting to make more of an effort when looking after their
body and health, meaning that even these kinds of brands are also vulnerable to
the changing opinion of the public.
Interestingly, vintage
clothing has become hugely popular within fashion. Customers are looking for
one-of-a-kind pieces as appose to items that are mass-produced by large
companies. This maybe shows that people are beginning to reject the idea of
labeling yourself with brands and instead want to create a more unique identity
with their clothing. Being aware of this, a lot of the well-known brands have
created a vintage range, including the food chain Tesco. These products, unlike
the vintage shops, will of course be mass-produced, but it shows how quickly
they adapt to the changing public opinion in order to increase that feeling of
power.
“’Cool’ used to mean unique,
spontaneous, compelling. The coolest kid was the one everyone wanted to be like
but no one quite could, because her individuality was utterly distinct. Then
‘cool’ changed. Marketers got hold of it and reversed it’s meaning.” (Kalle Lasn, 1999)
The strength of branding has
risen at a high rate with brands being more and more influential with the ways
in which they decide to advertise. “Many
great brands are like amoebae or plasticine. They can be shaped, twisted and
turned in all sorts of ways yet still remain recognizable.” (Olins, 2003) The management of these
companies ensures that the brands don’t fall out of favor with the customers.
They aim to keep the public satisfied and entice them with their new and
desirable products. If this expectation isn’t met and the brands fail to meet
the standards of other leading brands, then the customers will abandon it.
This simply shows that the
power and growth of branding is ever increasing, with their constant adaptation
to fashion and society and it is under our influence by which we allow them do
so. Although they have a certain manipulation, it’s nothing compared to the
strong control we have over their profits and marketing decisions. It’s because
of this that has led big brands and companies to be critiqued and judged by the
media. Helen Woodward, an influential copywriter, sates, “When you know the truth about anything, the real inner truth – it is
very hard to write the surface fluff which sells it.” (Naomi Klein, No Logo, 2010) This can refer to the fact that brands must upkeep their reputation.
No customer will want to know how or where their products have been made and it
can swing big companies in and out of favor. As David D’Alessandro once said, “It can take 100 years to build up a good
brand and 30 days to take it down”. (Olins, 2003) It really does show just
how vulnerable brands are and how much time, money and effort are put in to
maintaining an appearance for the public domain. In other words, in order to
rise in power and strength, brands seek to impress the people of society.
The problem is that we live
in a society where people are encouraged and persuaded to take part in
consumerism. So how do we prevent an inegalitarian world? Increasing numbers of
people are becoming more and more uncomfortable with the growing gap between
the rich and the poor. The network of Culture Jammers promotes a new social
activist movement of the information age, aiming to overthrow the power
structures. They believe that “culture jamming will become to our era what
civil rights was to the ‘60s, what feminism was to the ‘70s, what environmental
activism was to the ‘80s. It will alter the way we live and think.” (Kalle
Lasn, 1999)
Branding is often received
as a profit-making manipulation scheme producing seductive advertisements and
desirable products. Following the current fashions and changing opinions of the
public, companies adapt to the wants and needs of the people. They are able to
persuade individuals that they have what you want and they’ll put a lot of
time, effort and money into making sure this is successful. The truth is,
society loves brands. People use brands to define their identity, creating a
particular appearance by which they want to be received. Brands adapt to our
needs and so to answer the original question - no, brands do not have control
over society. It’s very much the opposite. The products we buy can represent
achievement as well as some sort of social status. However, as big and
controlling as these brands may appear, the power sits in our hands. “All we have to do is use that power, and
use it for mutual benefit.” (Olins, 2003)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kalle Lasn (2000). culture jam. US: Eagle Brook. 1.
Naomi Klein (2010). no logo. london: fourth estate
Wally Olins (2005). on brand. london: thames and Hudson
Kidd,
W, (2002) 'Culture and Identity', Warren Kid
Dean,
C, (2003), The inspired retail space attract customers, build branding,
increase volume', Rockport Publishers
Mark Paterson (2005). consumption and everyday life.
london: thames and Hudson
Foucault,
M, (2005) 'Materialism and education', Olson, M.
Dant,
T, (1999) 'Material Culture in the social world', Open University Press
Adorno,
T, (1991) 'The culture industry', Routledge,
Benjamin, W. (1964) The work of the art in the age
of mechanical reproduction, p1-5
IMAGES
http://www.bambootrading.com/proddetail.asp?prod=4488&cat=210
http://occupywallst.org/article/occupyxmas-kicks-buy-nothing-day-nov-2526/
