Brands and labels changing society

Brands and labels changing society

Today’s society has become obsessed with names. Brand names are an unnecessary driving force for consumers, and there is this crazy idea that having a brand label attached to clothing makes someone superior to others.

Frequently I hear people commenting on clothes, asking “I like your jeans, who makes those?” That is an innocent enough question, however when it is followed up by pure surprise and an element of judgement that they are not name brand, this solidifies people’s obsession with buying based on brands.

This is something that I have noticed while in middle and high school and has always confused me. I have always wondered why all of the girls at school found it necessary to wear Lululemon when I was able to find nearly an exact replica of their leggings for a fraction of the price at Old Navy.

According to “The Atlantic,” with the regularity of high quality products, brand names were derived from companies needing new ways to market and individualize themselves from their competitors.

So, essentially, when most companies reached an equilibrium with the quality and price of their products, they began branding. Ever since the 1960s and 70s, after marketing and advertising boomed, brand names became more important than the product itself.

With each year comes a seemingly heavier influence of brands on consumers. According to “Business Insider,” this year’s top clothing brands include Nike, Chanel, Levi’s, Vans, and Ralph Lauren. Lululemon has recently become another prominent brand in the market place..

Lululemon and Athleta are both high-quality athletic clothing companies, and according to both of their websites, their leggings are virtually the same quality and look almost identical.

Comparing prices, the basic Lululemon leggings run at $98, while the fundamentally mirror image Athleta version of those leggings run for $79. So, when looking at the numbers, it appears that consumers are paying an extra $20 simply for the Lululemon label on their leggings.

People seem to be caught in this conception that if they wear certain clothes, then people will like them more. There is some two-factor madness between consumers and companies which inspires our society to judge people for not having “top of the line” products. Big business continues to win– charging $20 extra just for the brand name. This concept fuels corporate business and it is the consumer who pays the price.

However, not all big name brands are so greedy. Patagonia, for example, is a socially and environmentally conscious company. According to the Patagonia website, their mission statement is to “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.” This company actually discourages consumers from buying unnecessary new products and encourages them to repair old and worn Patagonia through their worn wear program. On Black Friday they actually ran an ad reading “Don’t buy this jacket” to encourage less consumerism.

I challenge consumers to fight the urge to conform to the belief system that brand names define us. We can not continue to put an unsubstantiated value on them. Let’s start demanding more from big businesses. Let’s boycott companies that do not do anything but make money. Let’s invest in products from companies who do good for the world. Let’s buy what we need and repair what we can.