Why We Go Bonkers for Fancy Brands – Even When It Makes No Sense

What’s in a name? Juliet’s age-old question resonates more than ever as social media reveals intriguing insights into consumer behavior. Recently, posts from Chinese manufacturers showcased high-end luxury products produced without brand labels, urging consumers to buy directly. This highlights the psychological grip that brands have over us.

The Allure of Perceived Value

Perceived value has captivated humans for centuries. We desire items not merely for their utility but for the status they confer. When we possess coveted items, we relish the idea that others view us as part of an elite circle. Historically, our desires centered around precious metals and stones, but now, the spotlight shines brightly on brands.

Defining a Brand: More Than Just a Name

While the dictionary defines a brand as "a type of product made by a particular company and sold under a particular name," this overlooks the emotional connections brands establish with owners and aspirants alike. For instance, a wristwatch has transcended its function as a timekeeping device; it’s now a symbol of arrival and accomplishment.

The Status Symbol Paradox

If one brand signals status, does two amplify it further? At first glance, this sounds logical. However, reality often tells a different story. Imagine spotting a Maruti Omni van with a Toyota logo or encountering shoes sporting both a Nike and an Adidas logo. It’s perplexing! What would a BMW look like with a Jaguar logo?

The Unique Realm of Dual Branding

In academia, dual branding seems to make sense. Joint programs between prestigious universities create certificates adorned with multiple logos, and the allure of such endorsements is palpable. In these cases, multiple brands represent a signal of learning and skill acquisition. This stands in stark contrast to the confusion that arises when two iconic brands grace the same product.

The Complex Psychology Behind Brand Choices

Understanding our relationship with brands reveals several insights:

1. Desire What Others Have: We often yearn for items that others covet.
2. Freedom in Choices: There are no limits to what we desire, as long as it’s coveted.
3. Self-Needs vs. Desire: Our own needs can be overshadowed by the desire to possess trendsetting items.
4. Show Off Your Acquisitions: Once we obtain these items, showcasing them becomes paramount.
5. Label Protection: The brand label often holds more value than the product itself. Damage to the label diminishes value, regardless of the product’s functionality.
6. More Brands, More Status: While one brand is appealing, the allure of two can be irresistible—except in certain contexts.
7. Strategic Acquisitions: Sometimes, we buy items with the intent to resell them later at a higher price.
8. The Hidden Showcase: Not all ownership seeks publicity; some find satisfaction in concealed recognition within a select community.
9. Wealth vs. Brand: While owning luxury brands symbolizes wealth, overt displays of wealth can detract from perceived value.

The Alien Perspective on Brand Behavior

Imagine an alien race studying our peculiar relationship with brands. Their conclusions might resemble this:

• We covet what others desire, driven by social validation.
• Our lust for acquisition knows no bounds, extending beyond mere needs.
• We protect brand integrity fiercely, often prioritizing it over the item itself.
• Underlying all these behaviors is a profound misconception of our rationality.

Conclusion: The Branding Enigma

Our fascination with brands is rooted in deep-seated psychological behaviors that often defy logic. Brands aren’t mere labels; they are vessels of identity, status, and community. They shape our choices, reflect our values, and help create a narrative that defines us.

For more insights into how brands manipulate our perceptions, explore resources on perceived value and the psychology of consumer behavior.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Economic Times.)