The Violence of Deception in Branding

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA]I recently watched the music video of Macklemore's single, "Wings".  

This song really spoke to me in ways I had never thought about before.  I had an epiphony moment in the same way when I was first introduced to countries as merely tax farms, taxation as theft, and divorce as a death threat to children.

There are two types of domination that human beings encounter.  The first is physical domination.  This is the use of physical force.  We are all familiar with physical domination and can easily see it and identify it.  The second type of domination is the one that is challenging to identify.  This second type is psychological domination.  We all attempt to dominate others, and are dominated by others, without even realizing it.  At one time I suspect we saw it for what it was, but quickly learned to supress this truth.

Personal accomplishments and virtuous actions cannot be displayed for others to see.  We can not brandish our moral superiority or dedication to cultivating our skills to other people, as weapons of good.  Because of this fact, brands are used to dominate others.  Truly think about why we value certain brands over others.  Does my Nike swoosh make me jump higher?  Does my Macintosh Apple make me smarter?  It's nothing more than a weapon used to force others to perceive me differently... as better.

Caring about what other people think is good.  It is part of what treating people with the respect and dignity they deserve is all about.  But fashion and branding is deceptive.  It's only purpose is to exploit people's expedient value processes.  I can choose not to deceive others by wearing only what is comfortable and functional for my daily needs.  I can let my actions speak for themselves!  But the sad truth is, others will not play by those rules.  Others will deceive and benefit from it - at my expense.

It's a classic prisoner's dilemma.  I only stand to benefit from deception because if ever called out on it (of course I never will since everybody does it) I always have plausible deniability.

"Oh, Nike shoes are just more comfortable than any other shoes.  the quality of Abercrombie clothes is superior.  This North Face jacket is so much warmer than others like it."

We all know this is bullshit.  Deep down we know, but we accept these lies because we all want to justify our own illusions.  Take a drive through a poverty stricken neighborhood, but don't act surprised when you see the boarded up, dilapidated houses with the expensive vehicles parked out front.  Don't pretend you don't understand.  Visit a school where you can meet kids who arrive with expensive outfits, jewelry, electronics... and empty stomachs.

All of this worthless crap that we waste our money on serves only one purpose... to deceive.  It's a means to an end.  It's a gun.  It's violence of the mind.

Stef said, "to see the farm is to leave it."  Interestingly enough, to see the gun of branding is to defeat it.

[Mcattack]

Good video. I always had clothes of a "lesser" brand as a kid and I remember the tension I used to feel around those with their "top-of-the-line" gear. 

Why not turn virtue into a brand? You can wear clothes that brandish your dedication to self-improvement. You just need to write something on it that displays your values. Write your beliefs on all of your clothes.

[fingolfin]

On this topic, there was a good movie I saw recently (with English subs) about the use of marketing/branding techniques in a video campaign against Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile during the 1980s. You may or may not find it interesting or relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_%282012_film%29

 

[ribuck]

A while back, I went into a music store to buy a guitar bag for my daughter. The owner showed me a black guitar bag with a huge white logo on it.

I asked if he had one without advertising, which took him by surprise because he assumed that the brand was a premium one that anyone would be proud to display. He then fetched a plain black guitar bag from the back room, which was half the price.

Also, whenever I buy clothing, I try hard to find a garment without a visible brand on it.

[Arius]

That is a very astute observation.

I wonder though, is it possible you've mistaken the shadow for the thing?  Brands are symbols.  Symbols (Words, pictures, costumes, etc) can all be used for good or ill.  I can assault you with expletives until you cry.. or bolster your resolve with an empowering speech.  Symbols are tools, without a moral alignment.  Perhaps the behavior you've identified is not due to the symbols, but to the people that wield them.  It's not that there's a gun in the room, it's that there's a person wielding a gun.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean exactly.  The words printed on the cloths are not always the tools for deception.  For instance, the materials your cloths are made out of can also be used to deceive.  If I want to force the perception that I am wealthy, and thus valuable, on others, I may choose to wear boots made from italian leather or aligator skin.  Italian leather doesn't keep you warmer.  Aligator skin isn't more durable.  Likewise, those materials don't have any barring on my character or work ethic.  The only purpose of these materials is to deceive.I'm trying to think of a mechanism for good in all of this.  I think the route of this is in representative symbolism.  Nazis wore swastikas to represent the ideals they held.  This was very useful.  You could identify characteristics about a person based on the brand they were wearing.  If I make a patch of the FDR logo and put it on my jacket, this could indicate to you that I'm of the libertarian persuasion or that I value philosophy.  It's not a gun because it's not designed to force false beliefs on you.  However, when this representative branding becomes vague and arbitrary is when it because something other than representative symbolism.  What does the Nike swoosh on my shoes tell you about my ideals?  Nothing... in reality.  It's purpose is to deceive others into thinking I'm athletic, dedicated, and skilled in some sport despite the fact that 99.99% of the people who wear Nike don't play sports at all.The fashion industry itself is the real issue, I think.  The idea that a pair of boots meant you were interresting, fun, and socially inviting, 20 years ago,  but today means you're boring, uncomfortable, and unappealing, is an idea that just doesn't sit well with me.  It's not just fashion either though.  It's the idea that you need to buy the latest ipad despite already owning the iphone and the macbook.. which functionally can do everything the ipad does and more.  You don't need to buy the ipad because of what it can do.  You need to buy the ipad because of what owning it implies to the perception of others. I'm trying to formulate a tenable position on this matter but I am kind of thinking in circles here, as you can see.  I'm not as skilled of a philosopher as somebody like Stefan so maybe you all can help me out with this.I would love if Stefan could make a video about his views on this topic. 

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1bGOvGWxI]

Here's another video that touches on the subject of deception in branding (skip to time code 4:45).  I'm linking this video because it shows that regular, non-philosophers understand how we use items of "social value" to dominate eachother.  It's inherently violent!  We all do this and NOBODY seems to care.Why don't we see this as equally violent as parental abandonment or neglect?  i mean, I understand that the bond between a child and a parent is far more important than the social relations between strangers, but domination based on arbitrary possessions is still fucking insane and evil in the same way that arbitrary parent-child domination is insane and evil.We all see it.  Everybody fucking knows it!!!  Yet, we do nothing.  We don't care.  We ignore it. 

[Hsien Seong Cheong]

I wouldn't say that it's ignored or not cared about. The below video might give you some pleasure:

I would argue that it's a bit of a red herring to say that branding is violently deceptive.

Brands are just symbols that distinguish a particular seller from the others, and can be great things for sellers and customers alike when the brand is justly associated with integrity and value. For example, I would buy any piano in the Bosendorfer brand, not because Yamaha are deceiving me on any level but because Bosendorfer is a brand built on the  uniquely rich and truly wonderful sound quality of the instruments they make. If Yamaha started slapping Bosendorfer symbols on cheap tacky pianos (and we all know they are more famous for making those haha) then it would do irreparable damage to the brand that consumers have come to value.

The truth is that brands don't lie to consumers, consumers lie to themselves about brands. Even though the majority of Coca Cola drinkers preferred Pepsi in the taste test, when Coca Cola made their formula sweeter; their "loyal fans" went nuts and demanded that the old taste was brought back to their traditional red can of punchy tasting syrup water. Coca Cola tried to improve the quality of their product, but as it turns out the consumers were more attached to their connection between the brand and the traditional taste; despite preferring Pepsi in blind tests. Corporatism aside; this was a totally voluntary arrangement where Coca Cola tried to respond to their consumers' needs and ended up losing out. (There are conspiracy theories about this incident but it mainly arises from peoples' disbelief that top level business managers can make stupid decisions. Having worked close to the top level in businesses for almost all my career; I have no problem in believing that executives can make bad choices!)

We invest our time and donations into Stef's brand of media output but if Stef makes a bad podcast and we come away telling ourselves it was great; then the FDR brand hasn't lied to us, we've just lied to ourselves.

Smart consumers will use brands to buy reliable, high quality products and stupid consumers will use brands to buy stupid looking shoes and have their self esteem temporarily elevated. What you have correctly identified, is stupid peoples' need to deceive themselves.

So don't follow the red herring of beliving that the symptoms (the misappropriation of value) are the cause. Don't charge empty symbols with violent domination when it is merely an intangible bought by the masochistic consumer. If we attack the symptoms then we will not get around to treating the cause, and I like to think that philosophy, self knowledge and the subsequent pursuit of happiness is the medicinal cure for this ailment.

Hope this helps, and please check out the video above, it's really funny and deals with some of what you put forward

 

[TheRobin]

 

understand how we use items of "social value" to dominate eachother.  It's inherently violent!

 

While it's a pyschologically very nasty thing to try to "dominate" others with such things, it's not really an appropriate application of the word dominance or violence, since all participants (especially the ones dominated) can opt out of this crazy any time they want. If people play a game and behave aggresively when they win towards to loser, then the loser is free to just not play with them anymore. I really don't see how the word "violence" could be applied here

[Rick Horton]

 

 

understand how we use items of "social value" to dominate eachother.  It's inherently violent!

 

While it's a pyschologically very nasty thing to try to "dominate" others with such things, it's not really an appropriate application of the word dominance or violence, since all participants (especially the ones dominated) can opt out of this crazy any time they want. If people play a game and behave aggresively when they win towards to loser, then the loser is free to just not play with them anymore. I really don't see how the word "violence" could be applied here

 

totally agree.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

If I am employed by a boss who perpetually calls me names, belittles me, and makes me feel worthless, that is psychological domination and violance.  There are PLENTY of psychological studies that show the effects on the brain that this type of treatment has.  Also, look at poverty as a social determinant of health.  Studies show that the mindset of being inferior to others significantly harms your health.In fact, you can't "opt out" of being psychologically dominated.  People like to think that they have more control over their environment then they actually do.  If you actually believed people could "opt out" of this, then why do women buy $3000 purses?  It's because their trying to stay competative with other women... as not to be dominated.I would argue that people buy brands that others perceive as "socially valuable" despite the outrageous cost and lack of quality solely because people are compensating for a low self-worthy.  If the self-esteem of all of these people were healthy, this type of behavior would not exist.The irony of calling what I said a "red herring" is that you totally misrepresented the point I was trying to make.  If you buy a piano made by one piano manufacturer simply because the sound quality or "feel" of the instrument is more appealing to you, then OBVIOUSLY there is no deception, domination, or violence occurring.  On the other hand, if you buy a particular piano so that you can invite your friends over to show them how great it is with the attempt to illicit jealousy, and ultimately lower thier self-worth while boosting your own, then OBVIOUSLY there is deception, domination, and violence occurring.

[Rick Horton]

 

If I am employed by a boss who perpetually calls me names, belittles me, and makes me feel worthless, that is psychological domination and violance.  There are PLENTY of psychological studies that show the effects on the brain that this type of treatment has.  Also, look at poverty as a social determinant of health.  Studies show that the mindset of being inferior to others significantly harms your health.

In fact, you can't "opt out" of being psychologically dominated.  People like to think that they have more control over their environment then they actually do.  If you actually believed people could "opt out" of this, then why do women buy $3000 purses?  It's because their trying to stay competative with other women... as not to be dominated.

I would argue that people buy brands that others perceive as "socially valuable" despite the outrageous cost and lack of quality solely because people are compensating for a low self-worthy.  If the self-esteem of all of these people were healthy, this type of behavior would not exist.

The irony of calling what I said a "red herring" is that you totally misrepresented the point I was trying to make.  If you buy a piano made by one piano manufacturer simply because the sound quality or "feel" of the instrument is more appealing to you, then OBVIOUSLY there is no deception, domination, or violence occurring.  On the other hand, if you buy a particular piano so that you can invite your friends over to show them how great it is with the attempt to illicit jealousy, and ultimately lower thier self-worth while boosting your own, then OBVIOUSLY there is deception, domination, and violence occurring.

 

Branding then, might not be the culprit. It seems that the problem is just in the way people are in general. There's no way I've seen to change that besides recognizing it yourself because I don't really think people are going to change. If so, where's the evidence? 

[meeri]

I agree, branding is a symptom rather than cause. Branding creates an image, a story of a better life. It provides for a need that people already have in themselves. Rather, consumer thinking should be looked at for the cause and why they find one story, image and brand more appealing than another.