From “bling” to “tree hugger” to “goth” to “wealthy” to every single thing in between and beyond, identity is an immense target that many marketers aim for — in a world packed with billions of people many folk feel the need to rise above the monotony, conformity and repetition that they see. What is comical to one person is a deep and meaningful personal identity to another, and some spend inordinate amounts of money to create it.
What most fail to see is that in our search to be unique by buying things to appropriate a certain image or belong to a certain group, we are merely playing into conformity as much as anyone else; and companies and marketers are right there to help us lap it up; I mean, you really can’t blame them, can you? It’s an incredibly easy bull’s-eye and most folk don’t even realize that it’s happening.
A relative was telling me that in the 60s the hippie look was big amongst herself and her friends, and that there was a very specific image associated with that. These social rebels would don Levi’s jeans and other brand name accoutrements in their move to be unique — and it’s quite obvious who profited from that. Remember the grunge movement of the 90s with flannel and Doc Martens? Remember how Converse came back into the scene and became the foot mode of choice for certain identities? I’m not saying that there’s anything inherently wrong with wanting to be unique or rebellious, or for a company like Levi’s or Doc Martens to profit off of that; I’m just trying to show how marketing is completely intertwined with personal image and how little most of us realize that.
It is actually interesting to think about why we have the need for such a unique image. When you think about what you really like about your closest friends do you think about what sunglasses or what kind of shoes they wear or what computer they use or what car they drive? Most likely not. Why would someone want to plaster the back of their car with catchy bumper stickers declaring their political beliefs? (And as discussed in a previous post, this is something that political marketers make great use of). Putting an Apple logo on your rear window? Showcasing a hand bag with Louis Vuitton written all over it? This all gets far more philosophical than I want to delve into here, but I’m just making the point that identity (group and/or individual) is very closely conformed with marketing and merchandising. So is it really unique and individual? In my opinion, almost always no. Plus, the image that many people like to portray is merely a fantasy of what/who they feel they would prefer to be, and marketers play directly to that, as well.
Pay attention to ads that are going after a specific image: from middle-aged family man to young Hollywood partier to alt rock “rebel” to hipster to Bible worshipping family…it’s never-ending. Also note how many brands you like to proudly display because you feel they define you as a person — we all do it or have likely done it at some point. A brand or image does not define who you actually are as a person - it can only contribute to an exterior image, often falsely in relation to what’s going on at a human level.
About ten years ago I had a friend at UCLA who told me about someone she knew there that put together an experiment for a psychology class where she bought nearly identical pairs of plain, cheap jeans and took the labels off of them. She then replaced the labels with different brands such as Seven, Levi’s, Lucky, etc., and asked other students to pick which one was their favorite; It’s not difficult to guess what the majority chose. Different brand names of jeans brought certain images to peoples’ minds and how they would affect their identity to others, even though they were all exactly the same brand and style of jeans. The more expensive labels won out by a far majority over Levi’s or The Gap (both of which have their own cadre of people who can relate to the image that they portray).
The whole identity thing has become quite comical to me as I’ve become more aware of it over the years.
