Tesco have recently done a new line of adverts with a fake-real couple, whose very life seems to depend on the existence of said colossus. Obviously, these adverts are very bad, as indeed most adverts are. But even if I try to get past the fact that this “real” couple is made up of well know actors, I am still stuck with their awfully embarrassing, near stomach turning brand loyalty. This series of adverts essentially demonstrate an insane commercial dependency that’s ratio is severely biased towards simple stupidity, and not the supposedly intended hilarity of the couple’s shenanigans. I’m sorry to be so bloody serious, but they just piss me off. The absolute worst for me was a recent one regarding a humorous scene in which (get this) the family’s car runs out of petrol, so they trek for miles past perfectly good petrol stations to get to Tesco - the only place for them. Now, fair enough, this is supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek, but there is also a point behind it – that Tesco is really very bloody good, and you, viewer should take heed of this couple’s attitude and spend all the money you possible can at the store from now on. In short, it is attempting to encourage ever increasing brand loyalty toward the store and demonstrate such actions as essentially a good thing for you, for your life, for the world.
When the topic of brand loyalty is portrayed in adverts generally, I however fail to see anything beyond idiocy. Such idiocy is evident in the portrayal of the couple in the above described advert, but actually I think such activities are generally for simple-minded people who are a little too easily influenced. To an extent of course we are all at some base level brand loyal; we all buy the same products again and again because it is easier, because we understand them, because we like them. This is fair enough; a lot of stuff is great and deserves to be bought, plus we are all busy and don’t always want to think about things and make decisions. But the actual concept of brand loyalty itself, and the utilization of it through consumer ignorance or commercial vulgarity is so so stupid. Why should we be brand loyal? Because they have served us so well, provided a personal service, even had a fucking clue who we are? Unlikely. Companies, shops, brands and the like typically exist to serve their own means – e.g. making as much cash as possible. Unless it is a small shop or company that provides a personal service, or have a genuine passion for their work and products, we don’t really owe them any kind of loyalty. In fact, they owe us for being their customers, keeping them in the green and all that. And yes, there are reward cards and special offers, but these are typically just devices to get us to spend yet more money with them. Coercion not rewards, for shame!
I suppose I could concede that it can be easy to get sucked into brand loyalty at times. There is often a halo of promotion around commodities that contribute to a life style that the consumer may or may not want to become involved in, which is dependent on how products are portrayed in magazines, shops and on telly, through both intended and unintended product placement. Indeed furthermore, everything we purchase is a brand of sorts; a product created by a company and sold in some way, however in discreetly, through that brand. This is discussed by Gisele Scanlon in of one of my current reads - The Goddess Experience. This quasi-magazine formatted book floats around the general topic of brands, brand loyalty and "The Want" , a term Scanlon has coined for when one see some commodity you inexplicably desire, regardless of price or necessity. Scanlon seems to relish the concepts of brands, loyalty and The Want without hesitation, stating that such notions are apt extensions and representations of ourselves - a declaration of our tastes and by proxy who we are. Scanlon likens this to a tribal code, a concept which is certainly evident within women’s fashion; whether you are part of the Prada, Topshop or Primark tribe is at least a significant representation of your style and taste (and the size of your wallet) for example. I certainly agree that there are aspects of brand selection that reflect personality; indeed your commercial choices can be as representative of yourself as your music or film tastes.
What I dislike from Scanlon however is her enjoyment of brand loyalty; her faith and near immersion in it is a bit disconcerting. She states that she buys into a brand because it gives her 'that warm fuzzy feeling', that 'this is me'. Surely at the very most a brand or commodity should be an aspect or reflection of your personality. How can a brand, as aged or complex as you like be a representation of a whole human being? I don’t really want to put my communism hat on, but has capitalism got that much of a grip that it can actually convince people that mere products or brands literally represent the epitome of a person’s very being? At the very most, the entire of collection of a person’s commodities and brand selections could direct one to educated presumptions on an individual’s personality. To believe in the personification of brands in a more devout manner is to become a fucking tool. This is most evidently exampled with Scanlon’s statement that when she finds a brand, she "adopt[s] it and wear[s] it like a badge". This is surely a degeneration of the brand term back to its predecessor meaning of branding property such as cattle. By wearing your chosen brand like a badge you are essentially reducing yourself to some uber-cheap employee or company lackey. Such notions are disconcertingly close to the bizarre adidas trouser trend of the late 1990s, when everyone who was anyone had to wear those awful polyester things in every disgusting neon/nylon creation imaginable. I mean what the fuck was that about? Those trousers were awful, yet everyone fucking wore them! I think this can be boiled down to the tribal thing: at school if you wore them you were accepted. But paying to essentially advertise shit sports wear is not that far away from paying thousands to parade around with your new Prada bag, no matter how you want to romantically define it inside your head.
So what have we learnt through this little stint, dear reader? That brands are evil succubuses and we should veto them completely for home grown, home made and the like? Well of course not, I’m not really a bloody communist. Brands are just there now, and thanks to Adam Smith and the Free Market, they will never go away. Capitalism has surreptitiously developed in a manner that not only encourages our greed, but also our satisfaction and pleasure. We want stuff, and this is the way their selling it to us has materialized. But please, I pray you, don’t fall into the trap of brand loyalty too lightly. Adverts will continue to plough the value of such actions into your brain, but it is total horse shit. From my perspective, of course, I think the vast majority of adverts are so bloody awful I can’t believe anyone actually falls for them, but advertising is apparently a multi billion pound/dollar industry, so there must be a lot of poor sods who really are thick enough to continue buying into this shit again and again. The bigger the brand, the more ubiquitous it becomes, both in our minds as consumers and in commerce generally. This ubiquity begets familiarity, which in turn begets loyalty. But as we know ladies, bigger doesn’t always mean better; compare the likes of ginormous brands like McDonalds, Smirnoff and Walkers, with smaller brands like Gourmet Burger, Stolichnaya and Tyrrells, for example. Diversify, try different things, spread your loyalty about a bit. And furthermore, don’t get stuck in the “lifestyle” honey trap. These shiny new things are not a part of you; they are more a means of getting to you, and your all important cash. Besides, much of the time brands are anonymous anyway. For example, do you know your brand of bed, light bulb, soap? Unless it is spelt out in massive letters upon or about your very person, who else knows the significance of the brand, its attitudes and ethics and why it speaks to you, why it defines you so perfectly. You must define yourself first, you special, unique, multifaceted, sentient being, you. The rest is just stuff.
