Meaningful Objects or Costly Symbols? A Veblenian Approach to Brands

Abstract

Long before the emergence of the modern brand economy, Thorstein Veblen elaborated an economic theory centered on symbolic entities. Based on his thought, this article pursues a view of the brand which escapes both sociological and economic approaches to the phenomenon. Views of the brand as a meaningful object and of the trademark as a signal of product quality omit the simple possibility that the brand, to some extent, is a symbol turned into a commodity. The article develops this possibility using Veblen’s economic theory of display, which can be read as revolving around the notion of a ‘costly symbol’. Things which necessitate waste, and thus materially attest to wealth, enter Veblen’s economy of display insofar as they become valued for their own sake. His theory thus foretells the basic transformation that characterizes the emergence of modern brand economy, where symbols which ostensibly qualified commodities became by themselves economic objects.

Seduced by “fakes”: Producing the excessive interplay of authentic/counterfeit from a Baudrillardian perspective

“…Thus, conspicuous consumption plays on significations of excess, involving certain degrees of wastefulness that would conventionally be deemed indecent. These signs can radiate status and prestige, and as such they are indeed “costly symbols” (Yuran, 2016) that show one’s ability to squander market value.…”

“…(Baudrillard, 1981: 63–64)What we therefore have is a system of signs in free play and, in terms of markets, only “a theory of the [culturally bound] ideological concept of need would make any sense” (p. 79). The signs of the dominant market order, brands, prestige, and social status are not superimposed upon a market actuality, but rather upon the very system of signification that produces the desiring relations in the commodity market itself (also Grandy and Mills, 2004; Yuran, 2016). This is the “code” of consumption as an endless array of produced signifiers such as brands and prestige; simultaneously something that all consumers have to follow to achieve status and avoid social ostracism, but also a commonly shared secret that only becomes visible in its constant performative production in social settings embedded in consumption (Cherrier and Murray, 2004).…”

“…While eclectic and playful, these signs must firmly comply with this system of signification where every brand assumes a generally understood monetary value. If there is no spectacle of the ability to destroy economic value in consumer markets of commodified offerings, then neither is there the means of creating signs of social distinction nor “objects carrying costly symbols” (Yuran, 2016: 3). Where else would this be truer than in branded luxury where goods afford consumers all these opportunities through the high visibility of the brand itself.…”

Paradox and market renewal

“…Elite consumers, in turn, try to find new ways to distinguish themselves from the general populace. While Veblen theorized long before the advent of the modern brand economy, his description of meaningful objects still applies to contemporary 'costly symbols' to a great extent (Yuran, 2016), and what he generally saw as the cyclical social process of luxury still drives the renewal of the luxury markets today.…”

“…To add to this extant work, we ground our argument in how conspicuous consumption of luxurious products revolve around a) the creation of new styles for elite consumers, and b) the efforts of the aspirational 'masses' to emulate them for status and symbolic meaning. This can be understood as a process of signaling wealth and status with the goal of moving upwards on the social ladder (Barnett, 2005) that over time both creates and destroys distinction (see Yuran, 2016). In the following, we analyze how the doppelgänger brand images contribute both to the emergence of new luxury goods targeted at elite consumers and to the diffusion of luxury to the masses in the context of luxury fashion and loud luxury.…”