Why people buy luxury brands - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1075784
At some point in your adult life, you realise you've sacrificed most of your personality in the name of economic considerations.

It's at this point in your lifestyle-and-career that you begin to need inanimate objects that seem to have "a personality" - just the thing you lost over the course of your Consumerist "life."

So I posit that the "need" for BMW, Prada, Disney and Haagen Dazz is created by people who've lost their soul in Consumerism, and are aggressively trying to buy it back.

Sadly, I've never seen this succeed in satifactorily replacing the real personality that a consumer drone lost in himself. You can't buy back a lost soul. You can only stop being distracted and wait as it patiently grows back.
User avatar
By Sandzaklija
#1100847
So I posit that the "need" for BMW, Prada, Disney and Haagen Dazz is created by people who've lost their soul in Consumerism, and are aggressively trying to buy it back.



I did not lost my soul.


I buy brands because they have a better quality and design, but this does not justify why a Dolce & Gabbana T-Shirt is 10 times more expensive then a common. The more important reason is showing that you can afford it.
User avatar
By Mikolaj
#1100927
I never like to buy brand names....unless the quality is indeed better and important for such a product...I hate wearing cloths with loggos or people on them. A) you become a giant ad, and B) people keep coming up to you and won't shut up if it's a certain person on your shirt.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1100993
Veblen wants his thread back.


Veblen's never posted here, Max.

And one of his grandsons was banned for posting hardcore pornography.

Nonetheless, you can download his "Theory of the Leisure Class" right here.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1101005
A BMW costs about ten times more.

You have to work ten times more hours to get one.

So the Kia is the better deal, and the BMW is a waste of life.

Like buying a gold-plated, ruby-encrusted 60,000-euro broom. For your self-esteem.

Neither a Kia nor a BMW have a personality. Any more than a broom does.
User avatar
By Eauz
#1101141
Fetishism
User avatar
By Ideational Ontarian
#1101488
Your wexplinations are beyond retarded. The BMW has much better performance which makes it much more enjoyable to drive. It has superior styling so it looks great inside and out. The parts used in its assembly are much better and will last longer. It probably has better safety features like side impact airbags and sturdy roll cages. In the end, it all depends on the product your shopping for and what funds you have available. If you have the money then there are clear benefits to driving a BMW so there is no reason to get a Kia. If you are just getting on your feet, the Kia will get you from A to B.

So really, this has nothing to do with personality and everything to do with economics. A person weighs the benefits against the costs and then makes a decision. You should take Intro to Microeconomics at your school.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1101499
IO wrote:The BMW has much better performance which makes it much more enjoyable to drive.


Image

Yes, I see what you mean. The BMW-drivers in this pic seem to be having a much more enjoyable life then the people who aren't working overtime to buy one.
User avatar
By Ideational Ontarian
#1101534
Again, that is a retarded argument, if you can even call it one. Even in this picture, the people who are driving luxury cars are probably more comfortable with leather seating and air conditioning as well as more entertained with features like satellite radio and CD changers. Anyway, depending on where you live you are not usually stuck in huge traffic jams.

For many people, their cars are more about a recreational interest rather that a means of transportation.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1101542
IO wrote:For many people, their cars are more about a recreational interest rather that a means of transportation.


And yet most of us spend a quarter of our waken lives driving one, parking one, or paying for it.

Hard to believe humanity is willing to sacrifice his FREE TIME in order to buy the "luxury" of spending time listening to CDs in traffic. It may be true that leather is more "luxurious" than cloth upholstery, but it's also true that free time is far more important to anyone's happiness than leather upholstery.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1101557
You make a good point Quatz. But there are other reasons why people choose brand products. Notably indocrination, peer pressure and most importantly an expectation for good quality. You are right about the BMW (besided BMW are overrated, degenerate even) and all but you also mentioned Hagen Dahz. Most people don't eat a hagen dahz ice-cream because it compensates for something but because it tastes abso-fucking-lutely delicious. Thus the reputation of quality is an important factor. Some young people try buying brand goods because "all the other cool kids are buying them." Other than that, most of us are indoctrinated to think that consumerism is good and the status of certain brands have acquired a taken-for-granted status. For example, my grandmother has been telling me that olive oil of brand "x" is the best one on the basis that it tastes better and it has nice consistency. I've been hearing this for ages and so I am inclined to buy olive oil of brand x.
By Cata
#1101564
I spent almost 2000 dollars on a trombone. I did this because of the f attachments, the overtones, and various other things that improve the sound.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, except some people actually like their jobs, such as many a scientist who will work overtime merely because they feel they're on the verge of a discovery, a discovery which might not even have an immediate practical implication! Some people also don't like free time- they prefer to be busy. Maybe they lost their soul or whatever but maybe they're just different. It's hard to tell when you're not them.

Just putting some more thoughts out.
User avatar
By Ideational Ontarian
#1101576
That still doesn't make sense. I don't imagine that a poor man is working overtime to save up the $50,000 to buy a BMW. These luxury car companies market to the upper middle class and the very rich because these people don't necessarily have to work overtime to afford one.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1101675
These luxury car companies market to the upper middle class and the very rich because these people don't necessarily have to work overtime to afford one.


But there are other reasons why people choose brand products. Notably indocrination, peer pressure and most importantly an expectation for good quality.


All of this is marketing. Not satisfaction of any craving that people just naturally have. I'm sure caveman didn't sit around pining for the day they could tear around corners at 120 kmh. They were just happy being able to eat food, and live out of water.

Image

We're so much more sophisticated than that now because of our sudden attraction to brands and machine pedigree.
By Cata
#1101726
Where are you getting that cave men were happy? They lived in pre slavery conditions, and as such were worst off on average than slaves in a slave based economy, peasants in a feudal economy, or proletariat in a capitalist economy.

Also, I don't think so much focus should be put on BMW as a brand. People save up to buy one of the most offensive cars they can buy quite often, whether they be lower middle class or upper middle class.

'Course lower class often settles with a moped. There's utility for you. If you get in a wreck you're not doing so good though.
By cocard
#1111381
I'm attracted to brand names because they've usually established a reputation for selling high quality products.

I'm one of those persons that will wear the hell out of stuff before I even consider getting rid of it, and in my experience the bigger brand name clothing usually lasts longer, which means less trips to clothing stores.

But I won't buy anything that has huge logos on them, like that new series of clothing that Ralph Lauren just released (like any of you would know or care about that). They've taken their little "pony" logo and made it like a thousand times larger. It's pretty dumb.

I don't drive a car because I'm fine with public transportation, but I can understand why people would choose to spend more money on a BMW instead of getting a Kia. Reliability is a huge factor when it comes to automobiles, and then you have to think about the durability of the parts that are used to make the car. If there's no difference, go with the cheaper option, but that's usually not that case.
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1111437
Unfortunately Q. You are absolutely wrong in the most profound way. And it's not even your fault for being wrong. Let me explain.

First, What is social status?
Now why is social status important in the context of this thread? Social status is important because it has been the primary method of selecting our mate(s) for millions of years. Yes, millions. Primates seek social status in different ways but they use it the same as we do; for procreative advantage over our competition. And even species more primal than the primates convert advantages in social standing into procreative advantages. From the very first animal that learned to dominate socially instead of eating it's competition, social life on Earth has been primariliy focused upon the securement of procreation.

Indeed, when we 'win' in competition, our brains release endorphins and adrenalin and increase production of testosterone. Our thinking literally becomes clearer and our body literally feels more energy; more drive. Winning in competition actually increases our future chances of winning. Losing also has the opposite effect. It's been shown to supress the immune system and to decrease testosterone and to release dopamines (chemically similar to morphine). Losing literally clouds one's thinking, dulls the sences, and makes one more suseptible to disease. But the energy saved from this sequence of events helps the person to survive long periods of starvation that was so commonly associated with losing competition that we've adapted for it. This is important because this also explains why the wealthy seek out status symbols, why the successful seek out ever greater success, and why the poor also tend to lack judgement, suffer from health and mental problems, lack ambition, etc..

When we were swinging in the trees, there is no question that the accumulation of fruit and other foods was desirable because we could then share them. Essentially trading gathered items for social status. Which improved procreative chances.
When we were hunting with sticks, there is no question that the successful hunt was desirable for the individual as he could then trade it for social status. Which impproved procreative chances.
As we became more sophisticated ourselves, we merely added sophistication to that basic theme; the accumulation and trading of material wealth for social status.
And it all boils down to our drive to procreate.
Why do you think luxury items in general are considered something of an aphrodisiac? Why do you think companies spend millions in an attempt to associate their product with sex? It's all just plugging into the drive to procreate through social status.

Whether it be teenagers buying the best duds they can afford or 60+ year old men arriving at the resturant in a rolls royce; it's all about social status increasing one's procreative chances.

Buying that BMW or Mercedes over the Kia is actually acceding to one of our most primal urges. Therein lies the problem with judging it badly; in fact in judging it at all. By doing so, you judge human nature as bad. Is it the mouses fault that it likes cheese? Is the drive to procreate the animals fault? Is it Mans fault he has a drive to procreate? Certainly not.

We are simply not advanced enough to toss aside and ignore our animal urges for very long. They've been with us for millions of years. One cannot expect us to just shrug them off in a mere few thousand. I don't know if we'll ever be that advanced. If we were to merely suppress them, I'm sure you know enough of phychology to know that supressed urges come out in unexpected and often very destructive ways. And we're talking about the one that is most primal; powerful. And the one most embedded into our genetic code of all.

The modern manifestations of our most primal urge to compete for social status may be redirected into another form, but you cannot simply abolish it any more than you can abolish the urge to procreate itself.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1111600
Now why is social status important in the context of this thread? Social status is important because it has been the primary method of selecting our mate(s) for millions of years.


Social status may be determined in many ways.

In consumer society, it is marked by an accumulation of objects that have been "branded" as having some relationship to reproduction.

This is how our instincts have been perverted by media.

You haven't really argued against the OP so much as provided a way of understanding the mechanics of how the Consumer loses his own way of creating "status" with himself (his character) and is forced to buy "status" (a character) from well-advertised manufacturers of "status."

Your "critique" of my original premise actually confirms its validity.

So, this was the 15 millionth post on PoFo. And[…]

@Hindsite , Jeeeez, what isn't "wonderful&qu[…]

@Stardust , The given diagrams look like an autis[…]

Racism

https://gcs.thesouthafrican.com/2016/[…]