Branded by Labels - How do Brand Names Limit/Dictate Personal Expression?

Philosophers like to create arguments, so here's mine:

• Brand names provide a limited amount of clothing styles.
• People who buy brand names are limited to only the styles the brands offer.
• People have a limited amount of personal expression when wearing brand names. 

      
         When people wear brand names, they know that the brand pertains to a limited amount of styles. For example, Victoria Secrets "Pink" collection includes only the styles of T-shirts, sweatpants, yoga pants, and sweatshirts, all which don the "Pink" logo. If a person is a die-hard

"Pink" fan, then she can expect to have a very limited fashion. Yet, why do people limit themselves fashionably when it comes to brand names? Do they put the value of brand names above the value of expressing who they truly are? Researchers, like Jennifer L. Aaker, debate if fashion is even an accurate indicator of a person's identity, but no matter what, it is an indicator to some extent. Even journalists, like Karl Leif Bates, have gone as far as to link brand loyalty to religious loyalty. I argue that brand names limit people's ability to express themselves because it's more about the label than the actual person wearing it.

        It's been a long-term debate in the field of psychology as to whether or not personality traits are static or dynamic. In Aaker's study, The Malleable-Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion, she focuses on the basic argument that "attitude objects," like brands, can be associated with people's personality traits. Up until her study, much of consumer behavior research focused only on the role of brand attributes and the utilitarian function of consumer attitudes. It has been thought, though, that a consistency of attitude would indicate the type of brand a person chooses, because despite different environments, these attitudes (and consequently brands) would remain constant. Yet, the current study argues that the self is

malleable, or "working" (Aaker, 1997). However, it doesn't completely disregard the idea of there being consistency in personality traits; instead, it explores how the self is regarded as relatively stable, while also being malleable depending upon situational factors (Aaker, 1997). With this being said, the study feels that when "self congruity" and "situation congruity" are observed together, then they may capture the influence of brand personality on consumer attitudes (Aaker, 1997). What the study found was that the self is in fact malleable and that the self-expressive use of brands varies according to different situations. So, what on earth does this study have to do with brand names limiting people's self-expression?
  

         What this study proves is that people should not be bogged-down by one single brand! Sure, having a favorite brand is nice, almost comforting even. However, different situations call for different brands; maybe even ones that don't need to be written across your chest. You may have a

core set of beliefs in which you live by, but these beliefs do not have to be invested in one brand; you're allowed to change (both literally and figuratively)! Who says you need to wear a pair of True Religion jeans to paint a room? Sure, they may be expensive, fashionable, and your favorite brand, but are they functional for the situation? Probably not...so throw on some old Levis and call it a day! When the study refers to self congruity and situation congruity as two concepts being observed together, what it means is that someone's personality matches a certain situation. Congruence literally means, "agreement or harmony" (dictionary.com), so when broken apart, the terms can be thought of as "self agreement" and "situation agreement." Does your self match with the situation? Often times, brands can be used to help match a self to a situation, and because there is an infinite number of situations, there needs to be numerous brands to go along with certain instances. In short, don't expect one brand to be your end-all-be-all; leave room to explore and express yourself! Don't let one brand become your "true religion."

     
       In the article, Brand Loyalty: An Expression of Self-Worth, Just Like Religion, Bates focuses on how people's devotion to brands can be compared to people's devotion to religion. According to a study conducted by Duke University, "...visible markers of commercial brands are a form of self-expression and a token of self-worth, just like a symbolic expression of one's faith" (Bates, 2010). It's kind of difficult to equate loyalty to a brand name to religious devotion; I mean one's materialistic and the other is spiritual, so clearly the latter should have more meaning, right? Yet, if you delve deeper into the actual psyche of the matter, these two types of devotions aren't so different.

Both loyalties indicate a degree of self-worth as well as communicate the message that, "I'm a good person and I'm worth it" (Bates, 2010). When a person has strong faith, he feels like he belongs to a higher power that ultimately makes him a better person. The same idea applies to a person who has faith in brand names - he also belongs to a higher power, deemed "fashion," that makes him a better person because he feels like he looks better. Yet, why should one brand hold so much power over someone? I guess the same could be said for religion, but that's an entirely different matter. A person should feel like he is "worth it" despite the label he wears. Don't get me wrong, certain shirts definitely make me feel better about my appearance because they fit me just right, but I don't let those shirts dictate my self-worth. Brands are merely a name, and names can be changed, ignored, and even erased; but a person's self-value can't.

     
       Through the research, it can be concluded that brand names certainly play a role in people's 

self-expression and overall identity for various reasons. However, the research also indicates that

there is much more to a person's identity than a brand. People have many different identities and should feel like they have the freedom to express all of these identities through fashion and other means. It is important to acknowledge the person wearing the brand name, rather than the name itself, and when people are able to do this, I feel that the importance placed on brand names will decrease drastically. 

 

Ethical Questions:

• If brands are merely names, then why do people give them so much power? Why do they let them dictate what kind of person they are?
• Do you feel like it is accurate to deem the self as "malleable?" Or do you feel like you are consistently the same person despite the situation?
• If the establishment of brands was abolished, do you think people would use clothes to the degree that they do to express who they are? Or, do you think they would find other means to communicate self-expression?

Works Referenced/Cited

• Aaker, Jennifer L. "The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion." Journal of Marketing Research XXXVI (1999): 45-57. Web.
•  Bates, Karl L. "Brand Loyalty: An Expression of Self-Worth, Just Like Religion." Today Duke 28 Sept. 2010: n. pag. Web.