does anybody else get new rich / old money vibes being delineated by luxury brands.
like, if you're a product manufacturer and your goal is to cake up as high as possible, you make your product and branding aimed at poor people or more likely "frugal" people / the everyman. you will never run out of people hoping to save a buck, especially when there's an economic downturn.
but luxury branding is all about exclusivity. never mind that the material and labor costs of the t-shirt or tie are only negligibly different between brands, and often the same conglomerate owns both brands and their supply chains. the identity of the luxury brand consumer is not just conspicuous, it's whatever other signaling (conscientious, refined, smart, cultured) that can be shoehorned in to elevate one as something above the rabble in some way besides the ability to pay (or, more likely, finance) 300-3000% more for something like a belt, a car, or a laptop.
but enough about the branding for consumers, the new rich/old money vibes i'm talking more about are for the actual brand owner. like the corporate workers of Yves St. Laurent or BMW compared to Walmart or Toyota. like it's less crass or exploitative to be a bullshit exec or heir of a luxury brand than it is an economy one. is it because there is more prestige to a luxury brand.... or are they just more talented at hoodwinking their clients and giving off the vibe is part of the grift?
practically speaking (straight up exchanging my labor time for money), i'd rather be an exec at walmart than like LV or whatever even if the pay, benefits and general office culture were equivalent.
does anybody else get new rich / old money vibes being delineated by luxury brands.
like, if you're a product manufacturer and your goal is to cake up as high as possible, you make your product and branding aimed at poor people or more likely "frugal" people / the everyman. you will never run out of people hoping to save a buck, especially when there's an economic downturn.
but luxury branding is all about exclusivity. never mind that the material and labor costs of the t-shirt or tie are only negligibly different between brands, and often the same conglomerate owns both brands and their supply chains. the identity of the luxury brand consumer is not just conspicuous, it's whatever other signaling (conscientious, refined, smart, cultured) that can be shoehorned in to elevate one as something above the rabble in some way besides the ability to pay (or, more likely, finance) 300-3000% more for something like a belt, a car, or a laptop.
but enough about the branding for consumers, the new rich/old money vibes i'm talking more about are for the actual brand owner. like the corporate workers of Yves St. Laurent or BMW compared to Walmart or Toyota. like it's less crass or exploitative to be a bullshit exec or heir of a luxury brand than it is an economy one. is it because there is more prestige to a luxury brand.... or are they just more talented at hoodwinking their clients and giving off the vibe is part of the grift?
practically speaking (straight up exchanging my labor time for money), i'd rather be an exec at walmart than like LV or whatever even if the pay, benefits and general office culture were equivalent.
Because the people who run capitalism also aren't good at it.