Is Brand avoidance anti-Brand?

Brand avoidance supposedly is a phenomenon where consumers choose to stay away from established brands, to move to a 'local' establishment even if the 'movement' means a rise in price. Its so done as consumers are beginning to 'worry about the larger social and economic impact of brands'.

Does that mean we are seeing the beginning to the end of brand domination? This should have Naomi Klein delirious with joy. But I say, bunkum. Consumers don't care for anything other than themselves. The supreme quest for any consumer is to maximise personal payoffs through acts of consumption. And just so you know, there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, its their love for themselves that's good for society in general, because it propels consumption. Consumers spend, so they can better themselves, in turn generating income for others to spend.

Consumers moving to 'local' shouldn't be looked at as an anti-brand act. Instead it should seen as a lesson to brands that their duplication of a standardised format breeds fatigue. It makes consumers seem as if they are part of a faceless, nameless herd that tramps into such formats. It seems to them as if there's a loss of identity.

The cycle of brand to non-brand to brand is only to be expected. Right now in the US, its brand to non-brand. In developed countries, brands have hit the 'fatigue' wall. Not so in developing countries where brands are making their entry. The 'move' in such places is non-brand to brand. Brands are sought. Non-brands are abandoned.

Its like what's happening to malls. In the US, they're kickin' the bucket, in India, that's where everyone is.


Popular Posts