Not having name brand=social stigma by JAHARA

Not having name brand=social stigma by JAHARA - November 2013 Scholarship Essay

The ideals of consumerism being positive are a fallacy due to the unreachable expectations company advertisers establish. No one can become the next Michael Jordan by simply wearing Jordans nor does wearing Victoria Secret products or L’Oreal make up make you more of a woman. Companies are so hungry for consumer’s income that they are not even concerned about the lies they propel. Many citizens of society are susceptible to these companies. They are always waiting for the next new product or the next new trend to fashion. Some people of society scoff at those who do not own these commodities, enforcing peer pressure which could eventually lead to purchasing a product they never desired.

I was a poor kid growing up in the Taylor public school system. After my father died, my wardrobe increased with hand-me-downs rather than new clothing. My mother could no longer splurge on Calvin Klein or Baby Phat outfits for me. Kids at school started to express negative attention towards me because I did not dress like them. They would notice that I wasn’t wearing Nikes or Adidas, but rather Airwalks from Payless or Protégé from Kmart. Classmates conveyed contempt towards me. They ridiculed and purposefully asked me where I bought my clothes to make it known to everyone that it wasn’t from the mall or that it wasn’t name brand. No matter what I said it was always the wrong answer. If I lied and said I didn’t remember, they would look at me like I was a liar and, if I told them that I shopped at a grocery store rather than Hollister or Sears they would look at me with disapproval. Their lack of understanding and compassion for my circumstance angered me to the point where I became very secluded.

I would often ask myself questions like “In an academic environment, why did kids prefer to discuss clothing rather than grades and homework?” and “Why is name brand clothing so important?” The answer is Commercial advertising. The marketing company masterminds behind the strategy of convincing consumers that brand equals acceptance is what hindered my social advancements.

“No Logo” by Naomi Klein emphasizes that companies uphold to the law of diminishing returns, saying, “the more advertising there is out there (and there always is more, because of this law), the more aggressively brands must market to stand out.”(9) This rule allows advertisers to become increasingly intrusive while promoting a product. This aggressive behavior alters society’s perspective, encouraging the ideology of materialism. This is the reason my classmates discussed the new pair of Jordans being released to the public rather than the class subjects. They learned from television that materials were held on a higher pedestal than education. I guess you could say, students at my school were brainwashed to believe that ‘what you own’ was more important than ‘what you know’.

My classmates were thoroughly convinced that purchasing some object would make them cooler, more sexually attractive, or improve them in some other aspect. In the passage of “No Logo” it states, ‘At Diesel Jeans, owner Renzo Rosso told Paper magazine, “We don’t sell a product, we sell a style of life.”(23) Companies no longer only sell a product; they sell an idea and relate it to the product, so consumers will think that the product will create a certain standard of living. That’s why almost every commercial on television often has bright and vibrant environments with smiling people who are considered above the average standard of beauty. They are placed in the commercial to promote happiness and higher quality of living that the product supposedly brings after purchase. Some commercials, if not specifically promoting happiness, are using dark backgrounds to advertise the regality that the products create. Companies prey on the insecurity of consumers. Marketing advertisers assure consumers that they are not adequate unless they own their latest product. Media has made societies actually believe that a simple pair of Levi jeans can make someone more sexually attractive, more confident, and more stylish. A more practical person would say that a pair of generic jeans are mostly the same quality and are comparable to Levi; they would also say that if you are not confident with yourself expensive clothing won’t change that.

My experience from poverty and social stigma made me emotionally stronger and I now know how to handle peer and media pressure as well as have confidence in my body and not the materials I wear. Marketing advertisers have engraved our society by “becoming cultural accessories and lifestyle philosophers.”(16) Since advertisers dictate what is acceptable, quality is no longer the company’s first priority when branding is what really is in stake.