Why do we love brands so much?

A few weeks ago, Paris and Milan were talking about the rhythmic pace of the models as their men's “ Fashion Weeks ” continued.

Dolce&Gabbana, Prada and Hermès presented their clothing proposals for the coming fall and winter , under the watchful eye of industry professionals and the specialized press. Those first concerned – these gentlemen – were undoubtedly a little more distracted.

However, if the first person might have some difficulty in saying with which famous shoe manufacturer Christian Dior has partnered on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the House, there is no doubt that this prestigious name is not foreign to him.

In the same way, he may be unaware of the premature death of Virgil Abloh, artistic director of Louis Vuitton Homme from 2018 to 2021, but will he be able to recognize the brand's emblematic monogram and will he even be able to covet an accessory displaying it in front of everyone.

The concept of “ brand ”, in the sense we understand it today, is relatively recent. It succeeded the older “Maison”, which is often still preferred because it is more noble in its consonance.

Unlike a brand, a house is closely linked to an emblematic figure or a family ensuring the transmission of know-how and values. In the 19th century, the burgeoning fashion press advertised artisans patented by a particular court or royal highness, while publishing engravings praising their inventiveness.

All the names mentioned could be associated with a living person renowned for his talents, such as Humann, famous tailor of Balzac's contemporaries. The brand, as it emerged in the 20th century, only lives artificially, independently of its creators.

This is what distinguished, for example, in the 1920s, Cifonelli by Bayard . This in itself also differentiates the Maison Louis Vuitton of the Louis Vuitton brand, now belonging, like dozens of others, to the LVMH group.

We often know little about these brands, their history, those who bring them to life, but their products are objects of covet throughout the world. Some are willing to spend irrational amounts of money in order to adorn themselves with it.

To understand how the logo of an Italian house can make it acceptable to pay more than 400 euros for a pair of recycled plastic “slippers”, we must look at the nature of human beings, their relationships with themselves and to others. Concerning the latter, clothing is far from having the last role.

Originally invested with a functional value, covering and protecting the body, it also has an identity value. According to the sociologist Frédéric Godart, "the first principle of fashion is the principle of affirmation , through which individuals and social groups imitate and distinguish themselves by using signals, sartorial or associated": after the crown of kings and the miter of the bishops, the marks and their logos are perhaps the most obvious.

In 2008, Michel Chevalier and Gérald Mazzalovo recalled that the Greek origin of this word, "logos", translates as "discourse, word" and that man has always used symbols to communicate, mathematics to the highway code.

In 1890, in a seminal work, The Laws of Imitation , Gabriel Tarde explained that these govern "a collection of beings insofar as they are in the process of imitating each other or as, without s "to imitate currently, they look alike and that their common features are ancient copies of the same model".

This was true in his time and still is true today. Clothing is, from a very young age, a vector of assimilation naturally desired by man. Our memories of primary and secondary school are often full of examples of a particular pair of sports shoes coveted to be like the others, of a particular brand of clothing ensuring that we look “cool” at school.

This principle of imitating to be assimilated continues into adulthood and brands have understood this well. They try to take advantage of it, with the help of the millions they invest in marketing, as Calvin Klein did so well for example, who transformed a simple boxer brief into an object of desire.

Their advertisements, the founding myths with which they surround themselves and the values ​​they display, encourage us to try to get closer, with the help of their products, to a “life scenario” presented as the goal to achieve, both by them and by our subconscious.

This concept, developed by Éric Sommier in his Essay on Fashion in Contemporary Societies , explains how all human action, and particularly that of dressing, aims to conform to a model of life, and to signify this identity choice. to others.

One of the oldest, and undoubtedly the most classic, is the BCBG – Bon Chic Bon Genre life scenario. Some Houses have been using it for a long time, like Hermès and Burberry. They claim to clothe all those who have a traditional approach to the notion of good taste and luxury.

The brand identifies the individual and classifies him. Moreover, it is not insignificant that, as Eric Sommier also noted, the English translation of this word, "brand", comes from the French "brandon" designating a red-hot iron used to mark livestock and distinguish animals. animals of one herd from those of another.

If human beings seek to assimilate into a group, it is to become closer to those of whom they consider, or would like, to be equal. Gabriel Tarde explains in fact that it is “the individual judged superior” who “is copied in everything”. Here again, the brands have understood this perfectly, surrounding themselves with the models of our time who they make their muses.

If in the 19th century we copied people of the world, like the Count of Orsay or Edward VII, it is now towards the stars of cinema, sport and more recently social networks that our eyes are turned and, consequently , the checkbooks of major brands.

They constantly bombard us with images, encouraging us to emote “Sauvage” by Christian Dior, like Johnny Depp, to be as sexy in Calvin Klein boxers as Mark Wahlberg and Justin Bieber. Worn by those we admire, the brands are desirable.

As Frédéric Monneyron explains well in his Sociology of Fashion , “the constitution of any object whatsoever as a model is never really a function of the importance of its initial audience but, quite the contrary, of the superiority attributed in the domain in question to the one who owns it.

If we imitate the being judged superior, it is above all to distinguish ourselves from the one we consider inferior. As Roland Barthes very rightly observed, historically “it is certain that clothing had the function of displaying, manifesting, signaling differences in status, condition, profession, in short, differences in social class ".

Frequently changing clothes allowed this in the 19th century. Adorning oneself with luxury brands – or even their counterfeit avatars – contributes to this today. From this angle, these can be linked to another concept, developed by the American economist Thorstein Veblen: that of “conspicuous waste”, which can be translated as “conspicuous waste”.

It manifests itself in the superfluity with which we surround a necessary object, with this added value for which we are prepared to pay much more than the simple use value. The Italian plastic “clapboard” we talked about above is a good illustration of this. In itself it is not worth much, having mobilized neither particular know-how nor precious materials. It is only its origin, indicated by a logo, which justifies the exorbitant price.

Buying it is a source of immediate pleasure, that of treating yourself to an exceptional superfluity, followed by the satisfaction of finding yourself better than others each time you wear them.

In the 19th century the aristocracy, the elite of its time, had outstripped the “upstarts”, capable of greater ostentatious waste than itself, by making simplicity the best distinction.

It de facto placed this less in appearance (clothing) than in essence (manners) which, unlike the first, cannot be converted into cash. In our time, sobriety has lost its power of distinction among the general public because new fortunes, no longer coming from industry and commerce but from reality TV and sports fields, have succeeded where those of yesterday had. failed: take the place of the traditional elites.

These solicited the great Houses for their know-how; the former turn to brands for the prestige of their name. Now considered superior, it is their taste and their relationship to luxury that is imitated. If they spend crazy amounts of money in their stores, it is of course with the aim of wasting with enough ostentation to consolidate their position.

Nevertheless, similar in every way to the mass from which they have just emerged, their demand for distinction is all the stronger and a blatant break between luxury clothing and others only appears more necessary.

This explains why most of the big names in fashion include their name, monogram and logo on just about everything they can sell. In our time, experienced more and more through the eyes of others, wearing a brand is no longer enough: you have to show it off.