You Are What You Buy

Background and Context:

Ever since I had that reading binge on brands, marketing and identity last year I've been thinking about how all of these ideas fit together and about articulating it in my own way. I then abandoned the project for a bit because I was struggling with the ideas I wanted to express.

Then, once upon a time (I won't say when or who as to protect the person's identity because that is not fair), I was at the receiving end of an unkind comment from a fellow adult in which I was branded as someone with 'juvenile' tastes and the tone was definitely meant to be insulting. The water bottle I have in my backpack says my name and is decorated with Minnie Mouse print. I also own a coffee cup in the shape of Mickey Mouse and at work, I usually use a fluffy, weighted Hello Kitty pen. This made me very self-aware whereas most of the time, especially around teenagers, it has never been an issue -which I admit surprised me. To say the comment upset me is wrong, but it made me think about who this person thinks I am because of this. Also, what identity is being projected of me through these things?

You may recognise some of the reading in this article therefore relates back to the reading on consumerism and identity I did in 2024.

So, what do the brands we buy communicate about our identity? Let's take a look...

You Are What You Buy

On a busy high street, two people step into a coffee shop. One places a sleek iPhone on the table beside a reusable KeepCup, dressed in an understated but expensive wool coat. The other sets down a well-worn Android phone, their plastic takeaway cup bearing the bright green branding of a major coffee chain. Before they have spoken a word, assumptions are made: about their income, values, and even their personality. This everyday scenario illustrates a simple truth: what we buy, wear, and carry sends signals to those around us. Brands are more than just products; they act as markers of identity, status, and values, shaping the way we are perceived by others and, often, the way we see ourselves.

The relationship between branding and identity is deeply embedded in modern consumer culture. According to Rory Sutherland in Alchemy (2019), brands are powerful not because of their material function but because of the psychological value they create. A Rolex watch does not tell the time significantly better than a digital Casio, yet one is seen as a status symbol while the other is associated with practicality and affordability. The choices we make in branding often reflect our aspirations and self-image, rather than pure utility. Sutherland argues that much of branding’s success lies in its ability to create a sense of belonging and social signalling, rather than merely selling a product.

This phenomenon extends beyond luxury goods. Naomi Klein, in No Logo (2000), critiques the way branding infiltrates identity, arguing that brands do not just market products: they market lifestyles, aspirations, and ideologies. She highlights how companies such as Nike and Apple have built identities that transcend their products, encouraging consumers to see them as expressions of individuality and status. However, Klein also warns that this deep entanglement between selfhood and branding can be manipulative, with companies manufacturing desires and identities for profit.

This raises a key question: do brands shape our identity, or do we use them to project who we already are? On the one hand, branding can be seen as a form of personal storytelling, selecting products that align with our values and communicate aspects of our character. On the other, brands can create a powerful illusion, influencing consumers to adopt identities that may not be entirely their own. As we navigate a world saturated with logos and marketing messages, it is worth reflecting on whether we are shaping our brand choices or whether they are shaping us.

The Psychology of Branding and Identity

Branding is not just a commercial strategy; it is a psychological mechanism that influences how individuals express themselves, align with social groups, and aspire to certain ideals. Our relationship with brands extends beyond simple transactions, these affiliations shape our identities, reflect our values, and even mold our perceptions of self-worth. By examining self-expression, tribal identity, and aspirational branding through the lens of psychology and consumer culture, we can better understand why brand loyalty is such a powerful force.

People often choose brands that align with their self-image, reinforcing their identity and personal beliefs. Brian Boxer Wachler, in Influenced, discusses how cognitive biases and social influence affect decision-making, arguing that our attachment to brands is rarely rational. Instead, we associate certain brands with status, ethics, or individuality, and we subconsciously use them as markers of our identity. Luxury brands like Rolex and Gucci, for example, signal wealth and exclusivity, allowing consumers to project an image of affluence. Meanwhile, ethical brands like Patagonia and Tesla (to a degree) serve as symbols of environmental consciousness and social responsibility. Though since the writing of this article, Tesla's reputation has definitely turned sour.

Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff further critiques this phenomenon, highlighting how consumer culture fosters a dependency on material goods to define personal worth. Leonard argues that modern branding exploits deep-seated human desires for meaning and belonging, leading people to believe that their choice of product reflects their moral and social standing. This suggests that brand loyalty is not merely about preference but about constructing and maintaining a consistent self-concept.

Brand loyalty is not just an individual experience, it is also a social one. People use brands to signal membership in certain communities, creating what marketing experts call “brand tribes.” Rory Sutherland, in Alchemy, highlights how branding operates on the principles of behavioral economics, where people seek emotional gratification as much as practical utility. A prime example is the rivalry between Apple and Android users, where each side perceives their choice as part of a broader cultural identity: Apple enthusiasts value sleek design and exclusivity, while Android users often pride themselves on customisation and open-source accessibility.

This phenomenon extends to sports and fashion brands as well. Nike and Adidas both serve as more than just athletic wear companies; they cultivate loyal followings based on ideology and self-perception. Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign, for example, encourages a mindset of perseverance and ambition, while Adidas’ collaborations with designers and artists appeal to a more fashion-forward and creative audience. The choice between these brands can be seen as a reflection of an individual’s personal and group affiliations, reinforcing their place within a specific consumer tribe.

One of the most powerful aspects of branding is its ability to reflect not only who we are but who we aspire to be. Naomi Klein’s No Logo critiques this aspect of branding, arguing that corporations construct powerful aspirational images that make consumers believe their self-worth is tied to material possessions. Luxury brands thrive on this principle, selling an idea of success, beauty, or prestige that consumers hope to embody. The psychological appeal of aspirational branding is evident in industries ranging from fashion to automobiles, where brands sell an image as much as a product.

Sutherland, on the other hand, suggests in Alchemy that branding operates on a deeper psychological level, where emotional triggers matter more than logical decision-making. Consumers may not need an expensive watch or designer handbag, but the feeling of exclusivity and self-enhancement it provides justifies the purchase. This aspirational pull is particularly strong in influencer culture, where social media amplifies brand messages, making certain lifestyles appear more attainable than they truly are.

Social Perception and Stereotypes in Brand Judgement

Individuals are often judged based on the brands they wear, use, or associate with. Branding has evolved beyond its primary function of product identification; it now serves as a social signal that conveys personality traits, values, and even social status (Solomon et al., 2019). The clothes one wears, the car one drives, and even the coffee one drinks can shape how they are perceived by others. This paper explores the role of brand perception in social judgement and how stereotypes are formed based on brand associations.

One significant area where brand judgement is evident is in clothing and fashion. For instance, individuals who wear Patagonia are often perceived as eco-conscious, aligning with the brand's commitment to sustainability and environmental activism (Lindgreen et al., 2021). Conversely, carrying a luxury designer bag, such as a Louis Vuitton or Chanel, can signal affluence and social status (Berthon et al., 2009). This phenomenon reflects the symbolic meaning of brands, where material objects serve as extensions of identity (Belk, 1988). These judgements, however, are not always accurate and can reinforce social stereotypes.

The automobile industry offers another example of brand perception influencing social stereotypes. Volvo drivers, for example, are often viewed as safety-conscious due to the brand’s long-standing reputation for producing secure and reliable vehicles (Aaker, 1997). Meanwhile, Tesla owners are frequently associated with wealth, technological savviness, and environmental responsibility, reflecting the brand’s positioning at the intersection of luxury and sustainability - (whilst somewhat also being associated with political fascism) (Schulz et al., 2020). These perceptions influence not only how individuals view others but also how they wish to present themselves to the world either directly or indirectly.

Studies suggest that brand personality significantly impacts consumer perception. Aaker’s (1997) brand personality framework categorises brand traits into five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. These traits influence consumer expectations and judgements. For instance, Apple is perceived as innovative and sophisticated, while Nike embodies athleticism and motivation (Labrecque et al., 2011). Individuals who use these brands may, therefore, be stereotyped accordingly, regardless of their actual traits.

However, these perceptions can also reinforce social divisions and consumer stereotypes. The use of luxury brands as status symbols, for example, may contribute to perceptions of elitism, while budget brands can sometimes be associated with lower socio-economic status (Kervyn et al., 2012). Additionally, ethical consumerism has led to the rise of brands that signal moral values, such as fair trade and sustainability, which can shape both positive and negative social perceptions (White et al., 2012).

Brand perception plays a critical role in shaping social judgements and stereotypes. The association of brands with specific personality traits and social values means that individuals are often assessed based on their consumption choices. While this can serve as a tool for self-expression, it also risks reinforcing stereotypes that may not accurately reflect an individual's character or values.

The Role of Marketing in Shaping Identity

Marketing plays a crucial role in shaping consumer identity by strategically crafting brand narratives that appeal to specific demographics. Companies use branding not only to differentiate themselves from competitors but also to create an emotional connection with consumers. Through storytelling, advertising, and social media, brands cultivate identities that align with the values and aspirations of their target audiences (Aaker, 1997). This process influences not only purchasing decisions but also how consumers see themselves and wish to be perceived by others.

One of the most effective ways brands shape identity is through storytelling. Nike, for example, has built its brand around empowerment and perseverance, often featuring athletes overcoming adversity in its advertising campaigns. The company's "Just Do It" slogan reinforces a mindset of determination and self-improvement, appealing to consumers who see themselves as ambitious and resilient (Keller, 2003). Similarly, Apple has positioned itself as a brand for creativity and innovation, frequently showcasing artists, designers, and musicians who use its products. This branding strategy fosters a sense of exclusivity and individuality, attracting consumers who identify with a forward-thinking and artistic lifestyle (Holt, 2004).

Beyond traditional advertising, social media and influencer marketing have become powerful tools in reinforcing brand identity. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube enable brands to engage with consumers in a more personal and interactive manner. Influencers, who often have highly engaged followings, act as brand ambassadors, promoting products in ways that feel authentic and aspirational (Abidin, 2016). For example, high-end fashion brands collaborate with influencers who embody luxury and sophistication, reinforcing the brand’s elite image. Conversely, sustainable brands like Patagonia leverage influencers who advocate for environmental consciousness, aligning with the company’s ethical brand identity (Parguel et al., 2011).

Marketing strategies not only reflect but also shape societal values and consumer aspirations. Through targeted branding efforts, companies can cultivate a sense of belonging among consumers, making them feel that purchasing a particular product is an extension of their personality. However, this also raises ethical considerations, as brands may manipulate consumer perceptions or create unrealistic standards to drive sales (Kapferer, 2012). Understanding the role of marketing in identity formation allows consumers to make more informed choices and critically assess the narratives being presented to them.

The Flip Side: Can Branding Be Inauthentic?

Branding is often positioned as a means of self-expression, allowing consumers to align themselves with particular lifestyles, values, and identities. However, a critical perspective raises the question: are consumers genuinely expressing themselves, or are brands strategically manipulating their perceptions? The increasing awareness of corporate marketing tactics has led to a growing scepticism about the authenticity of brand messaging and a shift towards more conscious consumerism (Holt, 2002).

One response to concerns over branding inauthenticity is the rise of "brandless" movements. Minimalism, anti-consumerism, and sustainable fashion movements have gained popularity as consumers reject excessive branding and fast fashion in favour of quality, longevity, and ethical production (Fletcher, 2014). Companies such as Muji exemplify this trend by emphasising simple, unbranded designs that focus on functionality rather than logo-driven appeal. Similarly, the slow fashion movement encourages consumers to buy fewer, higher-quality items rather than succumb to the fast-changing trends promoted by mainstream brands (Gwilt, 2020). This shift suggests that while branding remains influential, an increasing number of consumers are actively resisting its more superficial aspects.

Ethical concerns further complicate the issue, particularly when brands exploit identity politics or social causes for profit. "Greenwashing" is a prime example of this manipulation (Parguel et al., 2011). For instance, fast fashion brands may launch "eco-friendly" clothing lines while continuing to engage in environmentally harmful production practices. Similarly, brands that capitalise on social justice movements without enacting meaningful change within their own corporate structures risk being accused of "woke-washing" (Vredenburg et al., 2020). Such tactics undermine the credibility of genuine activism and raise questions about whether brands are truly committed to ethical causes or merely using them as marketing tools.

Despite these concerns, branding remains an inescapable force in modern consumer culture. While some consumers reject overt branding, even "anti-brand" movements can be commodified, demonstrating the pervasive influence of marketing strategies (Banet-Weiser, 2012). The key question, then, is not whether branding is inherently inauthentic, but rather how consumers can develop the critical awareness necessary to navigate and challenge corporate narratives effectively. As marketing continues to evolve, the balance between authenticity and manipulation will remain a crucial area of debate.

Conclusion

In today’s consumer-driven world, brands are no longer just labels or products: they have become an essential part of how we express ourselves. They offer more than just function or necessity; they serve as a tool for crafting and communicating identity. Brands shape how we present ourselves to the world, tapping into our desires, aspirations, and even our values. However, this relationship is not one-sided. While we may believe we are choosing brands to align with our personal identity, in many ways, brands are the ones that shape our perceptions, influencing our behaviors, preferences, and even our self-concept.

The idea of identity is fluid, constantly evolving, and brands play a significant role in this ongoing process. We carefully select brands that resonate with our current sense of self, but those same brands often influence how we see ourselves and how we want others to see us. This dynamic raises an intriguing question: Are we curating our identity through the brands we choose, or are the brands curating us, shaping how we define ourselves and our place in the world?

As consumers, it’s important to pause and reflect on our brand choices. What do they truly represent? Are we consciously aligning ourselves with brands that authentically reflect who we are, or are we inadvertently letting brands define aspects of our identity that may not fully align with our deeper values? Take a moment to reconsider how your brand choices reflect your authentic self and whether they align with your true aspirations. The process of curating identity is a powerful one: who is really in control?

Works Cited:

• Aaker, J.L., (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), pp.347-356.
• Abidin, C., (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), pp.86-100.
• Banet-Weiser, S., (2012). Authentic: The politics of ambivalence in a brand culture. New York: NYU Press.
• Belk, R.W., (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), pp.139-168.
• Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M. and Berthon, J.P., (2009). Aesthetics and ephemerality: Observing and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review, 52 (1), pp.45-66.
• Boxer Wachler, B. (2023) Influenced: The Impact of Social Media on Our Perception. New York: BenBella Books.
• Fletcher, K., (2014). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys. London: Routledge.
• Gwilt, A., (2020). Fashion design for living. London: Bloomsbury.
• Holt, D.B., (2004). How brands become icons: The principles of cultural branding. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
• Holt, D.B., (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), pp.70-90.
• Kapferer, J.N., (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic thinking. London: Kogan Page.
• Keller, K.L., 2003. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Klein, N. (2000) No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. London: Flamingo.
• Kervyn, N., Fiske, S.T. and Malone, C., (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2), pp.166-176.
• Labrecque, L.I., Markos, E. and Milne, G.R., (2011). Online personal branding: Processes, challenges, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25 (1), pp.37-50.
• Leonard, A. (2010) The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, and Our Health – and a Vision for Change. New York: Free Press.
• Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J., Angell, R.J. and Memery, J., (2021). Sustainable brands: A sociological perspective. Journal of Business Research, 128, pp.579-586.
• Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F. and Larceneux, F., (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), pp.15-28.
• Schulz, M., Tönnies, D. and Weibel, M., (2020). The perception of Tesla: A brand personality analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(4), pp.491-507.
• Solomon, M.R., Dahl, D.W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J.L. and Polegato, R., (2019). Consumer behaviour: Buying, having, and being. 13th ed. Pearson.
• Sutherland, R. (2019) Alchemy: The Dark Art and Curious Science of Creating Magic in Brands, Business, and Life. London: William Collins.
• White, K., Habib, R. and Hardisty, D.J., (2012). How to shift consumer behaviours to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), pp.118-134.
• Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A. and Kemper, J.A., (2020). Woke washing: A brand activism checklist. Journal of Business Research, 122, pp. 675-684.