And yet tons of people do buy brand. Specifically to show it off. "Look at me! I'm rich! See, I'm wearing LV pants, Jimmy Choo shoes, I've got tUMI luggage, a Rolex watch, and a Prada bag.
Any better than 1000s of < $100 bags? It's not more durable. It's not going to last longer. It's not going to carry more or less stuff. You can find 100s of not 1000s of bags who if you slapped a Prada tag on would be considered just as stylish (meaning if you did a double blind test and either put the logo on both or removed it from both, no one would tell which was which)
> It's perfectly healthy to use brand as a heuristic to help yourself more easily buy products that work well.
Sure, though I know lots of people that assume expensive = quality and confuse that with expensive brand = quality. It doesn't. The chintziest items I've owned have been expensive "high end" brands. That's not to say all expensive brands are bad. Only that expensive well known brand only means they're good at marketing. It does not mean their product are quality. They might be, they might not.
The article doesn't have anything to do with brands as individual concepts or its idea as a quality or status marker. The article is a reflection on how different working in an industry that competes primarily on brand differs from industries with firms that build their brand based on a multitude of factors extrinsic to brand image itself.
> One obvious lesson is to stay away from brand. Indeed it's probably a good idea not just to avoid buying brand, but to avoid selling it too.