Prestige Brands

I noticed someone using the word “prestige” in the context of brands.  It was a memory slip, I’m certain, as she was referring to the level of quality between standard and luxury brands, which is more commonly referred to as “premium,” but the use of the word “prestige” was interesting in its implications.

Prestige is usually in reference to a person or an institution, not a product or a brand, but as brands are often spoken of as if they had a personality or were synonymous to a company, it’s not so farfetched to consider a brand to be prestigious.   Prestige implies respect and admiration felt for someone on the basis of our perception of their characteristics or accomplishments.

We feel respect for brands for the very same reasons.   But it seems to me that respect and admiration are independent of their categorization: premium and luxury products have significant prestige, but a standard or economy product may be prestigious when we feel some degree of respect for the accomplishments of firms that produce mass-marketed goods.  Ford, Microsoft, Walmart, and Coca-Cola are all brands that have prestige, but do not fall into the premium or luxury categories.

In practice, prestige confers a kind of domination: we defer to prestigious people and institutions without question because we presume that they have merit, simply because they are prestigious.   A brand’s prestige may have the same effect: once it has become “the leading brand” in its category or gains a significant reputation, consumers no longer consider its merit through any deliberate process, but simply assume that it has prestigious qualities.

But on the other hand, prestige also relies upon distance.   We are more likely to have admiration and respect for legendary people whom we have never met, whether they are remote to us in distance or in time.  A person, after their death, often accrues greater prestige than they ever had in life.  And celebrated persons are often more greatly admired from a distance than by the people with whom they interact regularly.   The more intimately you know someone, the more familiar you are with their flaws, and the less you are likely to idolize them.

That’s not to say that familiarity always breeds contempt, but merely that it dispels the romantic notions we may hold.  It is very often so when the “real” person fails to measure up to the legend that has granted them prestige.  And again, the same may be said of brands: we admire a brand because others seem to admire it – but when we purchase the product we may find that it does not live up to the expectations that were set.

Perhaps a better way to distinguish this is considering the assumed versus earned prestige of a brand.   Before a consumer uses a brand, he assumes it has a level of prestige - this is belief without proof.  After he has used it, the brand may have earned prestige through his experience.   And more to the point, a brand must meet expectations in order to maintain its prestige.   When the brand falls short of expectations, it loses prestige.

There’s also the relationship, in conspicuous consumption, between brand and user: we believe a person who has prestigious brands has earned them, or believe that we can be perceived as better than we are by associating ourselves to prestigious brands.

In all, this has been a meandering post, jotting down some early thoughts and impressions about the notion of prestige as it applies to brand.   I’ll likely write something a bit more focused when I have it better sorted out.