Consumerism And The Surge of Luxury Brands In Greece -- A Thing Of The Past?

 Attending various to-do's, bashes, and even official occasions in Greece, I noticed that all (within experimental limits of error) of the indigenous population always sported at least one piece of garment from a luxury brand.

I wondered at this near-religious propensity...

Many fast-moving mass consumption products here -- but there's also Rolls et alia. You get the drift.

I put aside the obvious reasons: upmarket branded apparel & accessories are well made; more often than not they are original, look good, and are always very -- or outrageously -- expensive. That is to say, one can easily acquire other items that do the same job for much less -- minus the logo, of course.

So, I focused on the logo.
In and of itself, the logo alone did not furnish sufficient explanation for the "rite of the brand". Humongous sales at every social nook & cranny: I was assured that a few years ago, every woman, girl, and her aunt, had a DK or two in her wardrobe, including those living in the remotest villages in Crete.

Could it be a matter of taste -- but then again that point of view did not wash; Not only is it a fact that contemporary Greeks are far from being stalwart proponents of elegance and refinement, it is also a fact that the fastidious choice in stentorianbranded excellence did not extend to other items and habits including, at times, personal hygiene.

And then I hit upon it -- or a friend did and I followed.
He said, people buy XYZ because they they do not like who they are and wish to be like someone else. That someone is wearing a BurbXYZ coat; ergo, by donning one of same, I become identical to said someone.

Existential problem, solved.

This viewpoint not only adequately explains the phenomenon, it also provides invaluable insight into contemporary Greek psyche. "With a label I am someone to be reckoned with; without it, I am just myself, i.e. no-one."

Viewed thus, the erstwhile hordes of buyers outside the Burberry's etc outlets make sense. From a personal point of view, it is a confirmation of oneself, asserting one's existence and success; from a social point of view, one asserts oneself and confirms being part of the exalted circles of Burberry owners, thereby dispensing the need to learn manners,how to eat, or how to welcome a guest at one's home -- indeed, how to decorate one's home to receive guests.
And, from a financial point of view, simply buying a Hermes scarf beats going to finishing school: it is much cheaper, faster, and it keeps out the cold.

A bargain!

So, I do not think the importance of luxury brands has fallen in Greece; it is only the money that makes the difference.

Re-branding The Political System -- and Politicians?

In a recent speech on Branding, Peter Economides, the branding guru, mentioned the need to "re-brand" Greece. During his speech, he also mentioned that there is a crisis in Greece, but the crisis it is not exclusively Greek -- but it is a global crisis.

It got me thinking.

{By the way, it was the first time I heard Economides speak on brands, branding, and re-branding. And re-branding a country, no less!


What if the crisis is because we are tired of the old, greying, brands many of us live in? Our political systems, our politicians, our democracies and pseudo-democracies...

Do we need to re-brand our political system or at least re-brand our political  procedures and processes?
What if people are no longer buying the "political brand" any more: the people and the processes and procedures?

Economides points out that "brand is what people think of you" or, simply put, your reputation. "Branding is the process of managing what people think of you".
Useful, easy to remember and nifty definitions: clear and to the point.


In terms of politicians, the brand erosion is not very surprising. Look at what we had and what we have now. Take Churchill, for example. Whatever you may think of Winston Churchill, no-one can really ignore him.
In other words, Churchill was a strong brand and he delivered. In fact, you can tell many things by just looking :

Churchill, left; Stalin, right; Roosevelt, middle.

Churchill's cigar was his logo. As was his drinking -- part of his branding, perhaps.

Now compare these guys with the mediocre, featherweight politicians of today -- I will not choose any, to each his or her own.

Or, how about bankers?

Compare and contrast, say, Giannini (Bank of America) with anyone current; how inventive is the current one?

Compare and contrast JP Morgan, or Warburg or Rothchild, or J Merrill with what we get today; think of Merrill's ten commandments. That was back in 1949..

Of course, there is one revolutionary concept in recent years: microcredit. prof Muhamad Yunus' Grameen Bank. That was revolutionary. It still is.

But for the rest: nondescript, unremarkable, indifferent -- and except for exceptionally high incomes, that is!

Meant to be a random "institution"

Methinks the brand has lost its luster; to paraphrase our friend Economides, maybe the political system, our fundamental institutions and related personalities, have lost their reputation -- i.e the brand was lost somewhere along the historical way.




So, on a more positive note, is our way out of the global crisis just a matter of reviewing and re-branding our political and financial institutions and their minions? 

Is it just a case of urgent rebranding?

Let's call Economides!