Marketing Professor's Op-ed Explores Logos and Branding

KC opens with a thought experiment he poses to his consumer behavior students: picture a favorite luxury item arriving completely unbranded, where “nobody who sees it will know what it is or what you paid.” Although most students claim they would still purchase the item, KC admits he is skeptical, noting that evaluating one's true answer “reveals what you are actually paying for.”

To explain consumer motivations, KC contrasts the drive for status with internal value. Citing economist Thorstein Veblen’s concept of “conspicuous consumption,” KC explains that high prices can make goods more desirable because they broadcast a message to others. Drawing a biological parallel, KC writes that “a peacock’s tail is heavy, awkward and a gift to predators,” serving as a costly signal that is believable precisely because it is expensive to fake. He notes that even subtle branding fits this pattern, explaining that among luxury handbags, “’quiet’ versions with barely any branding cost more on average than ‘loud’ ones with giant logos” to target wealthy insiders.

Conversely, KC highlights how possessions connect to a person's identity, or “extended self.” Purchases can serve as self-signaling or trigger a placebo effect where price alone enhances perceived quality, proving that “the brand has moved inside your head.”

To determine how much of a purchase is driven by social visibility versus personal appreciation, KC suggests evaluating what one would pay for an item unbranded. “That gap is the price of being seen: the visibility premium,” KC writes. He adds that asking whether most people would still buy an unbranded item often yields a more honest assessment than evaluating oneself.

Ultimately, KC concludes that stripping away the logo exposes consumer motives, noting that “if the answer is ‘not much,’ that’s fine too. You now know what you were buying.”

Read the full op-ed here.