Consumption and Brand Perception in the Context of Self-Identities and Social-Identities - Coursework Example

Self-identities and Social-identities Statement view “Our position within a certain social group, and a group’s position in relation to another group, is articulated through the consumption and display of certain key objects with symbolic value. Therefore a major way that both self-identity and social identity is established and maintained is through the consumption of particular goods and services”. This statement holds however to some level. It is through that in the current society people not only consume goods and services to satisfy their needs but also to show their identity and the social group they belong to. However, this statement may hold only to some extent given the new technology and modes of communication which have made almost every good and service to be available to a majority of the consumers. According to Douglas and Isherwood (1996), in the world of goods and services, material items are seen not only to have functional benefits to the users but they also have some symbolic meaning. This is because different goods and services are purchased and consumed to reflect the personality and social status as well as culture. In this regard therefore, the process of consuming different items is not done because of the values attached to them but also because they have the ability to build and maintain someone’s identity. In any relational or institutional setting, different practices and varying identities are always evident. Further, these varying practices and identities are known to affect the way people consume different goods and services in order to build and maintain their identities (Akerlof and Rachel 2002). Consumption and identities: According to Aaker and Angela (2001), postmodernism has completely displaced modernism which is associated with production with the view of consumption. In this case consumption by the customer is not seen as a private plan to destruct the consumer, but sees consumption as an era of production whereby different symbolic meanings, social codes and political ideologies as well as relations are produced now and again. In the current era of individualization which is characterized by existence of different consumers from different institutions and classes and families as sources of identity, consumption is now seen as a key mechanism by which consumers can correctively choose and construct their respective identities. In the postmodern era of consumption, symbols, vales and meanings of different items continue to shift thus leading to a situation where identities can no longer be stable. This is to mean that even though many people may continue to purchase and make use of certain goods to symbolize their identities in a group and their group with another, it may be very difficult to maintain the status unless they accept to dispose some of the identities and build others (Paterson 2006). This demonstrates how in the current society identities have been affected and have become so fragile even though some extent meanings and symbols as well as identities are still restrained by some capitalist and masculine values. Thus the construction of the identity in the postmodern society allows for creation of new possibilities and styles as well as models and not necessarily killing the identity. In this case, the emphasis is that freedom of choice has to be problematised since the different sets in a social setting forms a framework for every choice. According to Banister and Hogg (2004), identity can seen as a multiple of frameworks which consist of culture, practices and expectations which reflect the effect of identities in ever shifting constellations of different relations and symbols, institutions and material practices. With this regard therefore, it can be argued that people’s actions are guided by existing social and cultural as well as public practices. Brand and self connection: Acquisition of different commodities can be done by an individual with the primary aim of satisfying psychological needs like creating self-concept, reinforce and express self-identity and at the same time ensure that one is differentiated from the rest. Material possession is also intended at serving the social purpose in terms of the existing ties with certain family, society, culture and brand community. Researchers on consumers argue that possession of different materials is influenced by the brand. For example the latest research by Berger et al (2006), had indicated that consumers tend to construct their own self-identities and at the same time try to present themselves to others by the brand choices which they believe are congruent in explaining more about the user and the self-image of the association which one belongs to. The research went further to assert that people do not just buy goods because of the work they perform but because of what the product means to them and its symbolic meaning in defining one’s identity. A good example to illustrate this involves the use of the 3 blade razor. In this case men who use it, believe that they would be able to shave in such away that they should be able to attract a number of gorgeous women to their side. Coincidentally, in the process of doing this, they create their own social identity which believe that 3 blade razor is for the handsome guys. According to McCracken Model on meaning transfer, such meanings originate from the culturally constituted world where selection of certain goods is influenced by fashion, reference groups, celebrities, word or mouth, sub-cultural groups and media. For instance meanings are transferred into the brand through advertising because it provides all cultural symbols that are important in creating meaning (Paterson 2006). Similarly, use of brand by a certain reference group, provides meaning based on what the consumers hold towards that particular group (Muniz and Thomas 2001). In many occasions meaning moves from the consumer as he seeks to construct himself through his brand choice as guided by the congruence between the brand and the self-image. So the value of the brand is not only attached to its ability to express self but also its ability to help the consumer establish and build his own self-identity. In marketing reference groups can form an important part in creating brand meaning. This is because there are those consumers who rely on others for information. Consumer research has revealed that reference groups demonstrated congruence the group membership and the brand usage. Many of the consumers form their own associations based on the reference groups and the brands that they use and then transfer the brand to self and thereby selecting only those brands that are relevant to self-concept they currently hold (Ellemers et al 2002). Significance of self-concept: Brands become more relevant and more important if they have the capacity to help the consumers attain their goals as motivated by self. For instance consumers may use certain brands because of their own expressional needs both publicly and privately in terms of social integration, connection with the past, personal accomplishment, self-esteem, differentiation of oneself and expression of individuality as well as transition from one life to the other. Self is understood to cover a number of aspects which include social roles and individual character traits most of which are important in schematic self-aspects and the possible selves of what individuals are likely to become, what they would like to be and what they are afraid of turning into (Paterson 2006). Aspects of self: Even though for long the aspect of self-concept has been considered to be different from other individuals’ self-concepts, current cross-cultural evidence demonstrates that mental representations held by individuals on self, depend on the social aspects of self like relationships with others and one’s membership to a social group. Further, research indicates that the westerners focus more on personal self and regard their traits as unique as the seek to de-emphasize the traits held by others-independent self-construal, as the Easterners focus more on social self and it relates with others in what is called interdependent self-construal. Individualistic cultures according Berger et al (2006), are characterized by the its focus on private self and its less emphasis on collective self and its increased emphasis on collective self for those cultures that are less individualistic. The two aspects independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal can easily coexist with an individual and they continue to vary across different cultural backgrounds in the Western Society. That is to mean that an individual may have both have both aspects but the difference exists in terms of their strength. Brand symbolism: The most important point to note in brand symbolism is that the consumers tend to allocate the meanings of different commodities as they seek to create their own self-identities. This is more particular in situations where brand meaning arises from the reference group use of brands and non-use. However, some brands are easy to communicate something the consumer than others. Those goods that are easy to identity with some are classified as public. Take the example of someone using a very classy car within an environment where very view individuals can own. In such a situation the car owned may be termed as a product that is being consumed publicly and its notification and association of the user to the social group is very easy (Paterson 2006). This is because ownership of the car may be perceived as luxurious kind of life than necessity where the commodity is used to communicate something about an individual. On the other hand, using a product that is very common and purchased by many may not necessary communicate much about an individual and his identity. A good example is the Honda Accord Automobile which many people own. This kind of automobile is known to tell less about an individual and the specific associations they belong to because of its popularity. Consumers in the market are more likely to enter into to self-brand connections if they use those brands that symbolize identities and affiliation to certain associations than those brands that tell less about self-identity. Consequently the consumers are more likely to disengage themselves from those brands that they think do not have any self-brand connection and have inappropriate associations for non-symbolic brands (Ellemers et al 2002). Brands versus consumer divergence: Kids in a family or society may want to separate from their guardians or guardians as jokes want to separate from geeks. For instance in Shanghai, residents may decide not to purchase the Volkswagen Santanas since they are perceived to be favorite first class cars for the suburban nouveaux tycoons. This is a good illustration of how different goods and services are perceived and attached to a certain group of people who use them. People in such cases tend to move away or close to a certain product based on the perception they have on a particular product. Divergence from a certain brand according to Berger et al (2006) comes into existence when a certain group of consumers tend to move away from certain products which are perceived to be choices of another group and try to adopt certain tastes based on their values and identities. Social part of life tends to affect the way consumers purchase there goods. For example a certain group may opt not consume a certain product not because the product is bad but because too many people or wrong types of people use it. This is because some individuals try to different themselves from the rest in order to seek uniqueness and avoid certain scenarios which may make them feel undifferentiated. Akerlof and Rachel (2002), argues that individuals who greatly search for uniqueness tend to prefer more unique products and even when the situation seem to overwhelm them towards similar, they seek different ways to attain a sense of difference. Such good example to illustrate this is the use and ownership of mobile phones. This is a small electronic gadget that has been in existence for almost two decades now and because of the values different people attach to them, new brands with different capabilities are emerging daily. Even though many of the gadgets can perform the same functions irrespective of the brand, many of the consumers are changing their ownership because they want to look different from the rest. This follows the trend where literally many people can afford a good and classy mobile phone. However, there is a problem with the trend where people are searching for those products that can different them from the rest in terms of self and social identity (Banister and Hogg 2004). This is because in contemporary society, almost everything that a consumer needs is available in the market. Thanks to the easy to access credit and internet. Some can virtually buy any product irrespective of where it’s produced and pay for it by use of credit card. Therefore constructing and maintaining one’s identity is increasingly becoming very difficult. Take an example of the washing powder. During its introduction it was seen by many as an expression of identity. This follows the marketing strategies that are aimed at producing certain products that consumers will use to differentiate themselves and create a sense of self. Take the branding of soap powder by the marketers not as a stain remover but as a product nurturing the family, and then later not as a stain remover but as a brand to look after the planet. This marketing strategy has forced the soap powder manufacturers worldwide to position themselves in such away to reach certain identities and in the process almost all people can access the product thus making it less useful in creating identity (Escalas and James 2005). Drive for identity: Different scholars such as Berger and Chip (2006) and Aaker and Bernd (2001), have done extensive study to unfold some of the reasons behind the need to look different from the rest of the consumers. The study on consumer behavior and human psychology in the uniqueness literature by Escalas and James (2005), established that many of the consumers hate a situation when they are overwhelmed by the similarities in consumption with others. Further, it was found at that in situations where some consumers are temporary made to similar like the rest, they always try and find out on ways in which they can be able to feel differently from the others. One way they try to do that is by becoming creative or trying to forget about the past levels of similarities. In particular, what this means is that people who are always in need of uniqueness try to achieve that by becoming more consistent in their consumption so that they can be differentiated from the rest. In many occasions, individuals try to be unique in those domains that they think they are personally important. The car owner for instance is more enthusiast and care more on having a unique road experience as opposed to the coin collector. However, research is as silent in this aspect as both the coin and bottle-cap collectors also care about being unique in own way. In the case of identities and consumption, people buy not because they want satisfaction but because of the attitude and the preferences they hold about the product in terms creating self and social identities. Consumers further do their purchases not necessarily what the product service can do but its capability create the desired identities (Akerlof and Rachel 2002). To sum up my argument, it’s important to highlight that position in a group and relationship with the other groups is a very critical aspect when studying consumer behaviors and how they influence the marketing and purchasing decisions. This is because people of different social groups tend to display totally different patterns of consumption. Even though my stand is that self-identity and social identity can be established and maintained through the consumption of certain goods and services, I believe that this can only be sustained for a short while. This is because in the contemporary society use of internet and availability of credit card has greatly affected the consumption patterns. Now all almost every commodity is available and accessible to every person irrespective of the distance and social status. Take the example of mobile phone. During its introduction to the market, ownership of a mobile phone was a seen a status symbol even though that is not the case today. In general, self-identity and social-identity can only be temporal and for it to be sustained the members of a social must be able dissolve and create new identities. References Aaker, J and Angela L 2001, I Seek Pleasures, We Avoid Pains: The Role of Self Regulatory Goals in Information Processing of Persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.12, No. 3, pp. 234-298. Aaker, J and Bernd S 2001, Culture-Dependent Assimilation and Differentiation of the Self, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 123-145. Akerlof, GA and Rachel E 2002, Identity and Schooling: Some Lessons for the Economics of Education, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 40, No. 23, pp. 346-378. Banister EN and Hogg MK 2004, Negative Symbolic Consumption and Consumers’ Drive for Self Esteem, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 34-65. Berger J and Chip H 2006, From Whom do People Diverge? Out-Group Similarity, Identity- Signaling, and Divergence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, No. 23, pp.156-197. Berger J., Chip H and Ben Ho 2006, Divergence in Cultural Practices: Tastes as Signals of identity, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp. 109-187. Ellemers N., Russell S and Bertjan D 2002, Self and Social Identity, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 102, pp. 327-436. Escalas J and James R 2005, Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.32, No. 37, pp. 142-163. Muniz AM and Thomas C 2001, Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 32, pp. 456-478. Paterson M 2006, Consumption and Everyday Life, Routledge Abingdon Read More