So, Brandless. Remember them? The whole “no-name” thing? The idea was, like, cut out the fancy packaging and branding BS and just give people the essentials. Seemed cool, right? Simple. Less waste. But, uh, well, they kinda *brandlessly* went bust. Julia James mentioned it – kaput. Dead. Finito.
I gotta say, I saw this coming. I mean, who gets *excited* about unbranded toilet paper? Sure, you *need* toilet paper, but do you *lust* after it? Prob not. And that’s kinda the problem. Brandless was betting that people were totally rational beings who only cared about price and function. Which, newsflash, we aren’t. We’re driven by emotions, by status, by the *story* behind things. Which brings us to…
Balenciaga.
Okay, so Balenciaga is like… the *opposite* of Brandless. They’re all about the brand! The hype! The *image*. I mean, just look at their stuff. It’s expensive, sometimes kinda weird, and definitely not something you buy just because you *need* it. You buy it ’cause it *says* something. It shouts, “I have money! And taste… maybe?” (Okay, sometimes I question the taste part, but that’s just me).
And here’s the thing: the article snippets mention Brandless’s “ironic strong construction of brand and storytelling”… which, honestly, is a bit of a stretch. They *tried* to build a brand around being “anti-brand,” but it just didn’t stick. People want a story, even if it’s a crazy, over-the-top, Balenciaga-level story. They want to feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves.
So, what’s the connection? I dunno, really. Maybe it’s just that Brandless failed because they didn’t understand the power of branding, while Balenciaga thrives *because* of it. Maybe it’s a cautionary tale. Or maybe I’m just overthinking it.
Oh, and the random “브랜드리스” bit? No idea. Google Translate says it’s just “Brandless” in Korean. Cool, I guess.
