The branding Lie

Sparky Dundee
Guest Contributor

t some point in the distant past, certain companies

started making products. The products they made
were reliable, and not prone to breaking which might have
been a point above the competition, but in this hypothetical
situation there is no proof of that. In the distant past,
companies did not have the desire or need of companies
today that might start making a single product well, and
branch out to making a large number of different mediocre
products. With this in mind, certain influential people would
have bought these products and other people aspiring to be
like their idols, but without having the time or energy needed
to devote to a task to actually achieve their goals would have
also bought these products.

Over time, anyone unable to afford or purchase these
products would have been seen by other people in their
social environment as being underprivileged, or unable to
be as “cool” as their peers. The company,
wanting to increase sales without

having to increase work performed

may have hired a few new
workers to keep more shifts
working at all hours, but
otherwise the company
decided to raise their prices
to meet the demand.

Over time word of the
product that by now had
nearly a mythical reputation,
regardless of the actual
performance of said
product, would have
spread far and wide,
and calls for more
of said product to
be made could
be heard far
and wide

as well.

The

above

description is a neat summing up of how brand
names with brand name pricing seems to work.

Long ago, expensive products were expensive because

a design had stood the test of time, and was known to
outperform the competition. This expectation though has
become rather archaic, in that cheaper knockoffs made of
brand name products are typically the same if not better
quality as the brand names they want to compete against.
With cheaper labour in eastern countries, a great number of
companies have outsourced their labour to areas of China,
Singapore, Malaysia, and other eastern countries in order to
drop the manufacturing price paid to workers while vastly
overcharging consumers for the products they are buying.

Examples of this are delivered by companies like Apple,
who are well known for human rights violations in the
plants where Apple products are manufactured. Workers
are commonly paid a wage at or
below the local poverty
line

while every
product is sold for
up to ten times the
cost of materials,

and three thousand or
more times the wage paid for

manufacturing of those products.

Technology 1

Several years ago, and due partly to the rising number of
suicides committed by workers at Apple but mostly for
fear of the falling public relations, decided to implement
an addition to the contracts that were signed by workers at
Apple factories. This addition consisted of a line stating that
any worker found to have committed suicide would have all
death benefits and pensions accrued by the worker would
be withheld by the companies and no longer paid out to the
families of the deceased. In spite of these moves undertaken
by a company that used to stand for innovation but since
before the death of their founding father started standing
solely for money, people continue to pay outrageous prices
for technology that has been offered by other companies in
their products at a fraction of the cost and for years. While a
company that produces products that are strong and last long
should be celebrated, and should be paid amounts that allow
them to continue their research and development endeavors,
companies that stopped innovating long ago should
have their bottom line cut, and should be
charged for ideas they steal. Apple sued
Samsung in 2012 alleging that Samsung
had stolen aspects of the Apple
operating system used in their
phones. The courts awarded
Apple 1.05 billion dollars
claiming that they had proven
the theft of Apple operating
system components.

The last released “new”
iPhone included many
features present in Samsung
phones since 2011, which was
mocked widely by Samsung
fans in several videos at the time.
Samsung, however, is barred
from suing Apple in U.S.
courts because they are a
foreign company. Since laws
are supposed to protect
everyone, perhaps
Apple should
be barred
from suing
technology
companies.