Product placement vs consumer awareness

Among various methods corporations use to keep women hooked to their brands, product placement is on top. Yes, corporations. That’s what luxury conglomerates are. And it gives the pulse on their work.

During the 80s, Giorgio Armani was the first who started dressing Hollywood stars in order to sell to the American middle-class. In a perspective of massive overproduction and an ever-growing economy, perhaps that strategy made sense.
By the way, Armani, followed by all the other designers right away, started giving outfits for free to the stars, and women – the so-called middle class – promptly bought them.

Now the economy is not in good shape, and the middle class swiped away. More importantly, we opened our eyes, so we are tired of being treated as fishing lures. Therefore we find some specific marketing techniques obsolete, if not meaningless.

What’s the point of stars wearing luxury designer’s clothes on the red carpets when it’s known they don’t pay for the clothes?
Does it still make sense?

In fact, what makes it sound absurd is that they can afford to pay, but they don’t. In other words, those who can afford clothes don’t purchase them, while those who can’t are supposed to.

There’s no logic in this anymore. What if celebrities purchase their outfits and designers donate the proceeds to charity?

However, we should also dig deeper into those impressed by ‘the rich Milanese’ showing off her outfits on social media. And women promptly buy. Indeed we die a little for this lack of self-esteem.

Since we weren’t all born with good taste, looking for guidance is the right way to avoid weird outfits. But asking for advice is different from imitating someone else’s style.

Marketing has always targeted women because, traditionally, they are considered fragile and easy to influence or manipulate. And the sad thing is that we allowed them to do so.

Let’s evolve now.