Bonjour.
Pourriez-vous m'indiquer les quelques maladresses sur cet essai ?
In the 50ties, there were no brands, or very fiew. People relied on adverstising to control the quality, and only one brand made feel the difference. Nowadays, with an expanding number of brands, consumer's perception is changing fast, becoming more and more cosmopolitan and diverse. The brand became essential to buy a product and to choose between different of them. So we may wonder what could be a world without brands, and consequences which follow from this situation.
On the one hand, without brands, all the products are the same, without distinct criterion. Product's values rely on prices , and only the price make feel the difference. Moreover we can stand up for the equality between consumers having a brand, which deals with social competition and wealth of each one.
Nevertheless, on the other hand a world without brands could have an impact on the product's guarantee, since the brand curtails the incertitude of consumers and permit them to spot a thing with the same values than other. Besides, we can underline the time that consumers should take in order to choose an object, without particular symbol. The customer can't identify himself to the product without brands. Consumers need to brands to establish a link between the company and increase their fidelity to the product. Most of the time the brand leads the consumer's choice. As a matter of fact we can highlight that a wold without brands could mean the abolition of consumption's decision, in favour of an anonymous world with basic products sold in weight.
To conclude, although this consequences may be mentioned, we can reckon brands couldn't disappear, since they're created by consumers who have need it for a long time.
Merci !
