The money isn't wasted, it has accomplished it's twin goals; proving that the wearer is part of the group which knows about and can afford Gucci, and having an enjoyable shopping experience. The fact that you appear to not care about signals of social standing (or rather, of standing in that group; assiduously avoiding logos is it's own signal) doesn't make them any less real.
Did you gloss over the part where GP points out they are fully aware of, and even enjoy and seek out, the experience of shopping there? Why do you say it's a waste then?
"That's the magic. I always go in with one specific item in mind that I researched online but never leave with just one thing..."
There's intent that he's going after a single item that he researched and came to a decision. But extensive use of psychological tricks somehow weasels in extra things. Call it a mark of a salesman. Call it being taken for a mark. But it does have the distinct feel of something not wholesome.
Do you realize that USA alone has over 10 million millionaires? And maybe 100 million can afford (by sacrificing for a few months) one or a few things from Gucci. Why not buy something really cool? You might die tomorrow so why not enjoy a bit of your money today. And, no, items from Gucci, D&G or Coach aren't the sane as knockoffs.
On the other hand, you can buy used clothes for a few dollars or get them for free...
Gucci's clientele are the 5m+ crowd and people obsessed with social signaling.
and a "significant" portion apparently do. This money thing is weird...at some point you realize that you actually can afford x, y, and z. So you start enjoying it.
If meth dealers were legal, they would be positioned right next to Gucci stores. The markup is similar and the utility is about the same.
What exactly is wrong with that?
A good portion of people who shop at a place like Gucci that don't do it for the utility and value for money, so neither of those two standards will apply to them.
The problem I'm trying to show with that, is that they hunt the whales the same way free-to-play Lootboxes work. Gucci is a "lootbox", because you never know how you'll enjoy your purchase!
Many of us consider things like lootboxes, extensive psychological manipulation, facebook running 'studies', and many other phenomena that revolve around unwilling subjects. It's horrible to cheat those lower classes with EA's (and others) lootboxes, or free-to-play that equates more money = winning. But when I highlight similar actions being done at "rich people stores", people come up to defend their.. right to use those tools.
The only way to give people the signal "I have a five-thousand dollar bag" is to go buy a five-thousand dollar bag. The value is not in the bag but in the message of owning (and being able to own) one, addressed to a certain audience that is very sensitive to these signals and that also matters in your life. I'm sure Gucci bags have opened doors that other bags with a fraction of the price haven't so there's utility value, too. It just fits with goals and with social behaviour that isn't very common in regular people, not to mention engineers.
You think using brands to signal status isn't normal? You might consider counting cars with no badges, or going to a coffee shop and counting the literally glowing logos. As for engineers, have you never seen a sticker-bombed laptop? Never had colleagues who wear the conference shirt or carry the conference bag? What about collegiate hoodies?
It's not a judgement on you if you truly don't care about brands or status signaling in any arena, but surely you recognize it's the rule not the exception.
Laptop stickers and conference shirts are free or dirt cheap. The logos you see in a coffee shop on electronics are side effects of purchasing the product. I would still buy an MBP without the lighted apple on the back because I'm buying it for it's utility and quality. Nobody would buy a Gucci bag without the logo.
Social signaling through brands is not as common as you would like to believe. This can be seen by how many people buy clothes that are close to cost (Gap, Walmart, etc).
I think you're referring to upper middle class people, which is a much smaller portion of the population.
If, however, you're signaling that you're a serious engineer who doesn't care about fashion, you wear and do other things. This also doesn't need to be consciously considered to still be happening. Ask yourself why so many engineers who work in air conditioned offices wear hoodies but never put the hood up. At the core, social signaling is about saying "I belong to this group" and possibly "I'm high-status within this group". For whatever value group takes on for (the rhetorical) you.
Edit: There's also the problem of it being the fashion, especially outside the fashion crowd, to talk about how much one doesn't care about fashion or signaling. Which is in itself frequently a kind of signaling.
Different groups have different methods of valuing the different types of capital, so the serious engineer example can be someone who has a lot of one type, an an average amount of the other types of capital. Basically just a paraphrasing of the signaling point but a useful model nevertheless IMO.
I never said anything about money being required for social signaling. If you're signaling that you spend a lot of money, then you need to spend a lot of money. There are other kinds of status one signals, money and brands is just one example.
>You think using brands to signal status isn't normal?
We're not talking about social signaling in general. You are the one who mentioned brands and tried to imply everyone was doing it because you can see lots of brands. I pointed out why that was bogus and now you are changing the subject to social signaling in general, which is not the topic.
But also I love Alexandro Michelle and his aesthetic. Sure my Gucci cords probably aren't as sturdy as my Patagonia, but the Gucci ones come with some cool embroidery and are tailored specifically.
You could say the exact same thing for folks who have an Apple product prominently featuring the Apple logo.
Gucci is pure name. Their quality is better than average, but the price is nowhere reasonably higher than the average quality. Frankly, the money is wasted because someone stroked your ego with powerful psychology and manipulation. This is only slightly different than catering to "whales" the free-to-play markets, but just with a bit more customer service.
Most "popular" products are the same way. They paid celebs to carry their product, or use their product. Frankly, who cares? The celebs are being paid, whereas you pay.
If you have your name on my stuff, then I'm advertising your brand. You either gave it to me as swag, or you're paying me for it. The last choice, is it's a nonprofit and you're doing advertising to help them. Aside that, you're paying for the benefit of bolstering and proving their name further. Nope nope, and nope.
Concierges? Sure, I understand having hand-holding assistance. Some people do need that, as many of us in IT are well aware of. But there is a difference between "I'm not sure if that would work for you", versus "You just look stunning with that hat on. That hat just works exceptionally with you! And that parfum - oh so elegant! (add more unintended shit to buy)"