Keep in mind this was written in 1982 and was therefore based on work done for Mercedes-Benz in the late 70s and early 80s. I don't know if this was an Ogilvy ad, but it purports to be from 1980:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/c3/21/d5/c321d520ec1207059c42fcbca...

By the 2000s, their dealerships' guides for top-end models (i.e. G class) spoke about how you had to get a new style once you bought a G class as you had become a new person.

Perhaps MB should go back to their roots.

The positioning change over time and space. Taxis in many European countries are frequently Mercedes because they are comfortable and last a long time. I don't think that would fly in the USA. Likewise BMW used to make inexpensive fun cars (like the 2002) but now they target a more affluent audience in the USA.

There are many examples of products that are plebeian in one market and premium in another, between countries with similar incomes.

I have found that there are people that hate these status symbols (especially in fashion) so much that they would buy a shittier lower quality no name product.

I find it ironic when the actual brand they could have bought would be cheaper and probably better quality manufacturing control etc.

Visible logos and unique designs are loud tribe identification tokens. Their absence has the same effect, just for different tribes.

The lack of an expensive logo adds a lot of value for those people.

I agree, it depends on your brand personality to identify in what kind of customers and life style you want your consumers to buy.

Yes! It does depend on the target audience!

But remember doesn’t even matter if the person buying the Mercedes is doing so because they’re a snob and want a status symbol. All that matters is that they they scoff at snobbery and status symbols — and that the ad works on them.