Brands and culture
Brands are heavily intertwined with culture – they directly emerge and depicts culture, extends beyond the sphere of mere representation (Carah and Louw 2015). Supreme, founded by James Jebbia in April 1994, made its debut as an iconic but exclusive brand heavily inspired by the local skate culture in downtown New York City (Supreme n.d.). While designing the pieces for Supreme, Jebbia noticed how skaters have a distinct style by incorporating slouchy clothes: hoodies and sweatshirts, with high-end pieces, and realized skaters would invest in quality pieces despite the price. Jebbia noted this observation and created this streetstyle brand that has successfully infiltrated into hip-hop, music and gender identities, which are prominent characteristics within skate culture itself. Nowadays, Supreme has skyrocketed as the epitome of “hypebeast” (people who simultaneously wear and keep up with trends) (Mehak 2015) fashion and one of the most impactful trendsetting brands in the industry by winning the “Designer of the Year” award (Smith 2018). From this, we can see that Supreme has assimilated Downtown New York’s urban culture and streetstyle, hence enacted and embodied its culture through the aesthetic and products.
Branding as an observational practice
Branding is an observational practice that is accountable to power relations, desires, identities and daily life activities, in an individualistic manner rather than collective as society and mediation has progressed from collective development to encourage cultivation of individualistic values and freedom (Carah and Louw 2015). Brands are founded accordingly to specific cultures, they also stimulate the formation and relation of identities through interaction, participation and reflection (Carah and Louw 2015). However, there are no absolute associations and restrictions to a brand’s image, nor is there permanent meaning attached to a brand, as society actively mold the brand’s identity continuously to appeal multiple social demographics and markets, as well as adapt efficiently to the constant identity and rituals changes. For instance, Supreme focuses on the creative and individualistic aspects of youth culture with an antagonistic attitude towards mainstream culture, it formed its very own brand identity by embracing the “other”, I.e. alternative and indie styles, and differentiated itself from the manufactured, uniform oppressive mainstream (“us”) force. Although Supreme’s products and image are initially targeted to skaters and “social outcasts”, brandscapes allow the brand to uptake an active role and interact with customers, thus constantly reinvent its meaning and culture (Healy 2016). In addition, one’s consumption directly contributes to their social membership and symbolism – that is, through their consumption of a certain brand, it indicates commitment and relates responsibility to the brand that is assigned to them (Lindblom 1999).
Fundamentally, people’s sense of style is a factor to determine their social status. While the ownership and display of items are tangible, the attained social status is virtual and intangible, yet this competition simultaneously circulates in society, as it brings about satisfaction and acknowledgement. Supreme has the power akin to a church – it brings people who worship the brand, dress similarly together to form exclusive, cult-like groups due to the motivation of approval received from peers. This introduces the concept of counterfeit and replica products by expounding how brands define one’s identity and social status. Brands hold a certain amount of power and reputation we subconsciously assigned, which correlates to the psychology behind people’s aspirations to achieve a certain social status or group belonging. Similarly, other brands would introduce items that have similar designs since they follow the most popular trends in society. This shows that not only do the general public recognize and acknowledge the ongoing trends and impact of such designs, but institutions (brands) as well.
Social currency
The consumptions of brands also contribute to how they are social processes. Not only do they convey the brand’s message amongst peers, the brand’s popularity also entails the communication of one’s self-esteem and popularity amongst peers, known as social currency (Klein 2018). Individuals use this as a medium to communicate their social status and power through the brands they choose to wear and represent (Muniz 1997), the embodiment of such allowed subconscious comparison to take place, thus constructing a virtual, subconsciously consensual social hierarchy. Brands are humanized through the interactions they make with consumers (Hemetsberger and Mühlbager 2014), by making people think they have a relationship with the brand, instead of an infrastructure or idea that is constructed through the advertisement realm. Taking Supreme as an example, by wearing Supreme items consistently, people will assume that the person is a loyal customer whose personality and values align with Supreme’s.
Culture intermediaries
Brands are social processes due to the presence of culture intermediaries. Supreme’s success can be reflected on how it emerged into celebrity culture. Originated to “embrace the outsider does thing off-value from their brand” (Hawgood 2012), their products are now often worn by rappers and celebrities whose aesthetics, discography and beliefs wove in and align with Supreme’s loud, fearless and rebellious style. This proves how Supreme has exceled beyond the skater scene and permeated into elite celebrity culture, synonymous to fame, sense of style. Thereafter, ordinary people will follow what the celebrity wears out of adoration (Vallaster 2006), participating in the culture, further adding onto the brand’s value. For example, the Louis Vuitton X Supreme collection is the epitome of high fashion and streetstyle markets converging. Therefore, collaborations with artists and brands is also a form of culture intermediaries that integrate identities, images, fanbases and cultures, hence appeal different target audiences that identify with the brands.
Cultural Marxism
Cultural Marxism is present in shaping brands’ visual identities: Supreme’s iconic and distinguishable red box logo is heavily inspired by American anti-consumerism artist Barbara Kruger’s piece, “I shop therefore I am” (Victorine 2017). Supreme’s appropriation of the logo is most prominent in its early era when it embodied Downtown New York’s skater culture with a hint of punk, nonchalance and rebellion. However, as Supreme skyrocketed to fame and recognition, it is now rather ironic and contradictory to its original aim, since now it has conformed to consumerism and capitalism society, making masses of profit out of simple fashion pieces. Simply from the logo itself, it is evident that Supreme has progressed and shifted in terms of its brand identity (Holt 2002). Though Supreme’s logo is extremely simple and minimal, the impact of this one word is more magnified than one could ever imagine. Without adornation, items with the Supreme logo immediately added so much value compared to a plain black hoodie, and that social identities represented are evident in how one’s social status from others’ perspective and group belonging is directly correlates to materialistic means.
The drastic difference between Supreme and other fashion brands is the scarcity of products – items are released (or “drops” amongst “hypebeasts”) every Thursday morning, with supremely limited supply. While the product accessibility is low and imposes stress on customers, it also entails high production costs to Supreme. Though this might not be the most sustainable business model, Supreme proved people wrong as millennials equates monetary aspects to quality – I.e. the more expensive, popular and limited the product, the higher the quality. According to an interview held in Hasan Minhaj’s Patriot Act show (2018), Max Powell made a striking comment that this business model is so successful due to “hype”- initial adrenaline and immediate excitement, which is the lifeline of Supreme, as “people want things other people can’t get”. Hence, if the supply of products increases, the demand and value will inevitably decrease due to people’s loss of significance in the product. The psychology behind this was stemmed from a theory that can be dated back to 1899 when the phrase “conspicuous consumption” was coined by Thorstein Veblen to describe the innate desire of flaunting wealth through acquiring consumer goods, known as Veblen goods (Greathouse 2018). The high rejection rate motivates people to get reach of products, and that adds value to both the object and the owner, which is a phenomenon mostly seen in high end fashion rather than fast fashion (Kulkarni 2019).
Authenticity
Authenticity is vital to a brand’s success in society – having debuted as a skater brand, Supreme’s interconnectedness with art, local culture, music and edginess allowed customers to associate Supreme as a brand not limited to its commercial aspects, but an organization that considers social issues (Clifton 2016). As 80s and 90s fashion come back in style, deadstock, vintage, first edition and one-off issue items have resurfaced at a rapid rate. Both people that have experienced said era and millennials aspire to find “collector” items, as the passage of time adds nostalgic (use) value to the exchange value an item holds (Felluga 2011). Wearing and owning those items give people that have experienced that era an opportunity to establish a sense of attachment, nostalgia; and for millennials to embody the iconic times, internalize the original messages of Supreme, instead of wearing items and styles that are oversaturated and distributed. Moreover, not only does the brand offer tangible products, it is also an experience itself. From going to the store purchasing products, to styling that specific fashion item, it is a rewarding experience for consumers that provides satisfaction and sense of achievement.
Conclusion – brands are social processes
In conclusion, all aspects aforementioned reiterate the idea that brands are, indeed social processes. Global brands such as Supreme are not as rigid as one perceives – it relies on constant interaction between the public and the institution, as well as culture embodiment to construct meaning and purpose to become valuable. They represent identities not from a static moment but continue to regenerate and reinvent as societal changes accentuate the adaptable nature of brands. In society’s point of view, brands help shape one’s esteem, social status, and allow individuals to execute values they share with their own interpretation.
