Mimetic Desire in the 21st Century

You may be familiar with Rene Girard’s theory of mimetic desire. If not, I’ll summarise it briefly. The theory of mimetic desire says that we do not desire things directly for ourselves in a linear fashion, but rather we desire objects because someone else desires that object. For example, the theory says that we do not want a specific job just for ourselves – rather, we want that job because we see someone else who wants (or has) that job, which causes us to desire it too.

I see some practical failings of this theory. For example, I am confident that when I wake up in the morning, I want to drink a cup of coffee because I want the caffeine from the coffee – I do not want the caffeine simply because someone else wants caffeine. It seems like a fairly straightforward example of when we desire something simply for ourselves. Maybe food, and human necessities in general, are exceptions to mimetic desire.

But the failings of the theory are not actually what I want to talk about here. I want to talk about how mimetic desire is much more obvious than perhaps ever before.

As brands grow in popularity and power all over the world, we are given a perfect example of mimetic desire in action. I believe that a brand fundamentally tries to sell its products through mimetic desire. Think about this. If someone tried to sell a handbag that was completely identical in every way to one made by Gucci, only it lacked the Gucci label, it would sell much less than the actual Gucci handbag (this happens every day all over the world). Why is this? The product is identical. All it lacks is a little label on the inside that says 5 letters. The difference in the cost of producing these two products is likely less than 5 cents – the cost of the label on the inside of the bag. And yet the difference in cost of the label to the consumer is probably at least $500, if not thousands of dollars. There is clearly something else at play that makes many more people want the bag with the label than the one without, despite the outrageous price differences.

There are probably two reasons that someone wants the Gucci handbag over the one without the label. Either they know someone who has the bag, and they admire that person and want to emulate them, or they’ve seen Gucci’s advertising and want to be like the person in the ad. These are both on a basic level the same thing, but it’s worth mentioning the difference.

In each case, someone buying a Gucci handbag is only wanting the bag because they’ve seen someone else with it, and they want to emulate that person’s style. No one thinks “The economic difference between this Gucci bag and an identical one without the label is five cents, but I will pay hundreds more for it”. That is not logical or intelligent in any way. But because of a desire to imitate someone else’s desire or possession of the item, people end up going against economic reasoning and purchasing the Gucci product nonetheless.

You might ask why the first person to buy a Gucci handbag bought one, even though they hadn’t seen anyone else with one yet. In my opinion, this is the role of advertising. Its role is to create the image of ideal customers using the product, in order to create mimetic desire. Someone will desire the image and style of the person in the advert, which causes them to desire the product with the label. Again, they desire the product through someone else’s possession or desire.

By these inferences, mimetic desire is the basis of brands’ success. Mimetic desire is visible more in the world today than it ever has been previously. We all wear branded clothing, and wearing a brand is a sign that we indeed succumb to mimetic desire.

I like reducing things to fundamentals. And in my opinion, the fundamentals of brands and advertising is mimetic desire. Without it, they wouldn’t have a role or purpose. If people can keep in mind mimetic desire when advertising or creating a brand, they may be more successful.

3D Printing Business Models

I’ve been re-reading lots of old Economist issues these holidays – it’s incredible to see how much things can change in a year. One article I read was titled “Print Me a Stradivarius”. It talked about 3D printing technologies, their uses, and their progress. It’s an absolutely incredible technology, and I have no doubt that it will revolutionize a large majority of physical-good industries on the planet.

Whilst reading this article I found myself thinking about the consequences of 3D printing on brands. Currently, I believe that successful brands are created through two things: creating an image and lifestyle that people find desirable, as well as achieving a scale large enough to produce at low cost and reach multiple markets. A truly successful brand (in the global sense) must be in multiple markets and be able to achieve scale that other producers simply cannot achieve.

It’s easier for individuals, or small companies, to create a desirable image and lifestyle than it is to achieve scale and reach multiple markets. This is why we see many local producers with desirable brands, but which simply never achieve success beyond a specific market.

3D printing changes the second half of this equation to create a successful brand. Specifically, it acts in a similar way to the Internet – it outsources the production of goods and services. A large brand no longer needs to create the products itself – it has the ability to sell the designs and perhaps materials, but then let the customer actually create the good in their own house.

Now I don’t see large brands outsourcing their production to consumers any time soon. But many smaller producers, who are held back through their inability to achieve scale, will look to alternative models. I believe they will focus on designing products, and then simply sell the rights to the design to consumers, who will subsequently create the physical good themselves.

All of a sudden, small brands that have never had the ability to reach global markets have the same capacity to reach global markets as large brand corporations. In fact, there are significant advantages – they can focus on what they’re good at (designing great products) and not have to worry about anything else such as manufacturing and shipping. Consumers will be able to create the product minutes after they’ve purchased the design, meaning they don’t have to wait for a company to ship a product across a country or the entire world. It’s also much cheaper since shipping isn’t needed, and manufacturing on a 3D printer will be comparatively cheap.

Large brands may no longer hold the power that they currently do. Consumers worldwide will have access to brands that better suit their image and lifestyles, and will have more options as to the exact product they can purchase and create. Why will consumers continue to be drawn to the multinational brands when they can get goods that are more precisely suited to them?

This is a huge opportunity for small producers wanting to reach global markets. I believe 3D printers with the capacity to create clothing and static goods will be cheap enough for purchase by households within five years, and maybe even sooner than that.

There are also risks. It opens up all types of static goods (meaning non-electrical, without moving parts) to piracy. Just like movies and music, someone purchases the design, sends it to their friends, and they print it for free. Perhaps a subscription model may make more sense – you subscribe to a brand for a year and get to choose a new product each month for the year.

If you think about it, retailing physical goods hasn’t changed much at all in decades. Sure, a greater proportion of goods are purchased through websites and then sent to buyers, but that’s hardly a change in model – just a change in method of delivery. 3D printing will completely change the industry.

There are surprising parallels with the music and movie industry. The big clothing and product retailers will play the role of the music and movie companies. Small brands will play the role of the upstarts. Heck, we’ll even see a version of Napster or Limewire specifically for pirating physical good designs.

If you’re a small retailer, this is your opportunity. If you’re a big brand, you can either hang on to whatever you have but eventually lose, like music and movie companies – or you can revolutionize and be at the forefront of this movement.

PS: I’d like to give credit to a commenter with username “hatterloko”, who commented on my post about the “Motor of the World”, suggesting I think about 3D printing and what it could do. If he had not commented, I may not have read the article in the Economist. A prime example of why I blog, and why I love you guys commenting – I think about things that I otherwise wouldn’t. Thank you!

Icebreaker’s International Growth & New Zealand’s Brand

About a month and a half ago, as winter was just setting in here in Wellington, I bought an Icebreaker merino undershirt. I’d heard a lot about Icebreaker stuff being incredibly warm, so thought I’d give it a go. A few weeks later, and I own everything from an Icebreaker coat to Icebreaker briefs. Their stuff is so warm, so comfortable, and so breathable that it doesn’t smell at all. It’s really even better than their advertising describes. Anyway, this post isn’t actually a pitch for Icebreaker – although I completely and utterly recommend you buy their stuff. I wanted to just talk about a fantastic Kiwi business success story, and touch on how they’ve successfully used New Zealand’s brand to help them sell their products internationally.

Icebreaker is now sold in pretty much every continent, and they’re incredibly well known for a Kiwi company still owned by its founders and original backers. 1999 was when they decided to do a test in Europe, and since then their growth has been simply astounding.

It’s funny how a couple of the most talked about New Zealand success stories in recent years have both been companies that have heavily used New Zealand’s brand to help sell their products. 42 Below, a New Zealand vodka company that was sold to Bacardi a few years back, also used “Pure New Zealand” as part of their marketing.

And that phrase – “Pure New Zealand” – should not be underestimated. A country’s brand is something very valuable (provided the country has a good brand) because it’s something people can relate to. More than a company’s brand, a country’s brand is in some ways tangible. People can actually walk around a country and therefore they gain a deeper understanding of what values and images are associated with that country. A company on the other hand isn’t a tangible object that people can walk around to better understand. In most cases their images are simply marketing strategies.

So Icebreaker, and other companies utilizing New Zealand’s good brand, are very smart about it. In some ways it’s a free marketing strategy that can’t easily be replicated any other way.

I’ve travelled quite a bit, and one thing that I notice no matter where I go is how responsive and positive people are to hearing “New Zealand” in response to asking where I’m from. I’ve never heard anything negative in response to me saying New Zealand, and usually the next comment is one involving a word such as “beautiful”, “stunning”, “clean”, or “safe”. When you have those kind of connotations to a brand, something is going right.

While some companies like Icebreaker are doing a fantastic job riding New Zealand’s image to achieve international growth, I think more could be doing it. And don’t get me wrong – by no means do I think every New Zealand company should use NZ’s brand. But I do think that a few more could at least use “New Zealand” in their tagline to conjure up images. We just have to be careful not to overuse it, and only let companies who truly can achieve huge international growth use it.

And on top of all the other benefits of using NZ’s brand internationally – it keeps us back home happy. We just get even more passionate about Icebreaker and our country!