The Instigator
bpv1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
srregua
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Brands are the Invention of Human Greed to Exploit Others

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
srregua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,677 times Debate No: 12285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

bpv1

Pro

We live in a world of competition.. The trend has increased to give more value to those for which we have spend more, irrespective of the quality of the product we are using.

All the brands we use now are the invention of human intellect to exploit others.
srregua

Con

Before anything else, I would like to thank my opponent for opening this debate and commend him for the nice introduction. HOWEVER, the claims presented are just mere assertions without any necessary supporting premises and facts.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I beg to disagree and stand firm to be in the con side.

I. ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED
1.1 The issue is clear and simple: Whether or not 'All the brands we use now are the invention of human intellect to exploit others.'

II. DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the sake of clarity, the definition/s of the following terms are hereunder provided as follows, to wit:
2.1 BRAND - a name, usually a trademark, of a product or manufacturer, or the product identified by this name
Microsoft� Encarta� 2009. � 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2.2 EXPLOIT - to take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain
Microsoft� Encarta� 2009. � 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

III. DISCUSSION
3.1 The term 'brand' is a neutral word. It does not have any negative connotation. It merely refers to a name, or more commonly referred to as a trademark, of a commodity or an institution, etc.
3.2 Brand works the same, more or less, with the names given to us when we were born or baptized. Our names are given to us to serve as our identity; the same way as brands do with commodities or institutions, etc.
3.3 The main purpose of inventing or assigning a brand is to serve as identity to products, and to make it easier for the consumers to identify the same. It is like assigning a name to someone.
3.4 If that is so, brand is harmless. It is not meant to exploit others. The invention of brand is not a direct source of exploitation. Assuming that brand is invented to exploit others is like saying that your name is given to you to serve as something bad.

IV. CONCLUSION
4.1 It is not about the name or the brand, it is about the one who wears that name or brand.
4.2 Brand is neutral. Though, the marketing of which can make the difference; but it is the marketing not the brand per se.

V. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the would-be readers to:
5.1 Declare this round in favor of the con for the following grounds: a) Failure of the pro to present proofs; b)Failure of the pro to establish the parameters; and, c) Failure of the pro to present premises to support the claim.
Debate Round No. 1
bpv1

Pro

I thank srregua for taking up this debate.
Let me elaborate this discussion.

First of all I agree with my contender on the definition of 'BRAND' and 'EXPLOIT' and I would take my discussion ahead from there.

Before that let me make it clear that I do not have any disagreement with case where BRAND is solely for naming a product and to distinguish it with similar other products. Our problem lies where competing brands exist in the market and the user pays the cost of all the brand promotion and brand competition made by the brand owners.
I wish to take this discussion to the consumables and clothes where the competition is high and people have to buy more often. Technology products Off-Course is an exemption as they are no primary requirements.

Let me take few examples. [As I am from India, please don't mind if the examples sounds to be in Indian context.]

•In the case of clothes, most of the brand owners outsource their stitching and buy their raw materials from common or similar source. ( In India Arvind Mills does the job for many of the cloth brand owners) After stitching and going through the same process of refining, dying and stitching the cost of the product is what is determined by the brand owner on the basis of what extra they send for promotion.

•All the top brands are promoted by leading celebrities and they earn millions of dollars for each Advertisement they perform (Ex. Levis, Lee, Arrow, Van Heusen, Louis Philippe, Reebok, Adidas, Puma, etc. etc. etc) – Who pays for it?

•Fresh Lemon juice in a local juice center costs 4 Rs/ 400ml. (0.089 $) and branded lemon flavored juice costs 12 Rs/250 ml (0.29$). – What makes you pay more amounts for comparative inferior product?

•The production cost of Coca Cola per 250 ml for Example is 0.83 Paisa (0.185 $) in India and the selling cost is 12 RS (0.29 $). Similar will be the case in all the countries proportional to their money value. Will you buy a non branded/locally made product at this price?

If to list, this will go long, but similar is the case with most of the Brands.
Now let me take the second definition ‘EXPLOIT'. My contender is right taking the definition i.e. "To take selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain"

Media has a lot of influence in our day to day decision making. This is route of propaganda that the major Brand Owners use to reach the minds of people and influence their thinking in such a way to make the society feel that these Brands are the Status symbol.

I am not against Brands as whole but the exploitation and unreasonable profit being made using the Brand Name. I myself have worked for some multinational leading Brands and this realization I have got only after closer view of that. I agree that Individual opinions differ. It is you to decide what you want, based on your need, not the influence of any seller who directly or indirectly is in a constant attempt to brainwash you linking his product with something/someone you like.
srregua

Con

My apologies for posting just now for the herein Contender has voluminous of paper works to attend to in his work. I respect my opponent, and the readers of this debate. I have no intention of forfeiting any round. I will not spoil this debate.

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
To start with: For and in consideration of this debate, the following facts shall be deemed established, to wit:
1.1 The definition of 'BRAND' and 'EXPLOIT' as provided above and as agreed upon by the debaters shall be maintained all throughout this debate.
1.2 The concept of brand as solely for naming products shall also be maintained.
1.3 The practical examples provided by my opponent, amidst the lack of supporting documentation as evidence to claim, shall also be deemed accepted for my respect and trust that the same are true, factual, and consistent with respect to his personal experience.
1.4 The notion presented in the comment that one can buy similar but generic product for a lower cost compared to that of the branded shall also be deemed accepted.
1.5 Any and all parallel examples as above-mentioned shall also be deemed accepted as factual for the sake of this debate.

II. REITERATION OF THE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED
2.1 In the pain of being repetitious the original issue to be resolved is clear and simple: Whether or not 'All the brands we use now are the invention of human intellect to exploit others.'

III. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS
3.1 It is hereby rendered as factual the statement that branded products are more expensive than generic products.
3.2 It can also be presumed that most of the times the quality and material of both branded and generic products are more or less the same.
3.3 It also follows that the more popular or top brands of products are more expensive than the less popular ones.
3.4 With the above-mentioned premises, my co-debater and opponent thereby assumed and concluded that all of these are caused by the brands of the products; thus, these brands are invented to exploit the common people.
3.5 HOWEVER, in a deeper analysis of the facts and the situation, it is not really as simple as how most people, including my opponent, interpret it. The 'BRAND' of the product is not really the DIRECT cause of its high price.
3.6 The 'BRAND' is just the outermost layer which can readily and easily be seen as the cause. Digging deeper, we can find the real reason behind the more expensive prices. MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS.
3.7 A simple equation to solve for the price of a certain commodity is: PRICE OF THE PRODUCT = PRODUCTION COST + RAW MATERIALS + MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS. Any and all other factors not mentioned may be a subcategory.
3.8 The sad reality is, producers SPEND MORE TO MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS. That is why, as mentioned by my co-debater and opponent, celebrities are paid high just for promoting a certain brand of a product and in effect that product will be sold for a higher price and the people buying the products are the victims.
3.9 The more popular a brand is, the higher the expenditures of its marketing/advertisements.

IV. CONCLUSION
4.1 Marketing/advertisements is the REAL REASON behind the high prices of branded products NOT THE BRAND per se.
4.2 The name/brand assigned to a product does not make it more expensive. The cost of MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS used to make the name/brand popular is the REAL REASON why a certain product is more expensive amidst its comparable quality with other products that are not branded or of less popular brands.

V. PRAYER
5.1 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the would-be readers: a) to consider the technicalities and analysis of the issue and not be swayed of the common and popular notion about top or popular brands; b) to make a personal and deep analysis of the issue; c) to think of possible remedies with regards to the issue of high prices of more popular products like the possibility of imposing legal cost limits to marketing/advertisements; and d) to render the judgment in favor of the con.
Debate Round No. 2
bpv1

Pro

I thank Con for the inputs and I appreciate the effort to explain the concept.

[4.1 Marketing/advertisements is the REAL REASON behind the high prices of branded products NOT THE BRAND per se.
4.2 The name/brand assigned to a product does not make it more expensive. The cost of MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS used to make the name/brand popular is the REAL REASON why a certain product is more expensive amidst its comparable quality with other products that are not branded or of less popular brands.]
The above inference would have been great if the sentence had to be analyzed on linguistic grounds. The reason for me, putting this discussion in the SOCIETY category, is with reference to the social and economic impact of the promotion of brands. I agree with Con that increase in the cost of a product is due to the amount spend for its brand promotion, but the brand name builds its identity just on the basis of the promotional activity done towards establishing it in the market. I would conclude this with the following.

1.Brand promotion is targeted to imprint the brand name/product name in the consumers and thus it persuades a buyer's decision making.
2.As no brand owner has established themselves for social service, all the money spent for brand promotion reflects in the price of the product.
3.Certain brands (Apparel brands) exploitatively define their product as status symbol and thus mislead public.
4.A buyer persuaded by the advertisement of the product spends more money for something he can get in the market with equal or more quality.
5.Buying of branded products does no help to the buyer if it does not offer better quality than the generic product of the same kind.
6.Making higher quality product is secondary to making higher profit for most brand owners.
7.Whom would you recommend branded products? Only to those who can afford its price or all in the society? If Brands are not for all, they promote social hierarchism and segregation.

With this discussion I would request the readers to withstand the persuasion of the multinational profit oriented brand owners. Quality matters, the Name never.
srregua

Con

I really had a great time doing this debate and the topic posted by my opponent and co-debater is really interesting. However, everything must come to an end. After this concluding rebuttal, I request the would-be readers to reread the entire debate and analyze the parameters and technicalities.

I. REITERATION OF THE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED
1.1 As I have always saying, the issue is simple and clear: Whether or not 'All the brands we use now are the invention of human intellect to exploit others.'
1.2 For the sake of this debate, this is the issue hat should be resolved.

II. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
2.1 The issue was presented by the pro but without further discussion.
2.2 The herein Contender accepted the debate and presented the definitions of the 2 terms, namely: BRAND and EXPLOIT.
2.3 Contender argued that 'BRAND' is neutral and served for the sole purpose of assigning names for certain products.
2.4 Contender concluded that since 'BRAND' is neutral, it is, then, not the reason for the high prices of some products.
2.5 Pro conceded with the definition and accepted that 'BRAND' is neutral and presented practical examples to argue that 'BRAND' is used to exploit the people.
2.6 Contender reiterated the issue and discussed that 'BRAND' is not the cause of high prices and established the facts presented in the case.
2.7 Contender presented the formula to compute for the price of a certain product which the pro did not refute.
2.8 Contender concluded that it is the MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS which causes the high prices of some products and established that the expense used for the MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS of a certain BRAND is the reason for its high price and not the BRAND per se.
2.9 Pro, for his concluding rebuttal, argued that BRAND is used to mislead the consumers and concluded that Quality matters, the Name never.

III. DISCUSSION
3.1 First of all, my opponent is guilty of prejudice. He wants to establish that popular brands are just misleading the consumers and that popular brands are over priced. He failed to see that some brands earned their popularity and prestige out of their efforts to make quality products.
3.2 Secondly, my opponent is vehemently underestimating the consumers. He is implying that the consumers are not good in choosing the commodities to buy and that they can be easily deceived with the prestige of some brands. He failed to see that the consumers are smart; that they patronize some brands because of the sense of trust they got from the very first time they buy a product with a certain brand and that is because of the quality of the product.
3.3 Thirdly, my opponent failed to see the social construct and psychology of using a product of a popular brand.
3.4 Finally, the issue is Whether or not 'All the brands we use now are the invention of human intellect to exploit others.' Since my opponent conceded that BRAND is neutral and used solely for assigning names for certain products, he, then, accepted the other side of what he is supposed to be arguing.

IV. CONCLUSION
4.1 With all the above premises, it is then established that BRAND is neutral. It is not the reason why some products of a certain brand cost more than others. It could be the MARKETING/ADVERTISEMENTS for that certain brand of a certain product,but NOT the BRAND per se.

V. PRAYER
5.1 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the would-be readers: a) to consider the technicalities and analysis of the issue and not be swayed of the common and popular notion about top or popular brands; b) to make a personal and deep analysis of the issue; c) to think of possible remedies with regards to the issue of high prices of more popular products like the possibility of imposing legal cost limits to marketing/advertisements; and d) to render the judgment in favor of the con.

I would like to thank again my co-debater for posting a very nice topic and encourage other debaters to continue discussing topics of great social relevance.

Your name is neutral until you make it otherwise.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by surfride 6 years ago
surfride
It seems that pro is saying that brands are not so much exploitative as inefficient. . . and he has a valid point. . .
Posted by Officialjake 6 years ago
Officialjake
Actually when you buy brand name stuff you can find the same exact product generic and cheaper. You are just paying for a box with a differnt name on it
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Meh. I agree with the resolution, I just don't think it's a bad thing. :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ProHobo 6 years ago
ProHobo
bpv1srreguaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04