Historically, "branding" suggested a sign of "ownership," proof of possession and a display of status. The question is, exactly who owns whom? Today, very little has changed in the definition compared to its changes in application. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "brands", as; "a trademark," or a certain "class of goods," or an "image, the impression of a product in the minds of potential consumers." What these definitions do not convey are the bombardment of pressures that must be endured to acquire these "brands". They include: corporate driven media blasting, accelerated financial burden for the "lifestyle" and the mandatory cattle drive participation within peer groups.
Any moment of any day you can either look, listen, taste, feel or smell a "brand". The multi-billion dollar media industry accepts corporations" money to be in your face as frequently as afforded, on the hopes that even one in thousands of consumers gets hooked. Over the course of nineteen years the "total overall ad expenditures in the United States" rose over one hundred and fifty billion dollars. (Table 1.1) This is by no mistake. The return on their investment will be tenfold. The ads imply a lifestyle that must be acquired. It is no longer even about the products. Sponsorships take the cream of the crop; athletes, celebrities and international events and make their world yours, if you only wear their clothes or drink their beverage or drive their car and on and on.
As the corporations greedily compete for consumer dollars, consumer's financial pressures increase. A great number of impressionable future consumers will stop at nothing to strive towards the inferred greatness that "brands" illustrate. They have "grown up sold." (Klein 61) Sold on a better lifestyle, they unintentionally assert pressure on their family, not understanding the value vs. need concept. "Brand-name" clothing implying status does not necessarily wear any better or last any longer than the generic counterparts.