What I want to focus on is the
section of “Competing Monopolies” (page 167), specifically when Mike talks
about brands and how they are practically identical, yet they seem different. I
find the panel in which Mike is eating a burger and the following two panels
after that to be of particular interest to me. In the same way that Pollan
argues how the tag of “organic” functions as a narrative of local, small, the “old
days” kind of farming/eating practices for consumers, I understand what Mike
means by branding and how these monopolies spend billions of dollars just to
communicate an image/narrative to consumers. It made me think about how we, as
consumers, tend to become fooled by these alleged differences between products
because of their diverse narratives constructed by their respective companies that
we buy into. For example, in this case, Mike refers to McDonald’s and how we
all know what it sells and what its burgers taste like, but the reason people
might keep going is because they love the image it represents of “Fun! Clowns!
[and] Songs!” Also, even though the product may be very similar, the prices are
not; in the same way, prices might also function to tell a narrative as well.
I, admittedly, find myself trusting brands that cost just a tad more because it
makes me believe that I am spending those extra cents or bucks for supposed
better quality.
This got me thinking… what kind of
narrative enchants us when we chose to buy, say, Dove soap over its
competitors, especially considering the commercials devoted to “real beauty”
and uplifting women’s self-esteem? And why is it that we continuously pick the
same brand for certain items? I have noted myself possessing this allegiance to
certain brands, and I can see how it might say more about me than I think. For
instance, I always buy the same brand of skin care products, made of
ingredients that are more naturally derived; I’m already communicating a
statement with this kind of purchase that goes against the mainstream skincare
brands and their use of harsh or toxic ingredients while I’m also communicating
how I espouse a certain level of concern over my skin to have gone out of my
way to make such purchases. This leads me to the notion that we’re not just
what we eat: we are what we buy. So, in a way, these competing monopolies that
Mike refers to and the purchases we make of their products might actually function
as a means for us to either express our identities or mold them because it's really the image—not the products—we are buying.


