Over the weekend, there was a fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine about Aaron Bondaroff (”A-Ron”), a lifestyle curator and brand impresario who is building a one-man brand in the hippest neighborhoods of New York City. Unlike anti-establishment types who prefer to distance themselves from the cultural mainstream, A-Ron is as much a businessman as he is a hipster. He’s not afraid to make his “subculture lifestyle” a highly-visible brand that appeals to mainstream audiences. Even while he’s trying to sell his hipster T-shirts and hats at places like Barneys, he’s still courting the “cool kid” demographic in lower Manhattan. He’s not an artist, designer, author, musician or filmmaker - he’s just a “cool guy” who is fawned over by marketers and advertisers hoping to kick it with the cool crowd in Manhattan. Needless to say, A-Ron’s underlying capitalist ethos is challenging the whole notion of what it means to advertise and market a product:
“This might seem strange, since most of us think of branding as a thoroughly mainstream practice: huge companies buying advertising time during the Super Bowl to shout their trademarked names at us is pretty much the opposite of authentic or edgy expression. But branding is more complicated than that. It is really a process of attaching an idea to a product. Decades ago that idea might have been strictly utilitarian: trustworthy, effective, a bargain. Over time, the ideas attached to products have become more elaborate, ambitious and even emotional. This is why, for example, current branding campaigns for beer or fast food often seem to be making some sort of statement about the nature of contemporary manhood. If a product is successfully tied to an idea, branding persuades people — consciously or not — to consume the idea by consuming the product. Even companies like Apple and Nike, while celebrated for the tangible attributes of their products, work hard to associate themselves with abstract notions of nonconformity or achievement. A potent brand becomes a form of identity in shorthand.”
It’s not just A-Ron, though, who is busy at work creating a “counterculture brand”:
“Thousands and thousands of young people who are turned off by the world of shopping malls and Wal-Marts and who can’t bear the thought of a 9-to-5 job are pursuing a path similar to A-Ron’s. Some design furniture and housewares or leverage do-it-yourself-craft skills into businesses or simply convert their consumer taste into blog-enabled trend-spotting careers. Some make toys, paint sneakers or open gallerylike boutiques that specialize in the offerings of product-artists. Many of them clearly see what they are doing as not only noncorporate but also somehow anticorporate: making statements against the materialistic mainstream — but doing it with different forms of materialism. In other words, they see products and brands as viable forms of creative expression.”
Anyway, the article is a fascinating look at the blurring of the mainstream and counterculture, of the slow seeping of the capitalist ethos into even the tiniest consumer niche. It also calls into question, if only indirectly, the whole flourishing of the “D.I.Y” ethos both online and offline. If I’m reading the New York Times Magazine article correctly, then the whole raft of “DIY” and “craft” businesses that are popping up seemingly everywhere are really nothing more than a disguised form of the mainstream businesses they were meant to avoid. After all, there’s not much more mainstream than attempting to sell your wares at huge retail stores and having your cool parties underwritten by the likes of Nike and Sony: “Countercultures are supposed to oppose the mainstream, and nothing is more mainstream than consumerism…”
Tags: brand lifestyle marketing design DIY
[image: New York Times Magazine]
