On the Future of Fetish/ Affective Value | Shin’ya Nagasawa

Shin’ya NAGASAWA | On the Future of Fetish/ Affective Value

Relation Between Affective/Kansei Value and Fetish Value of Karl Marx

While more philosophically complex, if deconstructed into sensation and emotion, the emotional side of affective/Kansei value, represented by our sense of luxury and status [1], equates almost directly with Marx’s fetish value. Of the values which consumers subjectively perceive as separate from the use value of a product, it definitely maps closer than the sensory side of affective/Kansei value, such as taste or smell. The two are perceived differently, however; whereas affective/Kansei value is a psychological value perceived by the consumer subjectively, fetish value represents deviation between the product’s original value and market price-a characteristic value peculiar to capitalism.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) does not attribute any mysterious characteristics to the use value of a commodity; these result from its exchange value. Through the social division of labor, the social characteristics of labor are reflected in commodities, and the ratios used for exchange are decided according to human relations, namely, the ratio of productivity of labor in producing each commodity (e.g. how many can be produced in an hour). Accordingly, the various properties assigned to commodities by the social division of labor are automatically treated as being natural, intrinsic properties of that commodity itself. This is commodity fetishism: a reification peculiar to capitalist production in which commodities assume a godlike mystique. In non-capitalist production, the social division of labor is reified, not goods. Division of labor becomes the subject of the reification when exchanged for commodities [2].

Reasons Why Regular Brands Do Not Apply Affective/Kansei Value

Regular brands make no attempts at applying fetish value and affective/Kansei value to transform their products into the kinds that sell and draw rabid fanbases regardless of price because they don’t know how due to lack of experience. As a result, they think it can’t be done or never think to try.

To take an example, to earn a million yen selling watches, you could sell 10,000 people a 100-yen watch each, or you could sell one watch to one person for one million yen. It’s a question of which choice you take. You might say that talk is cheap, but in fact implementation is another story. So, what makes it so hard?

In our example, the 100-yen watch, and million-yen watch are both watches, but they are clearly different products. They have to be. If you can’t explain exactly why the million-yen watch costs so much and what sets it apart from the 100-yen watch when asked, you won’t sell any.

We are talking about two different products. The prices are different, naturally-one at 100 yen and the other at one million yen. Given price, they are also distributed through different channels: a 100-yen store can sell 100-yen watches, but if they were to put a million-yen watch on display alongside the other watches, no one would buy it. It wouldn’t fit. You have to sell it in different stores and venues. Promotion is different as well; the price alone can sell a 100-yen watch, but you need to sell the story and history of a million-yen watch to have any hope of selling one. Thus, the biggest issue at hand is that the clientele for 100-yen watches and million-yen watches are different. Here, innovation takes the form of changing clientele. Innovation is not restricted to technology; it applies to all facets of business.

Promotion is different as well; the price alone can sell a 100- yen watch, but you need to sell the story and history of a millionyen watch to have any hope of selling one. Thus, the biggest issue at hand is that the clientele for 100-yen watches and million-yen watches are different. Here, innovation takes the form of changing clientele. Innovation is not restricted to technology; it applies to all facets of business.

Targeting luxury requires innovation at all levels: the product, the price, distribution, promotion, and crucially, clientele. Everything changes. Many will instinctively recoil at the mention of “innovation”; even if totally convinced, they can’t bring themselves to action. After all, innovation is hard to do [3].

Reasons Why Japanese Brands Do Not Use Fetish Value and Affective/Kansei Value in Marketing

There are three main possibilities for why local brands like Inden-ya (established in 1582), traditional companies like Chiso (established in 1555), Toraya (established in 1525 or so) and brands like Toyota, despite the latent luxury potential of its Lexus moniker, make no attempts at fetish value or affective/Kansei value.

These three are as follows:

Modest and virtuous dispositions

Here, the Japanese pre-disposition not to beat one’s own drum may get in the way. Statements such as “My product is amazing” or “Look at how great I am!” are shameful and discouraged.

Long-standing local and traditional brands are particularly wont to depend on their reputation: those who know, know. However, the reverse is equally true: those who don’t know, don’t.

The “Tap Water Philosophy”

Konosuke Matsushita, the namesake who founded Panasonic predecessor Matsushita Electric Housewares Manufacturing Works in 1918, espoused what is known as the “Tap Water Philosophy,” that a company’s mission is to distribute goods cheaply enough to breed happiness. This philosophy helped the spread of mass production for appliances, building Matsushita Electric into a leading Japanese manufacturer. Matsushita is deified in Japanese business circles for his pioneering efforts in methods that persist in today’s corporate management, such as segmenting the business into divisions with responsibility for managing profits independently for each factory cluster. Fast-forwarding to the 2000s, however, the same Panasonic lost big to competitors in flat panel TVs. Today, the Tap Water Philosophy has been reinterpreted to devise lifestyle changing value-added products, such as beauty appliances. The Japanese business god’s notion of affordable quality products is seeded deeply in Japanese manufacturers. Leveraging fetish value and affective/Kansei value to sell at higher price points stands diametrically opposed to this philosophy and is thus rejected out of hand.

            Shin’yaNAGASAWA Articles from Iris Publishers 

Pursuing the Luxury Strategy

The four P’s come up frequently in marketing. The first two are straightforward: product & price. Next is place, which represents distribution channels-where the product is sold. The final P is for promotion. With that background, here is my explanation.

In marketing for regular products, the product is supposed to have just enough quality. Too much quality would make it expensive, after all. Relative quality & functional benefit are a good thing. In contrast, luxury strategies aim to build a product of exceptional quality and craftsmanship with a story. In technical terms, this is referred to as absolute quality, affective/Kansei quality, or experiential value.

In terms of price, cheaper is generally better. Low cost offers a relative advantage over other products. Luxury products, however, are high-priced the world over. I must stress though that the brand itself is reasonably priced, commensurate with the effort put into creating the product. It has an absolute value that renders comparison to other products immaterial.

Distribution will present an issue. In the end, you can’t put a million-yen watch on the shelf with 100-yen watches and expect it to sell. The staff at the store wouldn’t know how to sell it, for one thing. Thus, you, with your own employees who are thoroughly versed in your commitments to your craft, will inevitably have to sell the product themselves in company-run stores. If not company stores, limited distribution channels can be used.

Read More Iris Publishers: Textile Science- Fashion Technology- Journal Articles