Every boomer I've ever known was a slave to (((corporate))) brands. Those (((brands))) were pushed on them 24x7 and they were highly effective. If it didn't work as you claim, then how did those brands take off so big before GenX was old enough to buy them and Millennials and Zoomers didn't even exist yet? And BTW, Apple is from a boomer and boomers love their "easy to use" Macintosh computers and iPhone and iPads very much. We've all been turned into brand slaves whether we like it or not. That includes me, but I buy much more old and broken things like music gear and repair them myself although I stick to brands that I have good experience with mostly.
For clothing, I wear cheap brands for clothing and wear them till they wear out even though my wife buys me brand name stuff without me asking. I drive older vehicles till the fall apart. I do most things frugally except for my electronic test equipment, tools, computer parts and other techy things that I keep forever. But I still am brand-loyal because of their quality merits rather than trendy-ness. My stuff retains value and usefulness, except for my clothes which is intended to be utilitarian.
But yeah, boomers aren't immune to the siren call of brands. None of us are. Now go have yourself a Coca-Cola or some Jack Daniels Black Label if you prefer.
I've been drinking Sam's cola thankyouverymuch. And my booze is Ernest & Julio brandy, which is more of a clinical definition of a degreaser than a brand name beverage. Because my money is for important things, not to feed the Beast by buying its flagship products.
As for why those brand names did so well before Gen-X became consumerbots, well, I'd say that would be the anti-competitive practices that abounded in the middle of the 20th Century in the USA. Ever hear of the Tucker automobile?
(post is archived)