Juliet's famous lament - 'What's in a name?' - questioning the value placed on names and lineage, found new relevance recently. Social media posts from Chinese manufacturers showcasing the production of high-end luxury goods in their factories - and urging consumers to buy directly from them, although without the brand label - once again highlighted the powerful psychological grip brands hold over us.

Perceived value has been alluring to humans for as long as the species has existed. Things are coveted for the single and simple reason that they are coveted by others. Possession of such items gives one pleasure because of the thought that others now think they have reached some standing.

Earlier, this covetousness was limited to precious metals and stones. This has now extended to brands. The dictionary defines a brand as 'a type of product made by a particular company and sold under a particular name'. This simple definition, however, only encapsulates the making and the selling - it does not touch the psychological dimension of emotions that a 'brand' generates for the brand's owners, and for those who want to be owners. For example, a wristwatch is not an object needed to tell time anymore. It is used to signal that one has arrived.

If one brand signals status, then two must signal a higher one? Except if they are on the same product. I recently came across a real example. I saw a Maruti Omni mini-van sporting a Toyota logo - quite a jarring sight. It took me back to my school days in Pune, where on a 'Chor Bazaar' street in the cantonment area, you could find shoes bearing a Nike logo on one side and Adidas on the other. Now imagine a BMW with Jaguar's leaping cat gracing the hood, or a Louis Vuitton bag adorned with Chanel's interlocked Cs.

One area where dual brands don't cause cognitive confusion is academia. There are joint programmes offered by universities, and one can imagine a certificate with the logo of two universities. In fact, a degree that has the logo of two high-ranking colleges would be highly sought after. A similar psychological reaction is expected to an endorsement from multiple companies - say, as part of a joint training programme, especially if the entrance criteria are tough.

So, multiple brands don't make sense when they are on the same manufactured product. But they are coveted when they signal learning, or acquisition of skills.

Such complex calculus underlies our interaction with brands. An alien species studying human choices would reach these conclusions for our decision-making rules related to brands:

1. Covet what others have and want.

2. There's no constraint on items that can be pursued. Only rule 1 should be satisfied. These can be anything from tulip bulbs to colours on paper.

3. Sometimes, one's own needs are superseded by Rule #2.

4. Show it off once it is acquired.

5. Protect the label more than the product. The item loses its value if the label gets damaged - even if the product is functioning at full efficiency.

6. One brand is good, two are super - but not in all instances (see above).

6. Sometimes, ownership is not the goal. Acquire now to sell later at a higher value.

7. Sometimes, showing off is not the goal. A concealed display is required to protect it. Just knowledge within the community that one owns it, is satisfying.

8. Even though brand and label acquisition signals wealth, a direct demonstration of wealth -- such as displaying one's net worth -- is value-reducing.

The aliens might have to scratch their heads to make a logical framework that accommodates these behaviours. Even if they managed this task, they would be dumbstruck by learning what we think differentiates us from other species - that we consider ourselves rational.

The writer is MD, Resonance

Laboratories, Bengaluru