I was recently listening to the Blamo! podcast, in particular, an interview between the host Jeremy Kirkland and the founder of Field Mag, Graham Hiemstra (this was a great interview and I recommend you listen to it!). At some point in the podcast, Jeremy Kirkland states that

I did a pod not that long ago with a person who had run a brand, and all they wanted to talk about was the brand, and any time I wanted to shift the conversation to them as an individual...they kind of like jump back on the brand. And I very politely interrupted them and I was like "you did that interview in 30 other outlets, nobody who listens to this is going to care about that as much as the passion you put into it". I was like "when was the last time you got your coffee order wrong and what was your coffee?"...People want to connect more with individuals...you want this empathetic connection.

This statement is 100% correct, and it kind of freaks me out! I give no issues to Jeremy Kirkland or what he said here, he's correct, and I agree that this is the right way to market oneself and one's brand in the current media landscape, especially with fashion. It just made the gears in my brain turn in a weird way.

It feels true to me that niche, smaller brands, a lot of which started independently by one or a few people, have to market themselves uniquely. They cannot market themselves through traditional advertisements like a Patagonia might do, because they are not a bigger brand with any historical or social cachet and they're probably not trying to appeal to wide audience. In our current moment, I tend to see these brands interacting with or communicating themselves through one person, or occasionally, a small group of people. I don't want to name any names here, because it's not really relevant and because I know that this is the best way to build a good audience. There's no need for me to point fingers at brands that make me uncomfortable for what is, all things considered, minor marketing decisions.

The trouble for me is the way that we consume the content and information put out by these brands, or really, these people. Traditionally, I would interact with a brand's advertisement as a piece of information telling me why I should purchase whatever they are marketing. While models may be used to market clothes, they were "faceless" in the sense that I didn't know anything about the model or the people that created these clothes external to the world-building they might be using as part of their brand image. Even when I learned about the designer, it was typically through books or magazine interviews, making the experience far more removed. On the other hand, I tend to interact with smaller brands through the internet: through the medium of blogs, social media, or Youtube videos. While certain forms of social media (like Instagram or Twitter) might not be too far of a departure from traditional advertisements, Youtube videos and blog posts feel very different. To me, it is akin to the difference between old world entertainers and streamers, one feels much more personal than the other. I watch Youtube alone in my own private space and I alone hear what they have to say. The whole experience feels necessarily private. Nowdayas, I am often watching one designer explain every design decision they made for some garment based upon their life and how that garment fits into their experiences.

I don't mean this to say that I think that the designers marketing their designs online are exploiting this familiarity, in fact, I don't think any of them are. It is just an inescapable facet of the internet now. The designers showing off their work, especially when they're small brands where the viewers feel like they are communicating with them, as opposed to about them, are inherently going to fall into this loop, and the viewers are likely to fall into it as well. Bigger brands don't have that issue because their groundwork is as a monolith. I don't feel the same sort of connection to Patagonia as I do with a small online brand, because I saw that small brand grow and I interacted with them online as they were growing. It is an intensely personal relationship that cannot really be felt with bigger companies.

Sometimes, we can see online personalities try their best to avoid these sorts of relationships from forming online, but they are often helpless to fall into it. On this topic and the internet more broadly, I recommend listening to "There is No Algorithm for Truth", a talk Tom Scott gave at The Royal Institution. I watched this speech when it first came out, and I still think about it to this day. This talk introduced me to the concept of parasocial relationships along with a lot of other ethical issues in modern technology. I highly highly recommend watching this video. I should also mention that I almost certainly chose to watch this hour long speech because I had a parasocial relationship with Tom Scott at the time.

This is something I noticed with myself and with the clothes I have been gravitating towards. I've been ingesting far more content about fashion than I have in the past and it is most definitely influencing the clothes I want to buy. Some of these are relatively harmless, like greater interest in the avant garde and in tailoring. These interests are more general, and are more akin to developing a taste in aesthetics and ideas. Some, however, are far more specific. I can see myself very close to or actively purchasing garments in a style I'd never buy if it wasn't for the parasocial relationship I'd built up with some of the people of the brand. In these cases, I do not see the brand as a brand, but I see it as a person or group of people, and I want to buy something from those people because I like them. It feels more like merchandise.

I know there is nothing inherently wrong with this and I know part of the issue here is that I am easily afflicted by parasocial relationships, probably much moreso than the average person. It just bothers me, and I can't really say anybody is at fault. Another concern is that the things that foster a parasocial environment are often well intentioned. Personally responding to user queries about design decisions and clothes is a good thing in my opinion, but that also fosters a parasocial relationship. Still, I know that if I was creating a brand like this, I would do the exact same thing as everybody else. I would have an Instagram, a Youtube, a Substack, and I'd probably also respond to user queries personally, because that's just the way you have to do things. People want to learn and hear about you, not about the brand. They want a relationship, because they want something they can trust, and when trust is quality, how else can you prove yourself and your designs?

On the other hand, if you are the consumer of this content and information, how can you trust some designs or clothes without getting a lot of information about it? Also, how can you trust the clothes if you can't even trust the designer? There is good reason for you to also be party to this environment, it benefits you to some degree as well.

I am loath to use the word content here, because often it is much more meaningful than that, I just don't have a better word.

All in all, it makes this world very confusing to me. I am instinctively wary of parasocial relationships and the world built around them, but they have the capacity to benefit every party. I just feel off about them, because I don't like how the experience of marketing your clothes can become something very private and personal. It can be bad for everyone involved depending on how that relationship is handled, but it also seems to be the only way forward if you want to survive, from both ends.