Brands are a way of economising on little knowledge - they force producers to compete in quality alongside the price. Many brands are interchangeable in quality, but knowing for which brands this is true is everything. Some brand names substitute for specific knowledge with their value depending on how much knowledge you already have about the particular product or service. When the knowledge is difficult to ascertain, the manufacturers can charge a premium for their reputation. A hotel with a Ritz-Carlton sign out front could charge you more for the same size and quality room than some comparable, locally-run, independent hotel. The accompanying service could even be the same. You would sensibly choose the cheaper hotel if you knew where to look. But you don’t always know, and the Ritz-Carlton brand is as good a promise of quality as you can get.

In short, the rise of brands promoted better quality by allowing consumers to distinguish and choose. They forced producers to take responsibility for what they made, reaping the rewards when it was good and losing customers when it was not. The best-known brands have the most to lose.

In the old Soviet Union, where all products were supposed to be the same, consumers learned to read barcodes as substitutes for brands to identify goods from reliable factories. Even where active measures restrict a customer’s ability to discern who makes what, they find a way - we navigate the world by making guesses based on incomplete knowledge, the majority of which is rooted in our experience.