There we were thinking that the major problems facing teenagers today are drug addiction, the prospects of unemployment, eating disorders, and the angst of unrequited love, when Austin Sammut over at The Times decides to set us to rights and tell us what’s really getting today’s youths down. And it’s got nothing to do with global warming or being disillusioned with politics or anything of the sort either. No – according to Sammut, one thing that crushes the teenager’s soul and throws him into torment is not being able to wear branded clothes.

This is the conclusion that Sammut reached after attending some shindig in Portugal organised by the Association of Trademark Owners. Following an analysis of the influence of brands on teenage consumers, Sammut had this to say, “But sorry, there is nothing we can or should do about this if we want our children to grow up as part of their peer group and not suffer from an inferiority complex or downright depression, with all its adverse effects on youth. The truth is that teenagers cannot afford not to wear branded apparel. It is an ingrained culture if not a downright cult.”

After reading this I started feeling rather light-headed, wondering whether Austin Sammut really believes that parents’ failure to kit their kids in top-to-toe Prada, Tommy Hilfiger and Nike will lead to downcast children who feel they don’t measure up to their peers. Maybe it’s just me, but I was flabbergasted by the suggestion that parents should embrace the brand imperative with open arms if they want their children to grow up to be well-adjusted adults and not the social rejects wearing non-branded clothes conjured up by Austin Sammut. Whatever happened to wearing clothes that suited you and reflected your individuality? Is it such a social faux pas if you prefer not to walk around flashing a logo on your breast?
According to Austin Sammut, it is. Wearing non-branded goods will lead to marginalisation, he says. Worse still are those teenagers who commit the ultimate outrage of wearing clothing or footwear with counterfeit brands. This, we are told, is even worse than wearing non-branded goods at all. Oh goodness, the endless tribulations facing those pleasant, grounded teenagers who don’t lose any sleep agonising over the lack of Calvin Klein jeans and Dolce & Gabbana shirts in their wardrobes. “Those who do not wear genuine branded goods will be referred to as nerds or jerks by their friends,” Sammut warns. Children today are being targeted directly by marketers, they have more money at their disposal, and if they don’t have cash, they can get credit. So Sammut enjoins parents to give up in the face of seemingly irreversible adversity, and presumably bow down their heads and open their wallets and ensure that their children have an endless supply of branded goods.

That is precisely what parents should not do if they want to ensure that their children do not grow up to be shallow brand-slaves who think that something looks good simply because it has a designer name emblazoned all over it. Rather than throwing up their hands in despair, they should show their children that branded goods are not necessarily superior to unbranded ones. They should point out that clothes are sometimes just the things you throw on for comfort and warmth rather than an all-important fashion statement which can make or break you.
A person is not defined by what he wears. There are so many other factors, besides owning a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes, which contribute to a person’s likeability and strength of character. Shrugging off peer pressure and the jibes made by idiots who think Gucci is god, is character-forming and is a much better idea than running up a load of debts simply to be accepted by the “in” crowd. Brand addiction is a sign of materialism gone mad – a badge of conspicuous consumption and not something to embrace as some inevitable manifestation of progress.

As an antidote to Austin Sammut’s fatalistic acceptance of global brand domination, I suggest logging on to www.brand-aid.info. The site is run by Neil Boorman, author of “Bonfire Of The Brands”, and provides information about shopping and brand addiction – how to diagnose it and how beat it. Boorman was once obsessed by brands but decided to try and shake off his addiction. So he burnt up all his branded goods in a bonfire and tried to live a brand-free life, shopping only at local markets, independent shops and second hand stores. Maybe that might be extreme. There’s nothing wrong with buying branded goods from time to time, but making your happiness dependent on them is just pathetic.

In a perverse kind of way, I have become quite fond of the Water Services Corporation (WSC) chairman Michael Falzon. Perceived by many to be the blue version of Labour’s Joe Debono Grech, trundled out to appeal to the Nationalist hard-liners, he makes good copy. The aura of infallibility in which he shrouds himself in and his relentless put-downs of anybody who does not adhere to the Falzon items of faith (Down with Sant, environmentalists exaggerate, I am always right), make good newspaper fodder.

Lately, he’s been particularly busy firing libel suits right, left and centre at people from the Labour camp, who he claims unjustly accused him of not acting properly with regard to a potential conflict of interest he may have. This arises because Falzon owns shares in a company, which in turn owns shares in another company, which tenders (at times successfully) for contracts of works issued by the WSC of which Falzon is chairman. Falzon says there is no problem because he has no say in the way tenders are awarded.
That might be so, but deciding which contractor is awarded a contract is not the only way in which improper behaviour by a person in Falzon’s position may be manifested. There is the possibility of leaking of insider information or of drawing up tender specifications in such a way as to make them more favourable to a particular contractor. Conveniently enough, these possibilities have been forgotten, as has the requirement of the relevant code of ethics which requires all directors in the public sector to disclose any interest they have in undertakings which are or could be engaged in dealings with the organisation on whose board they serve.
Falzon has wriggled out of this by stating (again) that there is no conflict of interest, omitting the fact that disclosure rules apply even if there is a potential conflict of interest. Why am I not surprised?

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt