Commentary: How ‘ugly’ orthopaedic shoe company Birkenstock created a brand worth billions

WEARING YOUR VALUES

American conservatives refer pejoratively to “Birkenstock liberals”, but the style has become associated with a universal nonchalance and quirky charm, while also representing “inconspicuous consumption” – just like other ethical shoe brands such as Allbirds.

Thorstein Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption suggests we use fashion to display financial wealth and status. Birkenstocks’ more accessible starting prices of £40 to £65 send the reverse signal. Wearers are avoiding overt displays of wealth, instead communicating their taste via subtle branding, and knowledge about materials, form and function.

And comfort cannot be ignored. Bronislaw Malinowski, an anthropologist that explained social phenomena in terms of functional appeal, said people want functional products to satisfy some or all of these seven needs: Nutrition, reproduction, bodily comforts, safety, movement, health and growth.

Functional footwear addresses most of these needs and informs some of the most iconic, and valuable, fashion brands. Other iconic footwear brands born from functional origins include Scholl – originally worn for medical purpposes – and UGG Australia, first worn by surfers to keep their feet warm.

Like many other fashionistas, Barbie chose a (pink) Birkenstock Arizona in the end, highlighting how the brand has managed to synthesise function and fashion, even in an “ugly” form. Other factors, such as the impact of persistently high inflation on consumer spending, will affect how Birkenstock fares post-IPO, but the brand has certainly put its best foot forward for its stock market debut.

Tamsin McLaren is Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Bath. This commentary first appeared on The Conversation.