Thorstein Veblen is hardly a household name. To the extent you’ve heard of the 19th-century economist, I’m guessing it’s in the context of “conspicuous consumption,” his best-known contribution to the theoretical lexicon.
More on that another time. Today, I’m interested in Veblen’s thoughts on marketing.
As John Cassidy notes in Capitalism and Its Critics, Veblen’s opinions on the topic were none too flattering. In Veblen’s telling, marketing adds nothing “to the serviceability of the output,” offering no “utility to the last buyer.” Veblen decries advertising as “wasteful.”
Much of it, “parasitic.”
Had a resurrected Veblen read this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, I assume the Exchange section would’ve infuriated him. Veblen would’ve loathed an article on a Wendy’s turnaround effort built, in part, on “stepped-up” marketing; in Heard on the Street, he would’ve fumed over Reformation’s perceived need to advertise for growth.
To be clear: I’m no Veblenian purist. There is clear value in telling consumers about new products and services; in reinforcing a brand’s value proposition. I work with brilliant marketers who’ve taught me to think in these terms.
But Veblen does provide an interesting lens through which to view this weekend’s reporting. Yes, near-term growth can often be purchased – companies can convert browsers to buyers via a one-time promotion, a clever ad campaign, increased acquisition spend.
A less cranky Veblen, however, would smirk as he probed further: Do those buyers ever come back?
In the same weekend Journal, Under Armour’s lackluster quarter – a quarter in which it leaned heavily on promotions to offset weak traffic – may provide a clue. The CEO intends to “cut back its reliance on promotions,” noting the company “must earn [consumer demand] through more compelling reasons to buy.”
Sometimes, sustainable growth must be earned, not simply purchased.
Perhaps Veblen had a point.
Tea Leaves #9: VEBLENIAN MARKETING
Originally published August 12, 2026
