Exclusive is a word with a residual schizophrenia. In the majority of cases, it’s still being used with an intention of describing highly positive characteristics of a subject. But how is that possible if its antonym seems to do the same job?

To be clear, I do not refer to all those other contexts in which our schizophrenic adjective seems to defend bravely its virtues – like a relationship. I stick to marketing exclusively.

When it comes to advertising products, exclusive usually means “too expensive for some people”. It subconsciously implies a higher quality but there are many other words to do it more directly. Why do we refer to the part that something is just not available for everybody?

Maybe because it’s just indecently easier to do. Instead of proving some real value, you can simply set a price tag high enough to suggest a quality behind it. And when any declared value is presumed, numbers are painfully real. The trick works. And even if you spend all the money to just see that the difference is not worth it – you’re the only one who knows. In eyes of people excluded from this experience, your choices are justifiable. Who has a time and capability to do a proper research every time he or she buys something?

Although, it’s striking how after all those fights for an equal rights society, we still so profusely refer to exclusiveness as it was something good. There are many words to suggest a scarcity. From all of them, exclusive targets the worst aspect of it: some people will never be able to get it. I’m not saying it does not make you happy sometimes. The question is if it really should.

How substantially better any vulgar advertisement sounds – kind of a naive discovery, I know – when you consequently use the word inclusive instead its contrary.

Inclusive brands, products and shops, but first of all, inclusive language and society, we need much more of them.

Leave a comment on Facebook or Twitter.