That is nicely said.
It used to be that a brand meant that something was made by the company on the brand.
Now the goal is often to create or appropriate a brand and use it to market products that could be made by anyone, anywhere doing anything. At best, a *major* brand only connotes some level QC, and often not even that. But if brands don't mean anything, all you can do is try to assess quality directly. If you do, you'll end up challenging orthodoxy, and the villagers will come after you.
Part of the problem is that it's very tough to be a good judge of quality about everything, so we tend to accept orthodoxy about some stuff in order not to have to know everything about everything. So, it may relate to who made your guitar, or who made your pots or whether heavy bridges lead to better sustain the lighter ones... mostly we take these things on faith or brand name.
So Fender now makes some good P-basses and some crappy ones. It makes no Stingrays or L2000s or other models that Leo Fender continued to innovate with after leaving Fender. And Music Man and G&L have come to be be almost as frozen in time as Fender when it comes to further innovation. You want an innovation you have to see how these designs are being modded or go to companies like Lakland or Sadowsky...or just DIY by hot-rodding a cheap one or building your own.
It's funny how keyboard players struggle so much less with this. They just go with what ever has the tech, the feel and the sounds they like, and the heck with brand loyalty. There is something about guitars and basses that makes us more susceptible to hype. I have a friend who says it's because we strap the instrument on, and that it generally has sensual curves. One hand is around the back of the neck, the other strokes the body... No wonder we tend to believe there's voodoo in the instrument (which is, of course, true) and also in the company that branded it even though they neither designed it, or even maybe manufactured it which is, of course, nonsense.