One thing I've noticed is how different brands 'impute' values by the type of person they will hire. The "cheap and nasty" brands hire people of colour, with disabilities, etc. Possibly a toxic effect of this is we then go and associate those brand values back to the people who work there.
For example, in New Zealand, we have two supermarkets owned by the same company. New World, and Pak'N'Save.
New World is where our version of the "soccer mom" goes to shop. It's the most expensive supermarket, it features large delicatessens, etc. When you go there, as a soccer mom, the type of person you see working there reminds you of your daughter's friend.
Pak'N'Save, the cheap supermarket, embodies cheap. The supermarkets have bare concrete floors, their advertisments feature stick figures because "we're so cheap, we can't even afford good advertising." What type of person works in Pak'N'Save? People of colour, people with disabilities, etc.
I don't really know what my thoughts are here, yet. I don't think this is a conscious decision on the part of the brands or the managers, but it seems like people are used to impute brand as much as advertising or anything else. And nothing seems to impute that more by being served by a person who looks like they can only afford to shop here.
I'm not putting a value judgement on this: but it seems like something that's important to notice.