The Economist recently published a book review called Bursting the branding bubble, presenting a synopsis of the author’s thesis that branding works only on cattle.
As a rule, the comments submitted to articles published by the Economist are worth reading just as much as the articles themselves – sometimes more. The comments to this article were no exception. Below is my attempt to throw in my two cents to the debate.
“Is branding even avoidable? Person, product, service, or company, by their mere existence and activity will project an image (brand) of some sort. I do not know how much time and money would be worth investing to manage that image. Yet, allowing chance or someone else’s interests to shape how I/my product/my company are perceived … may prove rather costly at the end of the day.
I would re-frame the argument from: “branding is no good”, which is moot for the reasons presented above, to “branding that is too much about form and too little little about content is expected to become less effective as target audiences become more discerning and demanding”. I can live with that…”
Now, and this is the real point of this blog entry, I find it curious how pressing the “submit” button cleanses the doors of perception and reveals to me how conceited and somewhat obnoxious my comment comes across.
Ah, the benefits of hind sight…– This page has been viewed by 573 members –