the size of brands

Today's video was inspired by this question:

"There is no question that we consume to survive. Phsyically (food, shelter, clothing) and emotionally (community, security, dignity, esteem, acceptance, etc.), companies satisfy our needs. We look to companies to learn ways of living (new or accepted). So it seems as if brands/companies have stepped into a very unique role: the new village elders.

Do you agree that this is happening? Do you think brands should act this way? Do you think such a relationship represents the future in how brands connect with people?"

(That's from Leland Maschmeyer, thanks very much Lee)

To be honest I don't really answer it. Not directly anyway. I slightly sidestep it because it prompted me to talk about a larger question - the size of brands. By which I mean that many of the metaphors and analogies we use for brands (like village elders) are potentially useful and interesting - except they masively overestimate the importance of brands in most people's lives. Brands aren't and shouldn't be, as important as village elders.

So, I ramble about that for about 4 minutes and then peter out. My basic point is that we have to consider the relative scale of brand relationships and our other relationships when we construct our analogies for the ways brands and customers interact.

I'm realising how hard it is to make these videos coherent, I'm afraid you mostly listen to me just thinking aloud. And only thinking in fragments too. I just don't have the time to create something five minutes long that's full of goodness. But I hope there's some value in me just chatting. And I think I'm going to try and revisit some of these videos, see if they still make sense a few weeks later and see if there are any grander thoughts that come out of them.

And all your comments are very helpful in doing that.

I'm quite proud of the new titles though.

Enjoy.

the size of brands m4v. (About 24MB).

Download size of brands mov. (About 5MB)

Comments

[rupert]

hi

john grant wrote about "brands as new traditions" in new marketing manifesto, the "ideas you can live by" line of thought...think he used Ikea as example..true they did open more people's eyes to the idea of contemporary design but i think their products have rapidly become a cliche..a victim of their own success?? think you could make a case for Apple as an idea you live by but using village elders at metaphor just seems daft really, doesn't it? i mean l love my iPod but not sure it's a subsitute for my Dad ;)

[[email protected]]

Love the titles too - but can't really think that a brand is ever anything bigger than Action Man's smallest toe nail (if that)... The people in one's life outscale brands enormously.

But when you're experiencing a brand it can seem like its personal - therefore big in some sense. But you know they're just brands, and well, real people are just real.

[kev]

Good point Russ. Scale of metaphor when identifying or refering to brands helps contain the importance or relevance a brand has in either its category or market in general. One thing I always try to predict (and this is based purley on the consumer in question) is that just how emotionally bound is the target with the brand. You mention loved ones i.e. family, partners, children etc. One thing not to discount is that some consumers (freakish as it may seem) are in love with brands. Scary, but true. However to your point as planners, getting it right as a metaphor in particluar its scale, helps set the expectation and perception when working on the brands issues.

Kev

[kev]

sorry for the typo.

[Michelle]

“One thing not to discount is that some consumers (freakish as it may seem) are in love with brands.” Hi Kev, just a comment here… When you give this example though, I wonder is it really that that consumer is in love with the brand or is it really what the brand represents in the eyes of “One thing not to discount is that some consumers (freakish as it may seem) are in love with brands.” Hi Kev, just a comment here… When you give this example though, I wonder is it really that that consumer is in love with the brand or is it really what the brand represents in the eyes of his or her social circle. Yes, you may see someone who will only wear Nike or drink a certain brand of water but it is the exclusivity/novelty of that item, or cache of that item that makes it appealing. One hardly sees the consumer being in love with a brand of dish soap, wearing gear dedicated to that dish soap and espousing on it’s greatness on a day to day basis; and when one does, one tends to question the reality that that person is living in. I think the amount a consumer holds a brand close to their sense of self is directly related to how much they will invest in the purchase and promotion of that brand. (Russell do you think that is a fair assumption?)

[Michelle]

oops messed that one up on copy/paste
sorry....

M

[Rob Mortimer]

If you take a look at the passion of supporters between the different computer console manufacturers; its clear that their branding and actions have a huge effect on their sales.

In the real scheme of things brands mean very little, but to people they often mean a hell of a lot. Especially when the brand is viewed aspirationally.

[kev]

Believe it or not, irrespective of a dish of soap or a high calibre fashion item, the amount of emotive fuel consumers burn in the decision making process (amongst 100's of competitors) usually reflects back to the personal benefits (delivered by the brand)needed to make the purchase decision in the first place. One hardly purchases a brand to make themselves unattractive or feel uncool. The love of brands comes into effect when the descision that the brands attributes have moulded to the consumers needs, at this stage, the strong bond between brand and consumer becomes, well, almost intimate. We spend tonnes of money captivating emotive responses and influencing the purchase descision, after years of repetitive emotional monolouge, you'd expect to change the emotions of some consumers.

kev

[hidden persuader]

As human beings, what sets us apart from other «animals» is our capacity of making choices such as "this is what I need", "this is what I want", "I want to be part of that", etc. This choices are either rational or emotional.
A brand (sorry for the analogy), in my personal point of view, is like a lighthouse that gives us guidance in our choices. I know this is rather simplistic, but I don't want to complicate it.

Although I love what Jean Braudillard wrote about consumering being a "permanent act of relationship" ... in the end, brands are just means to an end, aren't they!?