Chief Income Tax Collector And Pro-Circuit Executioner Darren Saturday and I are having a running disagreement (well, more of a debate — he hasn’t tried to drive a number 4 pencil through my face yet, so it probably doesn’t qualify as a disagreement) about the significance of corporate ‘branding’ when it comes to consumer decision making.
At the heart of this disagreement debate is El Diablo Saturday’s belief that basically every economic decision you make — the shoes you’re wearing, the petrol in your gas tank, the snow peas you had for lunch, everything — is a function of branding. My belief is that this is utter nonsense, and that the otherwise sane and rational Professor Saturday is truly out there baying at the moon when it comes to this particular topic [1].
Why this issue has once again generated a flurry of recriminating emails between His Saturdayness and myself is largely because of a link he forwarded to me recently from some blog called brand autopsy [2] where the guy performs a dissection of the 2008 US Presidential Election logos, declaring this logo to be visionary, that logo to be too reminiscent of the failures of 2004 and the other logo to be the work of someone who obviously should have stuck to fingerpainting, as opposed to pursuing a professional career in logo design.
The problem with all this is, I simply can’t bring myself to believe that it really matters. I even said as much in my most recent email to that crazy little lunatic Saturday, sent some time today:
Oh, man — if a logo can have a significant impact on an election — so, not just an impact on the graphic-design-is-more-meaningful-than-philosophy wannabe fanbois, but on, like, people as well — then gimme the pill (red, blue, indigo brown, whatever) that is the metaphor for ‘uncertain future, perhaps chose unwisely to pretend to understand humans, too beautiful for this world, last exit to sanity’ along with a glass of Pepsi Max and leave me the hell alone.
I’m not saying that branding doesn’t play a part in the choices people make — whether in the supermarket, or at the voting booth, or wherever — I’m just saying that if you think the swoop to the left of the double-dashes next to the eagle-type-face-thingy is the reason Mitt Romney doesn’t stand a chance of becoming President in 2008, it’s probably because no-one has got around to mentioning to you that he’s a Mormon, and maybe mainstream America isn’t ready to have him driving the big bus yet?
| 1. | Mind you, since he’s three-quarters Werewolf and at least two-thirds Poodle, it’s not unusual for him to go barking mad when the moon is full, or even simply to piddle himself whenever he gets too excited. |
| Return | |
| 2. | I hate to admit it, but it’s a pretty interesting blog if you have a thing about marketing. |
| Return |
Um yes how do I put this politly – you’re a loon Mr @ Midnight – no that didn’t work…Um I’ll just pop off to the shop and buy some tact and will be back soon.
Oh thank God! For a minute I thought you were accusing me of being a loom, and I simply wasn’t prepared to defend myself against accusations of being involved in the weaving and / or textiles industries.
Loon, on the other hand, I can live with.
Welcome to Voodoologic, by the way.
All the best,
Murray @ Midnight
So the shop was out of tact (due to it being Xmas).
I mostly agree with Cardinal Saturday that basically every purchase decision that you make is driven by marketing. Even people who specifically buy no-name products are driven (off) by marketing. I believe that there are a bunch of small player named brands (i.e. Nike, Puma, Coke, Microsoft etc) and one hugely huge corporation that makes all that cheap crap that we all buy ‘cause we’re to cool for that overpriced Nike crap that’s worn by pretentious [people]. I also believe that every Kevin Costner film is about baseball (yes even Water World), but that’s a different discussion.
The only excepting to this marketing RULE is of course snow peas. Which therefore means that I award the debate to Colonel Midnight (Ret).
And you still could be a Loom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loom%2C_West_Virginia
Dear Stark Raving Duncan,
Let me begin by explaining a couple of things about how Voodoologic works.
Thing the first: we do not ever agree with Darren Saturday. This is because he is an insufferable
prickbastardperson and is the only guy I know who would lurk in an alleyway for the purposes of smugging someone [1], as opposed to doing them across the back of the head with a sock full of marbles and making off with their socks and also their collection of marbles.Thing the second: we do not, I repeat we do not feed Darren Saturday after midnight. Some believe this is because if we do he will turn into a horrible little monster that will procreate willy-nilly and will wreak havoc across the countryside until we discover that his one mutant weakness is against light comedy romances starring the delightful Audrey Tatou, however the real reason is that he will get cookie crumbs down the side of the Voodoologic couches and he will watch bad latenight television which will give him nightmares and he will call us in the early hours of the morning to say “Mumma was bad.”
Right, now we’ve got that out of the way.
I think we’re maybe confusing the lines between marketing and branding, and while they’re very related, they’re not necessarily the same thing.
Let’s go with one of your examples — Nike. I buy Nike shoes. Not exclusively, but I do buy them. I buy them because they’re pretty much in every shoe store I walk into. Now, that’s a marketing strategy of convenience, but I absolutely wouldn’t agree that convenience is part of the Nike brand message. The Nike brand is about how when I put those shoes on the end of my legs I will no longer find myself out of breath after climbing a short flight of stairs, I will be floating through the air with a basketball in my hand and the kind of triumphant expression I’d normally reserve for finding a parking spot within an hour’s walking distance of the front entrance of the Chermside Shopping Complex on Christmas Eve (just 366 shopping days left until Christmas 2008!). Also, I’d be black and I’d be able to wear hawaiin shirts without anyone making fun of me. This, you understand, is the brand, as opposed to the strategy.
Ultimately, I suspect a lot of purchasing decisions are based around issues of convenience. For example, I do most of my grocery shopping at Woolworths. I shop there because because it’s the closest supermarket to where I live. If it was a Coles [2], I’d be shopping at Coles. So, for all the money these 2 very large companies pour into developing brand awareness, my decision is based purely on convenience. If there was a Woolworths and a Coles within equal driving distance, I’d probably go to the one that had the more convenient carpark.
The problem with explaining this to ‘Brand Is Everything’ weenies is, of course, their tendency to take a step back up the chain and claim, ‘Well, that’s just all part of the brand.’ So, the carpark at Coles Fairfield is easier to get in and out of than the carpark at Woolworths Moorooka? That’s just part of the brand, right?
No, that’s nonsense is what that is.
Unfortunately, it’s attractive nonsense, and it adds a layer of hocus pocus to the business paradigm that some people lucratively service like High Priests at the alter of a pagan cult. Yes, brand is important. But is it the only important thing in the complex relationship between producer and consumer? No sir, it ain’t.
And let me explain why: brand probably is why you might spend $200 on a pair of Nike sneakers as opposed to $30 for a pair of no-name sneakers that are possibly better shoes. However, let’s say you had to drive an extra 2 hours to buy that pair of $200 sneakers, while the $30 pair are just 10 minutes up the road. How many people do you think would drive that 2 hours to own a pair of Nikes? Some would, sure — but let’s be honest, most wouldn’t.
And that’s why brand isn’t everything.
Murray @ Midnight
P.s. I am not a loom.