Talking about the origins of branding helps to clarify how the brand is supposed to interact with the buyer. Theres more to it than ‘this looks cool’. Back in teh olden days (when the internet was in black and white) goods were sold loose in shops. With some goods thats fine, flour is pretty much flour, sugar is sugar. Looks the same, tastes the same. No problem. With something like washing powder though, the power could be really good or really rubbish and theres not really a way to tell by looking at it. By the same measure you could pay a price for good powder one week and be sold rubbish powder by the same shop, out of the same barrel for the same price.
To tackle that manufactures had to start selling their goods in sealed packets with their name on so that their goods couldn’t be mis-sold or cut with inferior product. So a ‘brand’ in the first instance is a guarantee of quality, anything sold with the brand on should meet the expectations you have of it.
But once you’ve sealed it the customer can’t touch/taste/ sample the product so the other job of branding is to confer / infer the qualities of the product so that you can gauge whether the product is for you or not. So in many instances a brand has a duel purpose – to attract the people who would want to buy a product and who would enjoy it and also to sort of repel the people who wouldn’t want to buy it.
Apple sort of illustrates that well, in the sense of their brand’s ability to repel people who wouldn’t want their products anyway. Apple’s strength is in offering an extremely small product line up, they can’t cater for everyone if they do that so they need people to self select themselves as non-apple customers.