[Closed] Clever logo... (well I thought so anyway)

No - I am not saying that I disregard it but it does have an effect.

Are you saying you disregard it?

ooops double

Charlie: it's quite simple: he ignores it completely. He cannot ignore it completely though, but it does not effect him. And he recognises those effects on him and compensates for them so they didn't happen. Thus he is impervious to branding, but not impervious.

😥

g'night all

- it means I am aware of the effects and chose to ignore them or intentionally allow for the effects to ensure I make a choice free from bias

I think I'm fairly inured to marketing/branding - but in fact I'd specifically NOT buy an item with massive logos on it and I avoid stuff that's "on trend" generally

I can't claim to be free from bias because of the above

If I wanted to be genuinely free from bias I'd have to quantify the effect any branding/marketing was having upon me in order to counter it. I just don't see that as achievable

(bah - you people made me read 2 pages of this !!)

TJ needs to be watching BBC2 now.

Made In Britain, about 35mins in.

Why did you ask for my next question, then not answer it?

just in case you didn't see it

Are you saying you disregard it?

I'm lovin it!

Molgrips - judging by the fact that so many folk deny its possible then I thought they had never seen it.

But this is nothing to do with values. What you say makes no sense there. You're telling me about different world views and values, I'm talking about psychology and even neurology. Totally different things.

as for the extended meaning - thats precisely what was claimed that brought me into this

No, it really wasn't. You've got the wrong end of the stick - honestly, you have. I'm not having a go - just need to point it out.

TJ, if you understand that different pieces of music can make you feel different emotions, then its not much of a leap from there to understand that sound clips or film (adverts) can do the same, or that colours, type, slogans etc can. And then if each of those things is done with a particular brand or product you associate those emotions with it.

damo2576 A great example of that was a few years ago clarks shoes did a tv advert for kids shoes the music was "white horses" from a tv show that remember as a child and as I was mr average late 30s 2 young children it struck a chord.
Also if I remember correctly doesnt TJ advocate running red lights? Does this mean TJ is actually marketing all cyclists as unpredictable by way of his actions.

- it means I am aware of the effects and chose to ignore them or intentionally allow for the effects to ensure I make a choice free from bias

So - sight unseen, do you buy a branded item, or a non-branded one? I gave the example of a Shimano seat post vs a no-name seat post.

Choices
a) you know the Shimano brand and buy that one based on its likely reliability
b) you know the Shimano brand and you buy the no-name one because you dont like Shimano stuff
c) you buy the no-name one on principle, despite having no idea if it is good or not.

Your choice?

I'm away for one day and 19 more pages appear! Ye Gods, I've got some catching up to do with this one, although I assume not much has changed 😆

Trying to convince TJ he's wrong in this discussion, is no different from trying to convince a religious person what they believe in - man invented in the first place! And thus doesn't actually exist!

Well after seeing some of the beautiful logos on this thread (mainly the Loewy and Lubalin ones) can I take back my original statement about the Garmin logo?

I assume not much has changed

What leads you to that assumption? 😉

DrJ - there is simply not enough information to a make any sort of meaningful answer. too many unknown factors. So the only possible answer is mu

Damo - yes - but I am aware that there is an attempt to manipulate me and thus would do my best to discount it.

[i]would do my best to discount it. [/i]

and how woudl you decide if your best was good enough or, conversely, that you weren't overcompensating and dismissing a product which had merit because you were trying not to be influenced by the marketing/brand image?

molgrips - Member

"Molgrips - judging by the fact that so many folk deny its possible then I thought they had never seen it."

But this is nothing to do with values. What you say makes no sense there. You're telling me about different world views and values, I'm talking about psychology and even neurology. Totally different things.

"as for the extended meaning - thats precisely what was claimed that brought me into this"

No, it really wasn't. You've got the wrong end of the stick - honestly, you have. I'm not having a go - just need to point it out.

yes it was . Go to page 4

How dare you tell me what my motivations are?

DrJ - there is simply not enough information to a make any sort of meaningful answer. too many unknown factors. So the only possible answer is mu

There is quite enough information - what I describe is a normal internet transaction.

But your failure to answer the question is noted.

No its not. Its about an attitude to living my life that leads me to look at teh world in a certain way. Its clear you and many others have not grasped this

I'm not talking about you, I haven't all thread (bar the odd comment). I'm trying to explain what branding is, nothing to do with how you see the world.

How dare you tell me what my motivations are?

Wtf? I'm not telling you anything of the sort!!

I read page 4 when it came up. It was the bit with the fonts - about impressions - this is not the same as hidden meanings.

We are still talking at cross purposes here.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

DRJ

price, availability, colour, thats three bits of information. Price being a critical one.

Its a pointless question.

Molgrips. I understand what branding is. I accept your definitions and have done right thru the thread. You simply do not understand the point I have been arguing. You think you do but once again it has gone right by you.

yes you are trying to tell me my motivations. I came into this thread to point out the nonsense being talked about the hidden meanings (or impressions if you want - that is a meaning or a message) that people claimied was in the choice of font.

This is why I came into the thread. Obviously the debate has moved on from that point but the basic point remains

people were claiming tht the choice of font gave an impression - a subtext, a hidden meaning - some information that was more than just the words used. I pointed out that many folk simply do not see this at all.

This is where it started. This is what the debate is about:

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
Loving the attacks on me - emperors new clothes again?

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
Thats just part of the money wasting circle jerk

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
I pity anyone who believes in all this stuff and who wastes their life and / or money doing it.

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
MF - my point is the difference is only to people in your world who care about logos - the rest of us it makes no odds to at all

[b]mastiles_fanylion[/b]
You under-estimate the effect brand has on most people TJ.

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
MF - and I believe you vastly overstate it.

This is the debate I've been contributing to.

Jeremy has dismissed the world of branding. He said, basically, that only us self satisfied arty farty types can tell the differences between one brand and the next, and that nobody outside the 'circle jerk' pays any attention.

In case you missed it above, it was here:

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
MF - my point is the difference is only to people in your world who care about logos - the rest of us it makes no odds to at all

That is TJs point. The point this discussion has hinged on, and the point I think my posts among many others have categorically corrected him on.

The branding of goods - a practice in which logos play a huge part - has, does, and will continue to have a profound effect on the daily lives of all who live in our current society. Even those who, quite admirably, try to avoid being suckered in by it.

That's not overstating the power of branding - it's pointing out a rather sad fact of life. You can be as anti brand as you like. You could never buy a new product in your life, but if you consider yourself a member of our society - as must anyone with an internet connection - you'll never escape it. It shapes the world in which we live, it effects the day to day lives of every single person on this thread and most off it.

The power of branding, of which logos are a key component, is [i]very[/i] real.

TandemJeremy therefore simply has to, in the face of the sheer volume of considered evidence that has been put forward to him since, concede that this:

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]
MF - my point is the difference is only to people in your world who care about logos - the rest of us it makes no odds to at all

the initial point he made and therefore the point this entire debate is hanging on, is simply not true.

Logos make odds to the vast majority of people in our society, and some of those outside it, every single day.

But what I imagine will happen is it will now be reduced to semantics, where the difference between a 'logo' and 'brand' are debated. But doing so will only detract from the very real truth that TandemJeremy has, in this thread, for some time now, been proven really quite wrong.

wot jackthedog said.

even TJ's now agreeing he has to actively compensate for the effect rather than 'it has no effect'.

TandemJeremy - Member
How dare you tell me what my motivations are?

That's two brilliantly tounge-in-cheek, self aware comments on this thread now (not both from TJ). Chapeau to you too TJ 🙂

TJ, just admit defeat.

New experiences can be good, mmkay?

Empires fall, accepted truths are dismissed by the cold, hard reality of logic.

Let's all join hands and venture forth into a bright new tomorrow, one where the faintest possibility of you being wrong is no longer a myth.

OK chaps if you think you're actually going to get anywhere with this, I think you're mistaken.
All that is happening is the metaphorical coffers of the TJshow budget are being boosted. to be fair he needs some distraction.

Tails will be chased and greasy pigs will remain uncaptured, that is as far as things will go. To look at things objectively

- TJ simply CANNOT be right due to the following:
no evidence such as hard facts, data, links to guardian articles, research papers, statutory advice, wiki pages or laws have been provided. This is the usual way that we are shown what is right. All that has been submitted is personal experience and anecdote

Poor old ELF- the first casualty of war is always the innocent.

and on that basis, I'm out

Oh, and I've always liked the simplicity of this logo

[img] [/img]

the initial point he made and therefore the point this entire debate is hanging on, is simply not true.

Logos make odds to the vast majority of people in our society, and some of those outside it, every single day.

So some of yuo keep asserting. Some of us deny it. No evidence has been offered merely an attempt to shout me down.

MF - my point is the difference is only to people in your world who care about logos - the rest of us it makes no odds to at all

its like that thing with handkerchiefs that gives a visual code about people sexuality -if you know the code then you read it and get the information. if you don't know the code you cannot translate it.

This is the bit you fail to understand. Many folk do not speak the language you use so gain no meaning at all from this.

DRJ

price, availability, colour, thats three bits of information. Price being a critical one.

Its a pointless question.

All assumed the same, obviously, or I would have mentioned them. You can imagine that the no-name item is one penny cheaper, if you like.

The point of the question is to expose the limits of your philosophy. Which it has clearly achieved.

Hmm.. thought about this overnight and here is the simplest logic I can think of to explain it to you TJ.

Earlier you openly admitted that you know what McDonalds, Tesco and Nestle are and you know what they sell.

Those are BRANDS.

You are aware of them.

Ergo, branding has worked. That's it. End of.
That particular point is conceded right there. 😀

If you really look deep inside yourself you [i]might[/i] even be prepared to admit that you know what the logos are for these companies, and perhaps some others such as Starbucks, IKEA, BMW, Bass...

Now, you may [i]try[/i] to prevent the brand from influencing the products you select, disregarding the brand and instead attempting to select products on a purely objective merit basis.

That's fair enough. I think everyone tries that occasionally and it can be a useful approach (though I suspect most folk are more open to the idea that the brand behind a product may directly contribute to its likely merit).

You may also [i]try[/i] to disregard any marketing spin for a product and look beyond the shiny brochure to the actual product merits. Again fair enough. I think everyone regularly tries to do this.

I entirely understand why you might want to do this.

Happy?
(holding out unbranded generic olive branch...)

You simply do not understand the point I have been arguing. You think you do but once again it has gone right by you

Your point is that you put a lot of effort into (and take great personal pride in) not being swayed by marketing and advertising, and brand imagery - is that right? Or do I not understand?

I came into this thread to point out the nonsense being talked about the hidden meanings (or impressions if you want - that is a meaning or a message) that people claimied was in the choice of font

That is not nonsense, I'm afraid. Might not mean anything to you, and that's fine, but it does to most of the rest of us. Lots of experience and introspection has taught me this.

DrJ - a meaningless question exposes the limits of my philosophy? right. If that makes you happy.

I personally simply would not purchase something in that way. I don't do it. Therefore I cannot answer the question. the question is meaningless to me.

Molgrips - Only in the world you live in does it amke any significant difference- to a great many people it makes no significant differnce at all. that is the bleeding point. all the people in that world get so obsessed with all this stuff that they have long ago lost sight of how little importance it has. Many of us don't know the code and thus don't get this information.

Graham- there is still a huge significant point I have tried to make that you seem unable to grasp.

teh brand is not the company, the object is not the brand. It is possible to look beyond what something is branded as to see what it is.

I have really tried to explain this to you over and over again but you do not want to understand.

Earlier you openly admitted that you know what McDonalds, Tesco and Nestle are and you know what they sell.

Those are BRANDS.

You are aware of them.

Ergo, branding has worked. That's it. End of.

I think the acid test is, do you make some assumptions about a product based on its association with those names, as in your example, do you assume that the McDonalds felafel wrap will taste like sh*t?

No - I am not saying that I disregard it but it does have an effect.

ok, let's do it slowly.
Are you saying you disregard it?

DrJ - a meaningless question exposes the limits of my philosophy? right. If that makes you happy.

I personally simply would not purchase something in that way. I don't do it. Therefore I cannot answer the question. the question is meaningless to me.

Again, your failure to answer a simple question is noted, and conclusions drawn about your intellectual honesty.

Only in the world you live in does it amke any significant difference- to a great many people it makes no significant differnce at all

So you are saying that brand management doesn't increase sales?

Or are you saying that it's the link between brand image and real-world performance that's suspect?

I have really tried to explain this to you over and over again but you do not want to understand

No I think he just disagrees 🙂 Why should he share your opinion? You speak as if only you can ever possibly be right, and if we don't agree we're automatically wrong 🙂

So you are saying that brand management doesn't increase sales?

I guess he is also saying that, for example, Johnson and Johnson did not suffer from the Tylenol episode, etc etc etc. Nonsense, in other words.

No molgrips = what I am saying is that much of it has far less importance and effect that is claimed. People make an issue over deciding which font to use for a logo. So long as the font is clear it makes little difference to many folk.

~teh problem is that the only people who get to make these decision are either people who know the code and its important to or people who are afraid to shout - the emperor is naked

Dr J - I do not make purcheses in that way. The factors I use to make a decision are absent from your scenario. therefore I canmake no answer

I have answered similar questions on this thread where it was possible - all that stuff about red bull.

does anyone think there is any point to this anymore?

[i]does anyone think there is any point to this anymore? [/i]

No, but you'll no doubt press on regardless.

the 'point' stoppped on about page 2 when iot became clear there was never going to be any 'agreement' and it descended into 'so what you're saying is...'.

Dr J - I do not make purcheses in that way. The factors I use to make a decision are absent from your scenario. therefore I canmake no answer

The thing is, TJ, that I already know the answer to the question - if I am to believe that you honestly state your philosophy. You said that you ignore branding, so you must logically purchase the no-name post as it is 1 penny cheaper. It is interesting that you are so bashful about following your own stated philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Graham- there is still a huge significant point I have tried to make that you seem unable to grasp.

teh brand is not the company, the object is not the brand. It is possible to look beyond what something is branded as to see what it is.

Actually I'm pretty sure I just agreed to this.

I certainly just agreed to the second bit: that I think [u]everyone[/u] occasionally tries to disregard the brand and instead attempts to select products on a purely objective merit basis and that this approach is often useful.

My only caveat was that I suspect most people are open to the idea that [s]brand[/s] "the company responsible for producing the product" can directly alter the likely merits of the product.

For the first bit: "teh brand is not the company". Mmm.. that bit I'm less convinced by but I'd need a better definition of what you mean.

If you are simply saying there is a difference between the shiny marketed image of a company and what really happens behinds the scenes then obviously I would agree.

does anyone think there is any point to this anymore?

Yes, you need to answer the questions which people have been asking you, so that you can clarify your stance, it's no good just repeating it.

So some of yuo keep asserting. Some of us deny it. No evidence has been offered merely an attempt to shout me down.

What evidence would you like? What evidence could anyone possibly provide that would offer greater proof of that point than for you to open your eyes to the world around you and accept that what you see might not align with what you previously thought?

I've done that. It sucks. I can see why you might not want to.

I HATE, as I'm sure I've made clear in previous posts, the power branding has on our lives. I hate commercialism. I hate our society's seemingly blind devotion to ultimate profit rule. I hate the power that has been handed to private enterprise in the belief that the free market is better equipped to deal with the running of our nation's services than any government.

I hate that those companies that will be given the reigns might not necessarily be those most capable of doing the job, but rather those who have branded themselves well. Those who talk a good fight yet have no substance behind their spin.

I hate that people buy what they want and not what they need. I hate our consumer culture. I know it exists because we have shopping malls filled to the ceilings with goods nobody really needs, only things they want. I hate that TV adverts are paid for by vastly successful, disgustingly profitable companies making millions out of convincing the stupid of their need for pointless, vapid tat.

I hate that people spend their Saturdays traipsing round the shops slavishly buying into the super brands, mistakenly believing it will provide some sort of satisfaction beyond that which is momentary.

I know people are seduced by brands, as I can see, when I look with my eyes, the prices of named logo shirts that are higher than plain shirts. Those higher prices are justified only by people's willingness to pay.

I hate it. I hate it all. It sits completely at odds with what I want to believe. But me not liking it doesn't stop it from being true.

Why would I say it? Why would I stand by a point that doesn't sit well with me? Why would I assert a point I don't like, unless it's true? What benefit could possibly come from me saying something exists that a) I don't like and b) doesn't exist?

Simply to argue with you? No. I say it because it's true.

Provide counterpoints to those points I've made above and prove me wrong.

Is branding actually ineffectual? Am I wrong in what I say? If so, good. I'd [i]really[/i] love to be.

No molgrips = what I am saying is that much of it has far less importance and effect that is claimed. People make an issue over deciding which font to use for a logo. So long as the font is clear it makes little difference to many folk

It affects sales. That is a fact. If you think otherwise then you are wrong. End of.

Charlie - I have answered them all several times. You don't like the answer so ask it again and again.

DrJ - no - are you not listening. the factors I use to decide are absent from your scenario.

a lot of the 'code' was embedded into your subconsciousness as you grew up TJ, you might think that now you're a big boy you can ignore it, and I don't doubt that you try (though it must take a pretty monumental effort!) but the fact is that you will associate certain things (feelings, moods, taste - anything) with certain other things (colour, sound, curves, smell - again, anything). These things can then be used to manipulate/influence you, if you don't believe this is possible than your deluding yourself, sorry... even the fact that you may recognise it's happening and act in a contrary manner to it, still proves that it works!

No, you haven't answered the specific question of whether or not you disregard marketing. It's why I keep asking it. When you have answered it we can move on. A simple yes / no response would be good.

As before, do you disregard it?

Charlie - I have answered them all several times. You don't like the answer so ask it again and again.

Actually you systematically avoided most of the direct questions I put to you, but I've let that pass as I'm trying to reach a shared understanding and move on with my life 😀

DrJ - no - are you not listening. the factors I use to decide are absent from your scenario.

You quoted price, colour and availability. I told you all three.

Anyway, I've heard enough wriggling - the conclusions are clear, and the answer to your question:

does anyone think there is any point to this anymore?

is: "no - there is no point discussing something with someone who is not prepared to be honest."

And another top post from jackthedog - a man whose eyes are truly open.

Jack - well feel a bit happier. what you say is all too true in many ways - but there is a whole section of society for whom it does not. Because they do not play that game they are not seen and are discounted.

some friends of mine have recently set up a co operative veg box delivery scheme. This sort of thing is growing and works outside of the consumerist society. No profit is involved, no branding, the only marketing is simply about making basic information available.

Molgrips - its like banging my head on the wall. It affects sales yes - but the effect is far less than people in the advertising industry think

some friends of mine have recently set up a co operative veg box delivery scheme. This sort of thing is growing and works outside of the consumerist society. No profit is involved, no branding, the only marketing is simply about making basic information available.

So, whilst waiting for an answer to the simple question....
I presume you think this non-consumerist veg box thing is a good idea, perhaps something more people should take part in. how do you suggest we let people know that it is available?

DrJ - I have attempted to be absolutely honest. Those three factors were 3 of the many that I use that are not there.

its like me asking "DrJ - when you are rogering your boyfriend on the beach on corfu do you wish he was roger moore or Eric Sykes?"

You can make no meaningful answer as its not a situation you have been in(I guess) or are likely to be in

I do not buy consumer goods new off he internet like that, if I were i would be looking for a lot more information than you gave me including appearance, other peoples experiences, weight, method of fastening the seat on, a huge number of factors

CharlieMungus - Member

No, you haven't answered the specific question of whether or not you disregard marketing. It's why I keep asking it. When you have answered it we can move on. A simple yes / no response would be good.

As before, do you disregard it?

Mu

It affects sales yes - but the effect is far less than people in the advertising industry think

Go on then, show me figures. Why do you think that?

Yes, you need to answer the questions which people have been asking you, so that you can clarify your stance, it's no good just repeating it.

It affects sales. That is a fact. If you think otherwise then you are wrong. End of

I'm beginning to think that TJ is right. He has acknowledged that "branding" has an effect on people, but not on him.

All the attempts to "prove" that he is wrong about himself seem to me to be based on assumptions without evidence.

Well done, TJ, I admire your tenacity.

Case unproven.

😯

Marketting alone cannot make a product sell

I think it can actually. Look at the music industry.

some friends of mine have recently set up a co operative veg box delivery scheme. This sort of thing is growing and works outside of the consumerist society. No profit is involved, no branding, the only marketing is simply about making basic information available.

Great. An splendid endeavour. But you know what would make it more popular? A name and some branding. Just saying like. Maybe you should ask jackthedog...

DrJ - I have attempted to be absolutely honest. Those three factors were 3 of the many that I use that are not there.

its like me asking "DrJ - when you are rogering your boyfriend on the beach on corfu do you wish he was roger moore or Eric Sykes?"

You can make no meaningful answer as its not a situation you have been in(I guess) or are likely to be in

I do not buy consumer goods new off he internet like that, if I were i would be looking for a lot more information than you gave me including appearance, other peoples experiences, weight, method of fastening the seat on, a huge number of factors

All those things are clearly assumed equal. The question is about how much weight you place on the Shimano brand, [i]ceteris paribus[/i].

You claim to be honest, but evidently you are not. In an internet discussion there is a presumption that people are honest - otherwise someone can make a string of claims that there is no means to verify. To argue dishonestly reduces the value of the discussion to zero. That is the point to which you have brought this thread. Congratulations.

All the attempts to "prove" that he is wrong about himself seem to me to be based on assumptions without evidence.

Of course - but that is easy on the internet. I can claim to be a beautiful girl and there is no way to disprove it.

Now Tj you cannot say that whether or not you disregard it is meaningless. You yourself, stated that you were able to disregard it. I'm merely trying to establish whether or not you exercise that capability. You clearly thought it was relevant at one stage. I'm wondering if you are being intellectually dishonest or just getting confused about what you believe.

So, please answer the question. It is really simple, and objective. Mu, is not an appropriate response.

some friends of mine have recently set up a co operative veg box delivery scheme. This sort of thing is growing and works outside of the consumerist society. No profit is involved, [i]no branding[/i]

what did they call this venture?

Junkyard: you are defending a completely different and far more reasonable position than TJ. I have tried to reach out and nudge TJ towards that position, but he is apparently stuck in a horrible tangle of his own intractable logic and contradiction.

Examples can be cited where you/we all do the same - Powerband anyone.

As I said before, I know what a Powerband is. I am aware of the brand. Ergo their branding has worked.

Ok - you are now saying the two products are totally identical apart from the shimano logo and I have enough information to know this? I buy the cheaper one every time.

I have attempted to be completely honest.

Jack - well feel a bit happier. what you say is all too true in many ways - but there is a whole section of society for whom it does not. Because they do not play that game they are not seen and are discounted.

some friends of mine have recently set up a co operative veg box delivery scheme. This sort of thing is growing and works outside of the consumerist society. No profit is involved, no branding, the only marketing is simply about making basic information available.

I've had similar initiatives come to me for branding since I changed the focus of my output to the the third sector. They've gone away happy.

GrahamS - Member
Junkyard: you are defending a completely different and far more reasonable position than TJ. I have tried to reach out and nudge TJ towards that position, but he is apparently stuck in a horrible tangle of his own intractable logic and contradiction.

Examples can be cited where you/we all do the same - Powerband anyone.

As I said before, I know what a Powerband is. I am aware of the brand. Ergo their branding has worked

But it didn't make you buy one.

If they have a company they have a brand. Even if it's just 'those two blokes with the veg delivery' that everyone in the office has heard about.

Why? His stance is hardly complicated you just seem to want to bait him for some reason here - not looking lilkley tht he will back down now is it people.
He can detect brands and can tell about marketting but uses other factors when making his purchases. Why is this hard to believe?

His stance is complicated, it is not clear whether or not he feels he is able to avoid the effects or marketing. Your analysis of his position seems to indicate that he is. However, he has also said that he is not impervious to it. And when asked if he can disregards it and it has no effect. He says No. This seems to conflict with your assessment and his own. I'm try to simplify the questions so I can get a straightforward, unambiguous answer, so I don't end up with a false impression of his position

Ok - you are now saying the two products are totally identical apart from the shimano logo and I have enough information to know this? I buy the cheaper one every time.

That is what I have always been saying, yes.

Happy that you now concede that the logical outcome of your philosophy is to decide the purchase of a potentially safety-critical piece of kit on the basis of one penny, and not on the information associated with the Shimano brand. I suppose it is asking too much to expect you to comment on whether you think your purchasing decision will turn out wisely, in the long run.

Junkyard: you are defending a completely different and far more reasonable position than TJ.

But it didn't make you buy one.

Absolutely not. It bolloxs isn't it?
I looked through the marketing spin to the merits of the product and decided it was nonsense. As I said, people do that all the time.

The marketing failed on me. It was never likely to convince me without some actual science behind it as the claims were too wild to be taken at face value.

But the branding worked 100% - when you say Powerband I know exactly what you mean.

And if in the future they release further products under the Powerband brand, even products with considerably more merit, then I would view them with increased scepticism based on my knowledge of that brand.

Graham- no junkyard understands my position completely.

You now seem to be claiming that simply recognising a company name shows the branding has worked?

Molgrips and others have described brand as the product plus various associations with the product such as perceived quality, value etc
.
The example would be nestle. I see a nestle logo I do not buy the product. so you are claiming that this negative effect on sales is proof that the branding works? Simply product recognition is proof that branding works? even if it has a negative effect on sales?

if thats your definition then it proves my earlier point that all you need is the product name.

I still think your difficulty is understand that the product and the brand are not the same. The product has certain inherent attributes. the brand is more than this. its the product plus other associations the brand owner wants to and tries to associate with it.

Absolutely not. It bolloxs isn't it?
I looked through the marketing spin to the merits of the product and decided it was nonsense. As I said, people do that all the time.

If, on the other hand, the same item was marketed under a different brand, say Boots' for example, maybe you would have been a bit (a bit) more likely to buy one.

DrJ - Member

Ok - you are now saying the two products are totally identical apart from the shimano logo and I have enough information to know this? I buy the cheaper one every time.

That is what I have always been saying, yes.

Happy that you now concede that the logical outcome of your philosophy is to decide the purchase of a potentially safety-critical piece of kit on the basis of one penny, and not on the information associated with the Shimano brand. I suppose it is asking too much to expect you to comment on whether you think your purchasing decision will turn out wisely, in the long run.

You have said the two products are identical. Not appear identical. [b]are identical in every way.[/b] so there is no difference to my safety if i know they are all identical. I have enough information to know they are identical. so the fact one has the shimano brand can make no possible difference to its performance as they are identical.

see now why I said its a meaningless quyestion>?

The example would be nestle. I see a nestle logo I do not buy the product. so you are claiming that this neagtive effect on sales is proof that the branding works? Simply product recognition is proof that branding works? even if it has a negative effet onsales?

Yes!

if thats your definition then it proves my earlier point that all you need is the product name.

No! Because the branding leads to greater recognition! Some brands are just names or words. By themselves, it wouldn't be clear if they were the belonged to a person, or if the label was describing the contents, or if in fact it was the name of the company who made the stuff

You have said the two products are identical. Not appear identical

Fine. My mistake. You have identical information about the products, as initially described, i.e. simply the brand and the price.

I guess I was premature in celebrating an outbreak of your common sense.

Ah - OK then charlie - thats a totally different position to others on this thread. such as DrJ, molgrips or MF

So actually all the branding to you is is the name of the company or product? No associated values or characteristics? So in that case all the effort in trying to add these things is wasted as all that actually matters is recognition of the name. we don't need to associate any other qualities with the brand,

So to you the brand is the product there is no difference?