Forum menu
I hope you can now see some new things tho. That there are people who see the world very differently than you. That to people outside of your shared consensus a lot of what you all accept as true has no validity.
Trouble is TJ, I don't think you've really imparted much in this thread. I doubt anyone's really learnt much from you about different ways to view the world.
"Some people are less susceptible to hype and the influence of branding/advertising and marketing. Some people to try to actively avoid the influence of branding/advertising and marketing"
Everyone knows that.
Was there anything else?
So, anyone want to have an actual discussion about the OP? 😉
Was there anything else?
I learnt his friends have a veg box co-operative that is doomed to failure by lack of proper branding.
What was the original question?
explain if you will why my assertion is 'rubbish'
Maybe it would make more sense for you to back up your assertion with a reasoned argument.
On second thoughts, please don't bother ...
no.. no takers..?
so you scientific branding experts can only argue pedantry and semantics with Teej..?
what a surprise..
There's plenty of science involved. People try a marketing strategy, or new brand, and see how the sales respond. That's pretty scientific in my book.explain if you will why my assertion is 'rubbish'
so you scientific branding experts can only argue pedanticswith Teej..?
'xactly.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I think everyone deserves a pat on the back for what must surely be the fastest 1000+ post thread in STW history, if not the entire history of the worldwideinternet.
At what cost to UK GDP, I wonder?
TJ still a rockin'?
Can anyone tell me why I want to throw eggs at Jamie?
.
People try a marketing strategy, or new brand, and see how the sales respond
trial and error then..?
ok..
I get it now
trial and error?
Trials based on previous wins.
trial and error + revised trial = scientific method
groovy
Oh, I also learnt:
- that you can say you don't own something and this is literally true, even if you literally own lots of those things, because you didn't say "any". Literally.
- that you can be impervious to something, without being impervious to it. And it can have no effect on you as long as you are aware of the effects it has on you.
- that you can decide whether or not to buy something based on a brand. But that is not the same as being influenced by a brand.
- that the name of something and something's name are two completely different concepts.
- that only an elite few understand the secret code that using a jaunty comic font is inappropriate for an undertaker.
- and even less people understand that red means stop/danger/hot. Because it is a secret language known only to artsy types (and me for some odd reason).
Any more?
And
Well, given that there has been a good amount of sensible discussion in with the nonsense in this thread, I'd say it [b]is[/b] interesting!certainly nothing interesting..
Apologies if my 'rubbish' was a little harsh - I actually thought your post was just an attempt to relight the fire... 🙂
Oh another one:
- that [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29 ]"mu"[/url] is not just an answer to illogical questions. It is also a useful answer to give to perfectly straightforward questions that reveal terrible flaws in your own logic.
I actually thought your post was just an attempt to relight the fire...
twas a little bit if I'm honest.. 😳
nedrapier - MemberTrouble is TJ, I don't think you've really imparted much in this thread. I doubt anyone's really learnt much from you about different ways to view the world.
"Some people are less susceptible to hype and the influence of branding/advertising and marketing. Some people to try to actively avoid the influence of branding/advertising and marketing"
Everyone knows that.
So why did it take some people so long to comprehend it?
Ah god, I've gone and posted in the thread, why did I do that 🙁
I hope you can now see some new things tho. That there are people who see the world very differently than you. That to people outside of your shared consensus a lot of what you all accept as true has no validity.
you say that TJ but it lacks conviction, it doesn't really suit the TJ 'brand touch points' and i don't think introspection was on the mood board.
So let's get this straight. TJ, you think that you are in posession of some great truth, and we are all poor deluded fools?
Warra nob.
ok.. I'm not going to read through a gazillion posts of pedantic trite.. but I'd like a little more concise and reasonable version if you will allow it..
Right, well basically, TJ said that branding is pointless and not as effective as people make out. Then MF said that it is actually, and TJ said that it isn't. Then I said something left wing, verbose and ridiculous, which got ignored. Then TJ said that it was still rubbish. So then MF said that actually if you look at these fonts, you'll no doubt tell a difference. TJ remarkably couldn't tell a difference, right, so what happened then is GrahamS said that basically you can't separate the brand from the object, but TJ then took issue with this, right, so what he done the lad is he's gone and said that what we're doing, right, us branding types, is that we're confusing a brand with an actual product and that he doesn't do that, and that we're failing to understand. So what happened then right, Jamie chips in, and the everyone goes of to make omelettes for some reason, but then we're all like egg bound and that but we didn't let it distract us from what the real point was, which is that TJ can buy stuff without paying attention the logo, or something. Then Molgrips came back and made some points about more stuff that TJ wasn't interested in. Then elfin got banned right, which started another thread that was different to this one. And not as good right, so we all came back here. Then I tried getting the nazis and maggie into it, which seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Seems a bit much now but at the time, you know how it is right. Then Binners started posting bags of crisps which I didn't really get, though I'm sure he had his reasons and it was mega funny at the time anyway. then what happened is we made a load more omelettes, for which, like, you know, as the saying goes, you got to break a few eggs, which is why eggs, so then eggs right, and then it was all like cos of the eggs, and Molgrips was all like no, eggs, and we were all, yeah though, cos eggs, and Druidh and ST were all giving it all like, yolk and eggs stuff right. Then TJ won the thread so far in a way nobody but himself can understand, but he did win anyway right, cos he did and we're all wrong. Then Molgrips came back and made some points about more stuff that TJ wasn't interested in. Then elfin got banned right, which started another thread that was different to this one. And not as good right, so we all came back here. Then I tried making a serious if again laughably left leaning point which was ignored, seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Seems a bit much now but at the time, you know how it is right. Then Binners started posting bags of crisps which I didn't really get, though I'm sure he had his reasons and it was mega funny at the time anyway. then what happened is we made a load more omelettes, for which, like, you know, as the saying goes, you got to break a few eggs, which is why eggs, so then eggs right, and then it was all like cos of the eggs, and StillTortoise was all like no, eggs, and we were all, yeah though, cos eggs, and Druidh and ST were all giving it all like, yolk and eggs stuff right. Then TJ won the thread in a way nobody but himself can understand, but he did win anyway right, cos he did and we're all wrong. Then Don Simon came back and made some points about more stuff that TJ wasn't interested in, except for the time when for some reason he kept posting dots. Then Binners started posting pictures of dam drain holes or something, which I didn't really get, though I'm sure he had his reasons and it was mega funny at the time anyway. then what happened is we made a load more omelettes, for which, like, you know, as the saying goes, you got to break a few eggs, which is why eggs, so then eggs right, and then it was all like cos of the eggs, and NedRapier and Clubber was all like no, eggs, and we were all, yeah though, cos eggs, and Druidh and ST were all giving it all like, yolk and eggs stuff right. Then TJ won the thread in a way nobody but himself can understand, but he did win anyway right, cos he did and we're all wrong. Then you turned up, and asked for a recap, so I wrote a recap which I'm doing right now as evidenced by the fact that I'm posting this post that I'm about to post and will have posted by the time you read it, even though said evidence plays no part in the actual proof of the existence of this post, so don't go getting big ideas, right. And then, right, in the post after this one, TJ just quotes the very small, miniscule amount of posts that back up his preposterous point as if they are true gospel, vindication of all he's been saying, whilst categorically ignoring all the ones that were more considered and better thought out that didn't align with his own view, whilst simultaneously accusing the rest of us of having closed eyes.
Egg?
crikey - MemberTJ still a rockin'?
readin. Not arguing. I think I have shown what a great mass debater I can be 🙂
I thank you for
crikey - MemberCourse, if we start not falling for all this shit, half of STW immediately become redundant...
No wonder they are all so desperate to make you understand how important it all is.
crikey - Member....................
It's a house of cards, its a confidence trick, its all style and no substance, in the words of Mike Harding, Fur coat and no knickers.
crikey - MemberAs I said before, so many people have to believe in this shit with such great passion because if 'the man in the street' caught on the whole charade would come a crashing down.
So let's get this straight. TJ, you think that you are in posession of some great truth, and we are all poor deluded fools?
Warra nob.
Not now molgrips... We're doing the He-man ending:
What have you learnt today Prince Adam?
I'm actually glad I read this thing just for Jackthedog's post. Very good sir.
Excellent recap. Can I have that printed on a Jack-The-Dog™ t-shirt? In a nice humanist sans-serif font, none of your Comic Sans. Any colour, because they have no meaning any more.
Northwind - MemberI'm actually glad I read this thing just for Jackthedog's post. Very good sir.
Indeed
*doffs cap*
So why did it take some people so long to comprehend it?
It didn't; I can't imagine anyone arguiing against that. It's common sense, people are different.
TJ came out with absolute statements that people rightly thought couldn't possible be true, people got wound up and challenged him, then he floundered round, picked on the more weakly worded arguments and semantic points to respond to, gave no impression that he was moving at all in his absolute standpoints.
People tagged in and out when they had to eat, sleep or work, TJ carried on winding people up, largely on exactly the same points, and here we are!
Quite a ride!
molgrips - MemberSo let's get this straight. TJ, you think that you are in posession of some great truth, and we are all poor deluded fools?
Warra nob.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Molgrips,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
What I think and mean I have done my best to explain. No hidden subtext.
I'm with teej and crikey on this..
I'm too long in the tooth for snake oil..
But what if your snake develops an annoying creak?
I'm with teej and crikey on this..I'm too long in the tooth for snake oil..
[img] 
[/img]
cunning.. you should change your name to jackthefox
[img] 
[/img]
There are more things in heaven and earth, Molgrips,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
And the great irony is that the reality is the completely other way round 🙂
Then you turned up, and asked for a recap, so I wrote a recap which I'm doing right now as evidenced by the fact that I'm posting this post that I'm about to post and will have posted by the time you read it, even though said evidence plays no part in the actual proof of the existence of this post, so don't go getting big ideas, right
Genious... you sir, are a genius and I love your work... please post more 😀
So, just to clarify, NO ONE mentioned chickens before the egg thing?
Guess that's solved that one then.....
Does anyone have the logo for the Samaritans?
don't know how the hell I managed to miss Jack's recap earlier, mine seems rather insubstantial!
yunki: 😀
cant believe this junk is still going.... shame, it started out OK
I got to page 7. does it really follow the same pattern for another 27 pages? 😯
It's alright, Muhsixtuhtuhf, with posts like that, you'll bring it back on course!
warton - MemberI got to page 7. does it really follow the same pattern for another 27 pages?
Pretty much
largely, there are a couple of decent posts in there, but it would be a tragic waste of your time to try and find them.
I got to page 7. does it really follow the same pattern for another 27 pages?
I wouldn't waste your time, you know the protagonists, you know where it's (not) going.
I wouldn't waste your time, you know the protagonists, you know where it's (not) going.
😀
As Mick Jagger once said.
Brothers and sisters, come on now! That means everybody just cool out. We can cool out, everbody! Everybody be cool, now...Okay, I think we're cool, we can groove
I wouldn't waste your time, you know the protagonists, you know where it's (not) going.
It wasn't the protagonists. It was a single infallible antagonist. 🙂
As Mick Jagger once said.
Was that just before the Hells Angels murdered the crazy dude..?
The label can be a name, or a logo/symbol/style/ringtone whatever. Its an identifier. Its job is to be recognised as referring to the particular company, service or product that owns the coathook. When you see/hear the label you look at the coathook.
You are actually describing an account of language here as others did with the chair.
As TJ notes
the label is not the object.
which is true [ but wrong so bear with me] however if I shout fire and start running and you dont respond as if there is a fire and go oh look a sound that means nothing whatsoever then you are in trouble sir. The point of language is to label things [ the sound or the written word is not the object] but we respond as if it is. There is a complicated test that can be done to prove the difference [ no animal except verbal humans can pass it] as to when this occurs and it involves equivalence. You can actually test responses and you can actually get these responses without the person being trained[ or aware but that was deemed unethical but it was fun* ] - that is you can transfer the function from b to c without training a response a to c but only to a-b. This is language
Ok real world example as that probably lost everyone.
so we have shoe the object [a] - shoe the sound[b] and shoe the written word[c]. If I teach a child this shoe object- shoe spoken[a-b] and shoe spoke to written[b-c] [ imagine they dont know what a shoe does yet] you can then test a-c even though you have never trained it and this is the bit only verbal humans can do. Then I put a shoe on their foot using the object and then saying the word shoe [ a-b]. What would happen if I asked them what they did with this and then showed them the written word shoe [c and they have not been trained on this].Would they stare at me blankly or tell me you wear it in your feet? They would transfer the function to c without training or they would not have language skills. in essence it becomes the object
I can reference all of this if you want and it only applies to verbal humans. Apes /other animals cant pass this test so a dog can respond to walk but it is just a sound they associate with an activity- this is verbal behaviour but many animals respond to sounds.
TJ if I say lets go for a bike ride do you go and get your bike or walk out with a coat hook in your hand or any other random object ? The word is not the bike yet you respond as if it was - if you do not you do not have language.
I know of no research that shows that the logo, font or style of the written word [logo]affects your response beyond the aesthetic of liking or disliking it. Back to nestle show it how you like I just transfer the function [ how I respond] of scumbag baby killer to that new symbol and still dont buy it however pretty it is.
Symbols/logos work it is what language does I have not seen anything yet to convince me the style of the logo affects much beyond recognition tbh.
If this got covered sorry but I could not keep reading the thread.
Ps GrahamS has entertained me most he should be a more frequent feature of forum life IMHO.
yunki, it was, and i fear my plea has fallen on equally deaf ears.
Junky, let it die and put it out of our misery in the most humane way possible. I'll give you Contador as a drug taking cheat for a bit of peace and quiet.
FFS
Please mods, think of the children!!!
Come on chaps - If youa re going to post and bump the thread and get me all excited please actually put some content.
We will never get to 2000 unless someone kicks it off again
DS sorry I have dipped in and out I thought I made a relevant point but ok
exits stage left
I still don't get the garmin logo 🙁
Interesting stuff Junkyard, didn't know that. I [i]would[/i] like to discuss it further, but I literally don't have the strength left.
Thanks for this though:
GrahamS has entertained me most he should be a more frequent feature of forum life IMHO.
If I spent any more time on here though I'd lose my job 🙂
DT78 - MemberI still don't get the garmin logo
😆
Any homophobes on here that don't like BBC's iplayer?
[img] 
[/img]
Correct me if I'm wrong. "Brand" a unique identifying mark left on cattle . Those cleaver cowboys did it so as not to get each others cows mixed up, after a while a guess not only did they know it wasn't their cow but remembered that that brand belonged to cowboy weston or whoever. To me that is what a brand is an identifying mark. Taking this a step further an unscrupulous cowboy may see a cow with brand he recognises as being from a cowboy with a reputatuion for breeding good cows and being unscrupulous would maybe choose to steal or maybe rustle the cows with that brand as he recognises it may be a quality cow. These quality cows could be cash cows ut thats something else.
OK, never mind all that shit - does anyone pronounce it "loggo" ??? 😆
only those with big eggos.
It's those bloody eggos again!
I still don't get the garmin logo
me neither. apparently triangles are "clever"
No, but I'm a homophone - I bloody hate gazeAny homophobes on here that don't like BBC's iplayer?
DT78 - MemberI still don't get the garmin logo
No you must understand it - its a universal language that everyone bar me understands and even I am lying when I claim not to - according to some on here
[img] 
[/img]
pjbarton - Member
I still don't get the garmin logo
me neither. apparently triangles are "clever"
POSTED 7 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
It is a pointer pointing north above the letterform 'N' for a company selling satnav equipment, not just a triangle. Subtly clever I thought.
Then we had 1,350 posts of complete bollocks to follow.
it's just a nice, clear, simple well thought out bit of design. Big WOW.
apparently there is lots of meaning there that everyone but me gets - the font used has meaning, the colours used have meaning, the little triangle has meaning and all these are seen by everyone. all this stuff is a universal inherent attributes and everyone gets the meaning
Or conversely - it only means anything to the people who know the code
There's still life in the old fella yet. 😀
Is that it? I'be been sat here turning my laptop upside down looking for some hidden message...
Course there is!
Good evening, Mr Jeremy. Ahem...
meaning, significance, symbolism. Got that general theme? don't get hung up on picking holes in the words and dictionary definitions.
colours, forms, words, elicit intellectual, emotional and physiological responses in people. When a lot of people respond in the same way, and people start to understand these patterns in responses, they can use them in in their communication order to elicit the responses they want in others.
Once they've been used often enough, they take on a meaning/significance/symbolism in line with the reactions they tend to elicit.
Edited for english usage. I have learnt (been reminded of) something from Jeremy in this thread!
🙂
Its far from the universal and obvious that was claimed.
Elicit not illicit might give you more meaning 🙂
colours, forms, words, illicit intellectual, emotional and physiological responses in people. When a lot of people respond in the same way, and people start to understand these patterns in responses, they can use them in in their communication order to illicit the responses they want in others.
bolleux.. says who..?
prove it