Clever logo… (well I thought so anyway)

the object is not the brand. the object has attributes and values inherent in it that are nothing to do with how it is branded.

Indeed, but the brand gives you a way to easily identify a product that has a certain set of attributes that may not otherwise be evident.

You give a good example yourself – you buy enzyme free phosphate free washing powder. I suppose you know what the box looks like. Maybe it says BLOB on the label. Now you go to buy washing-up liquid. You decide that you’d like to have that enzyme free phosphate free as well. You see a bottle marked BLOB. Are you saying that it isn’t the first one you pick up?

HOORAY! this thread is still going strong!

TJ page 3

TandemJeremy – Member

1 and 3 do what is required equally well – the rest look winky

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

now its become ‘not as many as the branding people think’ -quite a come down for TJ (about as much as he’d ever give I reckon) 🙂

What this reminds me of is those tone deaf people who go on Xfactor;
Simon Cowell: why are you gonna win xfactor?
Contestant: Cos I’m a great signer
Simon Cowell: how do you know that?
Contestant: Well I think I am and me nan and mates say I’m great
Simon Cowell: lovely, let’s hear it
**belts out some godawful drivel accompanied by backing track**
Simon Cowell: you can’t sing
Contestant: OH YEAH? WHAT DO YOU KNOW?

Molgrips – I do understand what a brand is. i also understan that what the brand is is a different thing to what the object is.

Lets take one eally well known highly marketed brand – red bull. Now i drink red bull sometimes.

the object here is a high caffine drink. thats all it is. The brand is a whole heap more and infact the high caffine drink is almost irrelevant to the brand.

so when I want a high caffine drink – I go look for one – and I buy redbull if its the one on the shelf I like the taste of best.

I have bought it for what it is not for what it is marketed as. I don’t associate it with glamour and thrills – I associate it with being knackerd at 3am on a nightshift. Thats not what it is marketed as tho. “red bull wakes up tired nurses”

You should drink Blue Charge instead of Red Bull.

It tastes the same and is about a quid for a big a bottle from Asda.

😉

I agree with everything TJ says on this thread, he’s the only one talking any sense on here.

Leave him alone, you bullies. Typical STW.

Den –

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

is about fonts on logos

‘not as many as the branding people think’

is about the effectiveness of marketing.

The other thing I understand that people seem to have difficulty with is the object is not the brand. the object has attributes and values inherent in it that are nothing to do with how it is branded.

This is an interesting point.

Daz washing powder is a brand and is branded as the simple to use washing powder for the masses. It just gets stuff white because Gillian Tayleforth told you so through the ‘soap’ adverts (I quite like the ‘Cleaner Close’ concept – very mass market). People who buy Daz are generally price concious.

Daz is owned by Proctor & Gamble. Who also brand themselves (although to appeal to another market – investors, buyers etc).

Proctor and Gamble also own Ariel. A more expensive washing powder. Aimed at more affluent households who want to buy the best they can afford.

So there is all sorts of branding going on – from B2C (business to consumer) and B2B (Business to Business). They brand objects (washing powder) and they also brand their business which is less tangible but needs branding nonetheless to give P&G market position.

I said the marketing only works with the gullible

Which is obviously utter tripe.

I’m looking for something to do ‘X’
I see some marketing for an item that does X + Y for the same price
I buy said item as it’s better
Where am I gullible?

Molgrips – I do understand what a brand is.

No, you don’t.

You are quite right about marketing and advertising being less effective on some; your efforts to resist this are quite commendable – I endeavour to do the same thing.

BUT

That is marketing and advertising, IT IS NOT BRANDING.

Anything with a name has a brand. Even if they don’t spend anything on advertising at all.

Let me ask you something. Do Porsche make fast cars?

Indeed MF

so in that example the object in both cases is the same. The only difference is in the branding.

Anything with a name has a brand.

Indeed. However the inherent attributes of the object need not be anything to do with the brand attributes. So if you look at the inherent attributes to make your purchasing decisions then the branding is irrelevant.

So if you look at the inherent attributes to make your purchasing decisions then the branding is irrelevant.

Tiresome to send all those seatposts to have metallurgical and engineering tests. While you’re doing that, I’m out riding my Shimano.

Mornin@ Binners – will it get to a thousand or should I stop poking them with sticks ™?

so in that example the object in both cases is the same. The only difference is in the branding.

For the washing powders it is the same (or similar) yes. And they brand each one to appeal to a different market. Then they brand themselves to appeal to a different market altogether.

The point I am making is that branding/marketing/advertising works and the people who do this stuff know how to appeal to the markets they are selling to.

Morning TJ. Don’t give up now

But which kind of stick?

However the inherent attributes of the object need not be anything to do with the brand attributes

YES THEY ARE. Branding is anything to do with a brand, real or imaginary.

Porsche make fast cars – this is a fact. Why do you think they don’t make slow ones?

If Carlsberg made annoying forum members…

@Jamie – what and where is that weird place??

You can call a cat a dog but it will never bark.

That’s true. But many, many people who want something that barks will buy that (metaphorical) cat if they’re convinced it might bark. You might not, Jeremy. I know I wouldn’t. But many people will. And do. Every day.

Red Bull. What is it? Nothing, really. It’s a superfluous product, and an expensive one at that. I wouldn’t touch it. Yet it sells by the absolute bucket load.

Lynx shower gel. Cheap nasty chemical tat. Sells by the bucket load.

Stella Artios. In its own country I hear it’s a budget, cheap nasty beer. As a fan of good ale I know it tastes nasty, it’s overly strong, vastly overpriced and I have more than a few mates who claim it gives them headaches when they drink it. Yet it’s branded as a premium product here. And it sells buy the bucket load.

It’s crap. So much of what fills our supermarket shelves, our high street stores is crap. But it all sells. By the bucket load.

I don’t buy it. You don’t. Many, many people are like us. But many, many, many more aren’t. It’s why this preposterous consumer culture we’re up to our sorry eyeballs in can exist. People are, on the whole, not as sharp as you or I would like them to be. If they were, our western world wouldn’t function the way it does.

I’m one of the people you keep referring to as “believers” or “marketeers”. I work in branding. I understand the difference between a brand and a product. It’s my job to know that. I create brands out of a product or service.

I generally buy based purely on my needs – not what has been branded the best. As someone with a keen interest in industrial design and engineering I take a pretty objective view to my purchasing – I buy well made products that do the best job they can, whilst giving me the best value for money within my budget. I buy with my head, not my heart.

It seems we are probably quite similar in that respect Jeremy. Where we differ is that I can accept I’m in a minority. And I also accept that, even though I know it inside and out, occasionally still, despite how much it pains me to say, I might get suckered in by branding.

A couple of years ago I realised I found the whole branding sector – the sector my professional life had been dedicated to based on decisions I made when I was 14 – vapid and soul destroying. I was creating brands for products I thought had no relevance. I was just a cog in a big money making machine. I was just on this planet to help sell crap to people who didn’t need it. So eventually I walked out in a strop. I had a bit of a breakdown.

I came home in tears and stayed in bed for two days wondering what went wrong with my life. Wondering how I become a pawn in the corporate world I so despise. When I managed to gather my thoughts, I went back to work to hand my notice in and made myself wilfully unemployed right in the middle of a global financial meltdown.

I don’t know how to do anything else, so I became self employed and turned my skills to branding charities and community sector organisations. I use what I’m good at to help do good. And like I said before, I don’t have to sell my services. People now come to me, and they go away happy. I benefit their organisations, and they’re grateful.

What I do actually helps. A local or regional charity struggling to get taken seriously can come to me, and I can make them look like the serious, effective organisation they are. And it’s amazing how local politicians and local media start paying attention once a charity has dropped its comic sans and started looking like the real thing. It’s a benefit I frequently see, first hand.

I earn a fraction of what I used to earn, but I sleep well at night knowing I’m making a difference. I’ve focussed my skills towards the good. I see it first hand.

Just as I experienced, and was brought to tears by, the effectiveness of branding when used purely for commercial gain. First hand experience.

First hand.

But that experience is clearly not going to be enough for you. You know best.

Your now astonishingly immovable belligerence, and repeated use of the same phrases suggested you ran out of steam a while ago, but have gone too far to ever admit, even to yourself, that you might be wrong. There is therefore no point continuing this debate.

God damn I’m hungry for eggs.

DrJ – Member

@Jamie – what and where is that weird place??

Looks like a reservoir sink hole, it’s where they draw the water down.

Sex sells…

I have never bought a new piece of furniture. Apart form the few bits of cycling clothing druidh kindly pointed out I don’t own branded clothing hardly at all. My main suit was secondhand 30 years ago. I own one pair of dress shoes. I have hardly ever bough new consumer durables. I don’t own a mobile phone, a dvd player, a satellite dish, a games console. My stereo consists of mainly second-hand components. I recently bought my first computer for 12 years.

This has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting branding (but probably quite a lot to do with being a tight-fisted luddite).

You’re conflating consumerism and branding there.

Presumably you do still buy some things new (food, soap, toothbrush, bog paper).

I am aware of the marketing techniques – I chose to ignore them. I see the sales techniques everywhere – so I can discount them….
…capable of free will and of making my own mind up?…
…there is a clear difference between the object an the brand that the marketeers fail to understand that many of us can see…
…You are still having a huge issue with separating the object from the referent…
…to you the object is the referent so you cannot grasp this concept.

So is there a (brand)name for this secretive elite group?

These superior beings who have complete clarity of vision and who possess a zen-like ability that sees past attempts to persuade them with trivial words, pictures and experiences to the true nature and truth of all beings and objects?

Because this is what grinds me (and I suspect most people on here) the most TJ – you clearly consider yourself to be a superior intellect that can rise above the tedious branding used to manipulate us poor gullible fools.

You certainly buy into TandemJeremy™

Jackthedog….

Wow, an interesting post! It only took 16 pages!

Thanks Jack, and well done, for the post and your decisions.

I have never bought a new piece of furniture. Apart form the few bits of cycling clothing druidh kindly pointed out I don’t own branded clothing hardly at all. My main suit was secondhand 30 years ago. I own one pair of dress shoes.

Try and be more specific – you’ve pretty much described the whole population of Edinburgh 🙂

@jackthedog – Respect!

Red Bull. What is it? Nothing, really. It’s a superfluous product, and an expensive one at that. I wouldn’t touch it. Yet it sells by the absolute bucket load.

red bull is a brand, not a product 😉

What I do actually helps. A local or regional charity struggling to get taken seriously can come to me, and I can make them look like the serious, effective organisation they are. And it’s amazing how local politicians and local media start paying attention once a charity has dropped its comic sans and started looking like the real thing. It’s a benefit I frequently see, first hand.

Great post jackthedog.

Now i drink red bull sometimes.

But why did you first pick it up? How did you know it was a caffeine based drink? What drew your eye to it?

nedrapier – Member

Wow, an interesting post! It only took 16 pages!

Thanks Jack, and well done, for the post and your decisions.

Indeed.

It seems we are probably quite similar in that respect Jeremy. Where we differ is that I can accept I’m in a minority. And I also accept that, even though I know it inside and out, occasionally still, despite how much it pains me to say, I might get suckered in by branding.

All I have claimed is that there are a significant number of people who think like me I have not claimed they are a majority. You think as I do. However quite a few folk on this thread have tried to tell me that I cannot possibly think and act as I do. as Graham does in the post below yours

Graham – you still miss the point

This has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting branding (but probably quite a lot to do with being a tight-fisted luddite).

Its all part of the same ethos. Its about avoiding beiong a part of the consumerist society. Once one understands one can reject marketing then the need to buy consumer goods reduces.

M6TTF

red bull is a brand, not a product
It is also a product – can you not see this -there is an object with inherent attributes there. Its a high dose of caffine in a convenient form

this is the bit you seem unable to do – separate the onject from its branding

However quite a few folk on this thread have tried to tell me that I cannot possibly think and act as I do.

This is not true, we all accept that you think and act the way you say you do. What we are struggling with is convincing you that much of this is governed by marketing. The fact that you actively and with great effort avoid certain products, because of their marketing is a case in point. You actions are a result of the marketing, even if they are avoidance.

It is also a product – can you not see this -there is an object with inherent attributes there. Its a high dose of caffine in a convenient form

We can see that, I’m asking how you came to know that Red Bull might be such a drink, differentiating it from lemon squash. And why amongst the other available caffeine drinks on that day, you picked up Red Bull, tried it and decided you like it?

No charlie – you are still telling me that I cannot act and think as I do.

Waht I do IS NOT governed by marketing, I do not

actively and with great effort avoid certain products, because of their marketing

and have not said I do

I do not do what you keep claiming I do.

Charlie – you need to understand the concept of the object as being separate from the brand. I buyu red bull because of what it is not because of what it is marketed as.

Your now astonishingly immovable belligerence, and repeated use of the same phrases suggested you ran out of steam a while ago, but have gone too far to ever admit, even to yourself, that you might be wrong. There is therefore no point continuing this debate.

Its supposed to be “and on that basis, I’m oot”