Clever logo… (well I thought so anyway)

So you agree with TJ, then?

DrJ – so allI have to base a decision onis price and one has ashimano logo – no other information? i cannot make a decision then – I need more info.

right – stuff to do – aim for the 2000 chaps

Listen, you start answering my questions, then I’ll answer yours, ok?

This a bit like watching a boxing match between a high ranked fighter and an unknown fighter. At first, your rooting for the underdog, but as the fight progresses, the underdog gets beaten to a pulp. Yet he still keeps getting up. Eventually the crowd starts to call for the fight to end, not because they are rooting for the underdog, but because they dont want to see someone killed.

This is the point we have reached. TJ, you’ve have been KO’d by the likes of jacketdog on at least 3 occasions, yet you still keep chugging away.

So you agree with TJ, then?

How did you get this impression?

DrJ – so allI have to base a decision onis price and one has ashimano logo – no other information? i cannot make a decision then – I need more info.

Then you are not being consistent with your stated philosophy.

Back to square one. No point discussing furrther with a dishonest opponent.

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?

Yes.

A brand is simply something to collect your knowledge, associations and opinions about a range of products and a company. Negative, in the case of Nestle.

Brand MANAGEMENT is trying to convert as many of those opinions as possible to positive.

Marketing is trying to get as much of your product sold as possible.

Advertising is persuading people that they want your product.

But not if you run a non-profit veg box commune, it would seem

Back to square one. No point discussing furrther with a dishonest opponent.

And for that reason, I’m out

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

Yes. I don’t know the name of your veg box delivery service. In a few days time I will have forgotten all about it.

If it had a name which I recognised when I heard it again in a few days time, then that would be successful branding at its most basic, fundamental level.

Molgrips and others have described brand as the product plus various associations with the product such as perceived quality, value etc

Yes also true.

I’d no doubt recall that said veg box company was non-profit, anti-consumerist and no doubt fairly eco-friendly. I’d attribute those values to the brand.

If the veg actually turned out to be crap then I’d attribute that to the brand too.

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?

Exactly so.

Nestle is a brand not an object. You are responding to the brand, not the objective merits of the product. You are not put off buying a Yorkie (or whatever) because it isn’t chocolately enough or you don’t like the taste – you are put off by the brand.

Likewise in my previous conundrum you might avoid buying your Chicken & Falafel wrap from McDonalds. You know nothing of that particular product, but based on the brand you might assume it is probably tasteless, rubbery crap like the rest of their stuff.

Seems odd to focus on the negative effects, but as we said it is about “various associations with the product such as perceived quality”, good or bad.

By focussing just on the bad I can make my point more clearly, without slipping over the blurry line between brand and marketing.

To take a positive example, in DrJ’s conundrum I think most people might be tempted to pay the extra penny for the Shimano-branded product over the no-name, even though they appear to be identical, as they may trust the Shimano brand more, perhaps because previous Shimano products have worked out well for them. But conversely if every Shimano branded product they ever owned had broken then they might go for the no-name version.

(isn’t it nice when people actually answer your questions. Moves the discussion along nicely I find).

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?

Yes but tbh I read the name nestle and dont buy it. We give names/labels to all objects Bit hard if we just said you know that thing by them that makes your bike work. You know that bit near the thing at the end that turns for example. For the logo to be susccesful you would need to demonstrate what they could do with the logo that would make me not consider them to be child murdering scum. I think that may be a tall ask whatever font you use.
Interestingly nestle have stopped branding companies they have purchased as nestle so they are aware their name carries some neagtive association.

Some of you seem to think that the logo/font style or quality of the logo will affect my decision as to whether to buy it. It wont in the case of nestle or the power band- so we can all be impervious to the owe rof the logos and marketing some of the time – I dont se ehwy some of us cannot do this the majority of the time or all of the time.

Some of you seem to think that the logo/font style or quality of the logo will affect my decision as to whether to buy it. It wont in the case of nestle or the power band- so we can all be impervious to the owe rof the logos and marketing some of the time

The logo is just a part of branding, of course it does not have super powers all on its own. It can help branding if it is coherent with the values being associated with the brand – for example the angular, stark JCB logo is quite different from the rounded, softer Mothercare logo.

Some of you seem to think that the logo/font style or quality of the logo will affect my decision as to whether to buy it

Does a single brick hold up an entire building? No.

Logo is just one of the subtle tools. Of course Nestle is an extreme case, one of the most extreme, so changing the logo isn’t going to work.

Take McDs for example. After McLibel they were the most evil company ever. Now they are bending over backwards to set the record straight. Lots of examples of this with other companies. Nike, Gap, and sweat shops for exmaple.

Nestle are a good case study because they established a well-known recognisable brand that people should generally associate with chocolately goodness (hardly a controversial area) but now they rightly suffer because their brand has been tainted and damaged by their unethical actions.

So now their brand works against them. I suspect it is currently quite limited though. Many people won’t know (or care) about their practises. But if the damage did get too great then they’d have to burn it all down and reform with a different brand.

Some of you seem to think that the logo/font style or quality of the logo will affect my decision as to whether to buy it.

It is one of many influences, but it’s not mind control.

You won’t suddenly support child murderers because they’ve made clever use of diverging geometric shapes and negative space in their logo.

But consider one of my earliest points on this thread: if you were flicking through the Yellow Pages looking for a funeral director to stage a sombre service for your dearly departed then who would you call first?

or

Some brand values have been imparted there, purely through their choice of font.

Even TJ rejected the first one – though only because it was completely unreadable to his wildly-swivelling eyes 😉

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,

Going back to this one (sorry I have been busy)….

For one minute I do not think you are so simple as to not understand branding TJ (you admit yourself you DO understand it yet still seem intent on arguing about it).

Branding is a manyfold beast (I’ll use your Red Bull example)….

First of all you have brand positioning:
‘We make a handy drink to increase alertness in nurses doing the graveyard shift’

Then brand retention:
‘I like Red Bull because they like the same things as me – mountain biking, extreme sports etc.’

And brand recognition:
‘Ahh yes, there is the big RedBull display – I recognise the logo, I’ll grab myself a can’

Then you have examples like the one I mentioned earlier – Proctor & Gamble – they saw there was clearly more than one market to attract so they own both the Daz and Ariel brands because the perceived values of each brand attract different markets and increases P&G’s market share.

Of course (as you said yourself in a recent post) it CAN have a negative effect if there are negative opinions/press about the brand – take for example workers playing baseball will turkeys at the Bernard Matthews factory or, more recently the phone tapping by News of the World staff. With the former they decided they needed to rebrand to win back market share, with the latter they decided it was beyond repair and shut it down (until the Sunday Sun appears anyway…)

Some of you seem to think that the logo/font style or quality of the logo will affect my decision as to whether to buy it. It wont in the case of nestle or the power band- so we can all be impervious to the owe rof the logos and marketing some of the time – I dont se ehwy some of us cannot do this the majority of the time or all of the time.

I think the debate has become distracted by the specific abilities of one person to buy objectively, unaffected by the power of branding.

I don’t think there really is any doubt (from me) that many people can and do look beyond the brand when they buy goods. No doubt TJ does, no doubt you do. I know it’s possible because I do it as often as I can myself. I don’t buy into hype, and I think I’m quite successful at it. I genuinely have no idea what a Power Band is, for example.

BUT the point is branding isn’t an irrelevance. Actually it shapes the very world in which we all live. It does work. It’s not “bullshine”. If it was, it wouldn’t exist on the scale it does.

It’s been likened to Emperors New Clothes, compared with Hypnotism. Neither of those comparisons are true. That’s what sparked the issue. Branding is a real thing, it really works, it’s effective on a global scale, and you can’t escape it’s reaches, no matter how vehemently anti-corporate you might decide to be.

You can buy objectively, day to day. You can be impervious, yourself, to the power of branding when it comes to buying things. But while doing that very thing, you have to accept that as a member of Western society you live in a world shaped by a corporate power elite that has, very successfully, branded (among other things) itself into power.

Apologies for repeating myself, but there’s no doubt that today the pound in your pocket you spend every day is a far more effective democratic tool than the vote you get to cast every half decade or so. That didn’t happen because lots of companies made basic goods we all need and suddenly became all conquering. Companies doing that seldom go fortune 500. In fact at the moment I can’t think of one, yet I could reel off a hundred global purveyours of pointless tat.

We find ourselves where we are now because the sheer effectiveness of marketing, branding and advertising was discovered and utilised to exploit the deep seated aspirations of generations of people, turning them from troublesome humans to placid consumers.

So by using that democratic tool in your pocket wisely, yes, you are doing your own bit to counter the situation the world is in. But you must accept that the world is in that state; there can be no doubt about that. I’m glad a minority of people are even staying “off grid” by dismissing the big guys one vegetable box at a time, but it takes place in, because of, against a backdrop of, commercialism driven in no small part by the effectiveness of branding.

Branding affects us all, every day. Subconsciously, overtly, personally, collectively, politically, socially.

Again, to repeat myself. Just refocussing on the smaller scale that at the top of this post I claimed is, rightly or wrongly, a distraction to the thread:

You can separate your buying process from the world of branding, by choosing completely objectively and without prejudice that which you feel suits your needs best, while positively ignoring any branding it may wear. Yes. You can.

Good for you. But the choices you get to make, the range of products you get to draw that very choice from, are on those shelves because they’ve been successfully branded to enough regular consumers that the profits are sufficient enough to justify mass manufacture.

Chances are, the shop you stand in making your objective choice exists because it’s branded itself well.

The transport you took to get their likely exists because it was branded well.

You’re a part of it while you try, with all your might, to avoid being a part of it.

Anyway, that’s the last post from me because in the quest to add something to the debate I’ve walked way too far down the one way road of sounding like a sanctimonious nob.

That and I’m totally egg bound.

DrJ – Member

“DrJ – so allI have to base a decision onis price and one has ashimano logo – no other information? i cannot make a decision then – I need more info.”

Then you are not being consistent with your stated philosophy.

Back to square one. No point discussing furrther with a dishonest opponent.

FFS – my stated philosophy is making an informed choice based on the inherent attributes of the object. I need the knowledge

If the only knowledge I have is that I have a choice of two seatposts one with a shimano logo and one a penny cheaper I do not have enough information to make the choice.

this is not dishonest. this is teh truth. The only choices possible are not shimano or cheapness – I need to know quality, type of fixing, weight, lots of information that I do not have in your meaningless question.

Using the Shimano example again (you seem comfortable with this one) how would you decide between two identical seat posts of the same price and specification, one branded ‘Shimano’ and one branded ‘Saracen’. The only apparent difference being the branding.

A brand is simply something to collect your knowledge, associations and opinions about a range of products and a company. Negative, in the case of Nestle.

yes – thats what you state and I accept that.

So you are claiming nestles branding works because I won’t buy their products. I am sure thats what is intended. 🙄

You cannot have this both ways.

People on this thread keep telling me that branding works because I reconise a name and that branding is more than the name

Which is it?

My point is I only recognise the name and have negative connotations to some brands. Are you claiming that as proof that branding works on me? In which case you care using a different definition of branding to the one above.

Using the Shimano example again (you seem comfortable with this one) how would you decide between two identical seat posts of the same price and specification, one branded ‘Shimano’ and one branded ‘Saracen’. The only apparent difference being the branding.

Same price? – coin toss between two identical products at teh same price. there is no difference – they are identical. the logo has no value to me.

Jackthedog just about wraps it up with a defnitive post. Excellently well put.

Someone close this now ffs. Mods!

Scenario TJ.

You are on holiday somewhere with your bike.
Your front brake fails irreparably (or is stolen).
You go into a bike shop for a new one.
There are lots of models you don’t recognise.
One has “Shimano” written on it
The other has “Hope”

Which one do you buy?

Anyway, that’s the last post from me because in the quest to add something to the debate I’ve walked way too far down the one way road of sounding like a sanctimonious nob.

Actually I think you’ve been a refreshing voice of well-considered reason. Well done sir.

Or in other words..

“Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your (unbranded) newsletter.”
— The Simpsons™©®

😉

I agree with jacks post almost in its entirety. He understands that

don’t think there really is any doubt (from me) that many people can and do look beyond the brand when they buy goods. No doubt TJ does, no doubt you do. I know it’s possible because I do it as often as I can myself. I don’t buy into hype,

This is what people have repeatedly said I cannot do. Jack understands it is possible.

All I said was marketing and all the associated bolloxs is a lot less effective than people think as many of us ignore it and many of us don’t understand the code of “this font means this” “this colour means this”

However those of you in the trade cannot see where it does not work and its limitations. to do so would be to accept that the emperor is naked.

All I said was marketing and all the associated bolloxs is a lot less effective than people think as many of us ignore it and many of us don’t understand the code of “this font means this” “this colour means this”

I’m not in the trade.

Colours, fonts and associations do work, not on everyone but they do. The effect is no doubt not as great as some would like you to believe but it’s still a significant effect on most people. You don’t have to ‘understand the code’ for it to have an effect on you.

druidh – Member

Scenario TJ.

You are on holiday somewhere with your bike.
Your front brake fails irreparably (or is stolen).
You go into a bike shop for a new one.
There are lots of models you don’t recognise.
One has “Shimano” written on it
The other has “Hope”

Which one do you buy?

Sorry druidh -another meaningless question. I need more information. I need background. Am I feeling rich or poor? How far am I away from home? what is the price differential?

to make an informed choice I need information. I might buy any depending an a range of factors

The only possible answer is “it would depend on the particular circumstances”.

clubber – Member

………….
Colours and fonts do work, not on everyone but they do. The effect is no doubt not as great as some would like you to believe………

Yup – thats what I said.

I hope I can add something a bit more meaty back into this ‘cos I’ve given up on the bickering now.

Branding is not all bad. Jackthedog has given examples of that. I bought some Vestax DJing turntables years ago because I didn’t want to be drawn into the whole Technics thing. I made a mistake; Technics were bought by the vast majority because they were the best tool for the job. They built a brand off the back of that.

Not all branding should be ignored since – as some have pointed out – we don’t all have the time to make a detailed and studious objective analysis of everything we want or need to buy. We buy because the brand tells us the product is good.

Not all the time is that reputation justified of course and I’m very much subject to what Jackthedog so detests. I test drove a Seat the other day and was quite impressed. I wouldn’t buy it because it is a Seat. I’d rather have a Porsche despite it being considerably more expensive to run. The good news is that many people are like me, so if I buy a Porsche I know it will retain its value better than the Seat and so I’ll be quids in when I come to sell.

My point? Nothing is quite as black and white as we like to think.

This is what people have repeatedly said I cannot do

Not quite. We said you cannot operate completely uninfluenced by the existence of brands. Which you proved by saying you don’t buy Nestle.

All I said was marketing and all the associated bolloxs is a lot less effective than people think

This is a pointless statement as nobody has any figures to contribute.

many of us don’t understand the code of “this font means this” “this colour means this”

It’s not a code – code would mean it’d been pre-arranged. It’s subconscious association which is NOT the same thing at all. These things work with all but the autistic apparently.

However those of you in the trade cannot see where it does not work

Of course they can, they know all about people like you and they decide whether or not you are worth pursuing. Why do you think every supermarket has a ‘no frills’ range? It might as well be called the TJ range. They know about you and they are vying for your pound as well.

Sorry. Gah.

I agree with jacks post almost in its entirety.

All I said was marketing and all the associated bolloxs is a lot less effective than people think as many of us ignore it

Then actually you don’t agree with my post. That’s fine, but you don’t.

I’m claiming that it’s far, far more effective than you or in fact most people in the world think. Sorry, I might not have been clear.

That really is it this time.

TandemJeremy – Member

clubber – Member

………….
Colours and fonts do work, not on everyone but they do. The effect is no doubt not as great as some would like you to believe………

Yup – thats what I said.

Only selectively quoting though. My point which you changed by your partial quote is that it does work on the significant majority of people of which you obviously consider yourself to be not part of. The small group of people who really do ignore it or are impervious to it is just that – small. Don’t think that because you know a few who also claim to be impervious to it that that is a representative sample. You are clearly drawn to people with similar outlook.

Just because some muppets trying to justify their salary despite lack of skills say stupids things about fonts/colours doesn’t make it all untrue. You’re effectively just using an ad hominem argument. The fact is that those people don’t really understand what they’re talking about so are just bluffing. People who do understand use colours, fonts and association to produces images/branding/whatever you want to call it that does meet their or their customers’ aims.

Same price? – coin toss between two identical products at teh same price. there is no difference – they are identical. the logo has no value to me.

If you can seriously claim that to be true then you really are above brand persuasion. I can’t add any more – I, for one, am not trying to tell you otherwise. Just so long as you are *sure* that is how you would respond in a real situation, not when a loaded question is directed at you. 😉

All I said was marketing and all the associated bolloxs is a lot less effective than people think as many of us ignore it and many of us don’t understand the code of “this font means this” “this colour means this”

So what does red mean to you? Or green? Or black? Or blue? Or yellow? Or white?

So you are claiming nestles branding works because I won’t buy their products. I am sure thats what is intended.

Yes. It’s a classic example of a damaged brand influencing your buying decision.

How can you claim to be uninfluenced by brands if you refuse to buy something based on its brand?

You cannot have this both ways.

People on this thread keep telling me that branding works because I recognise a name and that branding is more than the name

Which is it?

You recognise a name (or logo, colour scheme, jingle, whatever). That is the most fundamental, atomic, primitive building block of any branding. Recognition.

Once you have recognition then you have a brand.

Attributing values and perceptions to that brand happens naturally. Obviously any sensible company will do their very best through marketing, PR and spin to make sure you only attribute good values to their brand.

Some might even go as far as making decent products.

My point is I only recognise the name and have negative connotations to some brands. Are you claiming that as proof that branding works on me?

Yep! You are being influenced by a BRAND, not solely the objective merit of an OBJECT.

Some other brand, that doesn’t have those negative connotations, will now be getting your business.

MF – Yup – I am sure. Its another fairly meaningless situation as it don’t happen very often does it?.

Clubber 0- just trying to cut out the nested quotes. I basically agree with you. not trying to change you meaning at all

Molgrips :-

many of us don’t understand the code of “this font means this” “this colour means this”

It’s not a code – code would mean it’d been pre-arranged. It’s subconscious association which is NOT the same thing at all. These things work with all but the autistic apparently.

The fonts is a code – it is not inherent that one font has a association. its a learnt code and many of us do not know it. You know that a particular font shows some atribute, many of us do not.

Graham – you cannot have that both ways – either the brand is more than the name or it is not.

If you define branding as working ‘cos the only effect it has on me is to stop me buying something then its a very odd definition of “working”

TJ – I know you buy ‘Ecover’ products, surely part of that is because of the brand?

I May have missed loads out here, ‘cos I can’t be bothered reading it all.

TandemJeremy – Member

Sorry druidh -another meaningless question. I need more information. I need background. Am I feeling rich or poor? How far am I away from home? what is the price differential?
They are the same price.
You are in South America on the holiday of a lifetime.

TJ – care to respond to my question about colours?

Bunnyhop – no – I buy ecover because its the only phosphate free washing powder easily available. I buy it for what it is not for what it is branded as

this is the subtle difference graham and othrer seems unable to grasp.

The object and its inherent properties is not the same as the brand according to most on here.