The High Priest of Branding

[Dragline]

It's sometimes surprising to me that people involved in this area aren't more well known, given their disproportionate impact on our society.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... ofbrandman

The analogy between branding/consumerism and religion is a rather apt one, I think. Just think, if we make that stick, we could keep it out of schools and separate it from government. Of course, people would howl about their freedom of branding . . .

[Felix]

Yes hardly anyone has more influence on people than a powerful propagandist. I also consider the mass produced consumer himself to be the most valuable, indeed essential, asset of modern capitalism. There is nothing more important than to have people with low self esteem and little emotional connection with other people who are not only constantly told how unfavorably they compare to others, but can also be told that this is because whatever they already own is inferior and that their lives would be complete with the new gizmo for 9.95. Where would demand be if it were not for this constant deliberate destruction of subjective value.

Do you know of a good book on the guy?

It would be interesting to know more about how they present what is supposed to fill the wound they constantly spray salt on.

[Ego]

Mr Olins recognised two great truths about the modern capitalist economy. The first is that the most precious resource in a noisy, crowded market is people’s attention. ”

1) Protect attention vigorously.

The second is that consumers are not just looking for utility in the things they buy. They are also looking for meaning. “In the absence of a spiritual mentor,” he once declared, with his signature nonchalance, “the idea of what the brand stands for—‘Just Do It’, or whatever it is—is a substitute.”

2) Find better substitutes.

Someone should write a book.

[Dragline]

The original version of that book, "Propaganda" was written in 1928 by Sigmund Freud's nephew, Eddie Bernays: http://www.whale.to/b/bernays.pdf

But I agree, we've gone way beyond that today.

[chenda]

Bernays was one of Goebbels's favourite authors, he had an extensive library of his work and used his techniques.

Advertising has a very dark history.

[Felix]

I like Adam Curtis' documentary on Bernays. The century of the self.

[Ego]

Alain de Botton touches on how we have for thousands of years used shopping as a manic substitute of desires in this video on Epicurus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irornIAQzQY

Epicurus outlined three essential needs:

1) Friends
2) Freedom:
3) An analyzed life

de Botton say that if Epicurus were alive today he would have co-opted advertising to his own ends. I like that idea. I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with a group from one of the largest ad agencies in the nation. I know they were attracted to the idea as well. More to follow...

[jacob]

https://www.adbusters.org/

[Felix]

One thing I find very worrying is the increasingly popular notion of 'being your own brand'.I find it completely degrading and consider it to be a movement of the business/economics metaphor into an area where it doesn't belong. It turns a human being with basic dignity into a commodity of so little value that it needs a state-of-the-art marketing effort to get anywhere 'in the marketplace'. It even beats the idea of 'social capital' in dehumanizing social relations.

And the fact that this is seen as something good on top of that is downright disturbing.

[jennypenny]

I agree with you, Felix. A children's TV network started a campaign a few years ago called "What's Your Thing?" They posed that question to kids and then showed kids doing whatever their 'thing' was. It seemed positive at first, but it was really teaching the kids to brand themselves at an early age ("My thing is soccer." "My thing is chess.") I think there's an important distinction between identity and branding, and we've definitely shifted towards branding.

Maybe that's one of the reasons ERE appeals to me so much--it defies branding, or at least doesn't come with a ready-made brand. Plus, the stronger and broader you build your 'web', the less you have to build your 'brand' because you're better equipped to redefine yourself as needed/desired.

@Ego--I liked that video. It made me think of the ERE city idea again.

[Tyler9000]

The thing to remember about branding is that today it is about so much more than simply consumer products. The comparison to religion is pretty accurate.

Politics, especially, has become the new frontier in branding where policies are measured in retweets and message affiliation rather than efficacy. The average person can't name a single substantive bill passed by their favorite politician. Of course, this is helped by the fact that popular politicians avoid controversial votes as it could affect their image with certain constituents. Powerful brands collect votes just as they do dollars, and political campaigns are experts at engaging with voter emotions (you're saving the planet! you're protecting the free world!) to extract votes and money in precisely the same way that Apple or Nike sells the lifestyle rather than the product.

[theanimal]

I absolutely HATE the ideas of "personal branding"/"building your brand." This has been constantly preached in my classes at school the past two years. Nobody seems to question it at all. Another one that bothers me is the constant harping to "build your network," which I think is basically the same as Felix's social capital. One of my professors was absolutely shocked that I do not have a Facebook. As if being a member of social media site(s) is the only way one can survive these days.

Only 1 more week left until I can finally escape this noise!

[Tyler9000]

Well, one good argument I've heard for personal brand building is that as the economy shifts away from full-time salary work and towards part-time, freelance, and entrepreneurial work, a personal brand is a lot more important now than it used to be.

Then again, the end result is that a huge percentage of young recent college grads in Silicon Valley today form a "startup" (often just setting up a website and crowd-funding a lame idea for fame and hopefully a few bucks) just so they can print business cards with CEO titles to hand out at parties and networking events. All show and no substance. Those guys drive me crazy.

I guess as someone who has job-hopped a bit I can understand the appeal of selling an image, but I personally fall on the side of substance and authenticity. Your real brand is not what you say you are -- it's what you do when your mouth is shut and you think nobody is looking.

[Felix]

Yes, networking is up there in my hate list. It's psychopathic.Can't you just socialize with people? Because you, oh I don't know, like them? Wow, what a strange and foreign concept.

Behind all this is this ubiquitous idea that everything any animal ever does is to maximize personal gain. Everything has to boil down to economic optimization. But if you have ever watched a dog do its thing for just a few hours, you will have a hard time rationalizing the idea that it is optimizing anything.

David Graeber has a great article on this: http://thebaffler.com/past/whats_the_po ... t_have_fun

[theanimal]

@Felix- In one of my classes we had a personal networking project, part of the final deliverable was a reflection on the process. My comments were how I strongly disliked the concept and that it wasn't authentic to me. My professor's reply was that, "no entrepreneur has been successful without help from others." This sort of relates to the discussion on the Zero-Maker thread...why does everything have to revolve around business/money?



This article is the "gospel" for those who strongly advocate personal branding: http://www.fastcompany.com/28905/brand-called-you

[Felix]

This article is the "gospel" for those who strongly advocate personal branding: http://www.fastcompany.com/28905/brand-called-you

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N-NrPOMBKnw

I understand that it is useful. It is still dehumanising and manipulative. But character and integrity would probably be too hard a sell.

'But would you not deceive and manipulate people for personal economic gain? Or socialize with people you despise to get ahead? Pretend to be someone you are not for money?' Well, fuck no! And shame on anyone suggesting it!

The discussion in the zero-to-maker thread inspired me to write the post here.

Why does everything have to revolve around money? Hm. My guess is that every culture needs myths to sustain itself and especially to legitimize its negative aspects. It seems to be an attempt at making economic thinking appear natural. If we cannot find homo oeconomicus anywhere in nature, we just put him there, seems to be the logic.

[Seneca]

@Felix- In one of my classes we had a personal networking project, part of the final deliverable was a reflection on the process. My comments were how I strongly disliked the concept and that it wasn't authentic to me. My professor's reply was that, "no entrepreneur has been successful without help from others." This sort of relates to the discussion on the Zero-Maker thread...why does everything have to revolve around business/money?

Mother Theresa has a crazy strong personal brand.

[henrik]

Felix makes three separate substantial and assertive points in this one thread and I agree with every one of them. This is new!

[Felix]

Thanks.