Type "branding" the tag search box below:
copy and paste the results here. Add more content, write transitions, revise, remix!
"The Symbolic Lotus of A Thousand Colonels" by Aric Obrosey
Did somebody say branding? When Jacob and Pat dialogue about the promises and pitfalls of this ubiquitous rhetorical strategy, they tune in on the double-edged sword of building ethos via definition. I think the Negativland "remix" of Pepsi's "remix" of the Ying/Yang icon. This icon of information compression of unknown origin that arrests our attention in the midst of the dynamic and interdependent forces that it represents and pulls together in a single image, speaks to the complexities of the fraught but axiomatic rhetorical strategy of branding. Negativland doesn't so much critique Pepsi's appropriation of this icon as much as they critique the use of legal codes to prevent others from freely using and further refining their version. Aric Obrosey's "The Symbolic Lotus of a Thousand Colonels" reduplicates the iconic Kentucky Fried headshot, and in doing so, enacts an argument against a permanent "arrest" by putting the Colonel into a archetypal array. Dylan K prompted some interesting discussion about the appropriation of brand-icons in class, questions that parallel discussions underway in Lydia's business law class. As we pursue this line of inquiry, let's consider what's at stake: what is being defined in these arguments and how do these compressed definitional arguments unfold?
Branding is nothing new, really. Speakers and writers have always used and re-used commonplace and available rhetorical forms to alter the consciousness of listeners and readers. Back in the day, Socrates puzzled over the double-edged nature of rhetoric itself--famously, in the Phaedrus, the polysemous pharmakon concept (meaning both "medicine" and "poison") becomes a learning tool by virtue of its ambiguity. Today, we find ourselves in what UC Berkeley researchers attempt to quantify and define as an unprecedented infoquake brought about by human interaction with and through information technologies that yields dramatic qualitative shifts in our everday experience. acob's concerns are legit: in this article about
neural marketing , researchers debate over the health, safety, and ethics of branding as it continues to refine it's scale and resolution via technology. In this context, branding has become a science, one no rhetor can simply disavow or ignore. Jacob and Pat tease out the importance of both critique and leverage in the information age, a puzzle that Brian Sleevi tackled last semester
ShareRiff
Kristie
I agree that non-profit organizations should not be about making money. I'd like to shed a different view of this game. My idea of branding is, when you think of a product, you think of a specific brand of that product. Let me give some examples; "I need a Kleenex." Do I really need a Kleenex, or will any facial tissue do? Same with Band-Aid, Tylenol, Advil, Aspirin, and the list goes on. If you truly "Brand" a product or service the product or service will be YOUR product. If you truly sell... "everything associates with your organization", you will sell the heart, sole, ethics, quality and any other aspect of that brand. Selling is not only getting your customer to buy your product, but buy in to your product.
---David---
Brands help people advertise who they are, or who they want to be. This could be good or bad. The more that people buy gucci, abercrombe, any recognizable/obvious brand whether it be cars or shoes, the more that same product will be promoted. The more popular it becomes, the more expensive it will get. So what you really pay for is image, not quality. I'm not above this, far from it, I own more SRH outfit than anyone I know, element, quicksilver, and mossimo. Its what I buy. We live in a branded society, but what's the opposite? A no-brand society means you get your clothes from the local tailor, your cars parts from the local dealer, your food from local farms, your books from the local bookstore. These places do deserve to co-exist if they are trustworthy and reliable. Don't get me wrong there are many chains that are untrustworthy, unreliable, and unethical (in the lack of the perfect example, insert your own fiasco; Tylenol, Goodyear, Subprime mortgage lenders, car corporations, electric companies, oil companies, I'm sure you have examples). PBwiki, facebook, myspace, google, sony, gateway, Ubisoft, D.C., sketchers, on and on. You can't escape it. It reminds me of the crap I was told in high school, "you could become a statistic". Well no shit, who isn't? Try not to be a statistic and you're a statistic of those who want to avoid be a statistic. My teachers were refering to smoking pot and drinking and sex without protection. Before destroying the idea of branding and copyrights, at least look at both sides, playing devil's advocate here. I don't know where I really stand, there's problems with both arguments for and against, brands and copyrights, and some of them make sense and some of them don't.
_Aldijana_
Branding is business. As David said the more is sold the more does the value go up. According to Wikipedia it is the art of COGS (cost of goods sold). But heading in a different direction, life in general is a marketing strategy. It starts from the time that we are born. In a sense we have to advertise that we are hungry by crying in order to get fed. We try to present good behavior, or most of us, in order to satisfy our parents. Later on in life when going for job interviews, we present ourselves in the best manner advertising ourselves as something great whether it be true or not. Finding our significant other, we put our best face forward. When buying a car or house, we thus far have worked on our credit score to prove that we are reliable. Same thing with branding merchandise, if it is not advertised properly and liked by many then it won’t sell. The product has to stand up to par with it’s advertised quality, else it won’t last and stay successful.
Amanda:
dynamic and interdependent forces...pulled together by single cause. benefitting our community ... what is our common, solidified image? our strategies and goal to work towards ... perhaps this confusion lies in the absence of common purpose. if the end result is in formation, fine. let it be. perhaps at the beginning, we refer to the end. upload,document ... voice individual thoughts on an outcome. next, sit down and see. a vision stays a vision (inside one brain) without communication (the sending and receiving of a message). are we branding for attraction? are we promoting our class learning inputs? learning and poison, poison can teach us. AMBIGUITY: lack of decisiveness ...commitment...resulting from a failure to make a choice between alternatives. what are the alternatives to branding, source? One thing to learn about our class: communication is key and via the wiki, ideas flow freely and thoroughly to discuss, we mold our understanding through peer dialogue...we learn, grow, learn, and grow more. the only trouble i have found with branding after scrutinizing both sides of this branding clash is no sense of purpose, especially unity. PLAY.
---David---
I never thought of advertising myself in life like Aldijana suggests, but its interesting to think about. What do we as individuals advertise, and how much do we believe in the product we're selling. "Fake" always interested me in that it was used as a classification term. I would hear that a person was fake, or acting fake, or acted like a poser. Same thing for advertised products. When it comes to people being fake, its a hard label to put on someone. Obviously if a person lies constantly and acts differently in different circumstances, then they act fake. So what about gas, food, bank, and retail corporations. If these corporations show you one positive image on TV or in games and then act in a different way "off camera", doesn't this make them a fake corporation?
Lydia
I have always been anti-branding... in the sense that I am not a billboard for your cause. I try to avoid wearing politically charged gear, I don't own anything with logo's or labels except for a few independent BMX clothing companies. I don't own any Tommy Hillfigure as well. I don't understand why people would want to be plastered with someone else's name across their chest, it doesn't make sense to me. I also don't buy my band tee's at Hot Topic, along with the same principle. Hot Topic tee's aren't supporting the bands, they're supporting their image of the punk rock/scene/metal/emo lifestyle (in all of their fakeness). I buy my bands tee's from the concerts or off their websites, then at least I know where my money is going--to support a band that needs gas money, food, and other things to pursue their dreams of being a musician, I can get behind that. While I may support that band name, I will not support gucci.
Nancy Assia
I am a marketing major so I definitely find branding extremely interesting. As a frequent "mall-goer", I buy all sorts of clothing, handbags, shoes, and accessories. If the products appeal to me, I will buy it. I don't stop and think that the company is trying to pull one over on me by using me as a billboard a.k.a a walking advertisement. If the product appeals to me immediately than the company has done their job with promoting their merchandise, and for that I am impressed.
I have agreed with Kristie many times on this one topic. About how when you think of a product, you use the specific name to descirbe what you want. For instance when you need pain medicine, you would say I need Advil or Tylenol.
I also found what Aldijana had said about how we market ourselves from birth very interesting. You don't realize the actions you take and how you carry yourself allows people to have an opionion about you just like a piece of merchandise. For instance when it comes to dating, you are disecting someones everything to see if that person is right for you. Like a pair of shoes, you try on many different pairs to see which shoe you want to purchase.
~Maria
Branding is beneficial to business; it is exactly what you want. Basic Marketing – you want to own a word. That way when people think of that word, they think of your product. You want that instant connection. Like Kristie said, you want them to buy into your product. Regardless of whether there is a similar or better product.
Is this necessarily bad? Technically, can’t you consider FDA approval a type of brand? People make choices on their purchases because of that. So, there are both good and negative associations. Not to mention, the amount of information available to consumers. If information is found that questions the credibility of the brand then as Aldijana says, it’s liable to die out.
Ultimately can we ever get away from branding? Say there is only one man in the village that makes jackets. He focuses on warmth and insulation in jackets. The next village over there is another man making jackets, but this one focuses on style. Once those villages open themselves up to trading a brand is in the making. Jack makes the warm jackets and Tom’s jackets have style. People start talking and then they know where to go depending on what kind of jacket they want. This may be more brand image or a very basic definition of branding, however, my point is with competition, branding is almost automatic.
Then if there were no brands, and everything is made the same, would the world really be better? Personally, I don’t think I’d care for that kind of uniformity. Branding is meant to distinguish oneself, so I’d rather have that individuality out there both as a consumer and as a business.
A little case study about Kelloggs SmartStart tying in with the durability of a brand and the "truth" promoted by a brand.
Brand Insight Blog - SmartStart - 4 Secret Ingredients of all Successful Brands
The American Marketing Assoc. defines branding as “a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combo of them intended to identify goods and services of a seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.” What I get from this is that an individual associates themselves with a brand based on their own perceptions and experiences with that brand. Using the example of a non-profit organization like the Red Cross. I donated to the Red Cross based on recognition alone but after learning about some misuses of donations, I stopped my donations. My support changed because my opinion and perception changed.
As far as big business is concerned, I’ve always been a big Nike fan. Although they have been widely criticized about their labor conditions my support hasn’t changed because they took care of me when I was playing competitive tennis a teen. I couldn’t afford shoes like the other kids, so I asked Nike for some help and they gave me shoes. My brand support is on a personal and appreciative level. I’ve read all those claims of labor abuses but it hasn’t changed my emotional connection to the brand. In the end branding and brand support is more of a emotional decision than anything else.-Earl
Jacob Grimes
We are walking billboards. As I type this I am advertising Adidas, Levis, and the band Jawbreaker. Can we avoid this? No, unless we start making our own clothes and products, which will never happen. Instead we should choose what brands we want to support based on beliefs. I myself try to buy shirts from American Apparel, mainly because they are made in California by laborers paid a decent wage. If we are walking advertisements we should at least make a conscious decision on who we market for.
David
Great posts and comments. I did a personal experiment for a class two years ago, counting how many ads I saw in a week. By the second day I was sick of marketing. But I challenge you to do the same, and try to break down the argument: who are they trying to appeal to, what are they really selling? It may be true no other brand outdoes brand A, but is brand A really better than any other? My biggest problem is corporations which decieve the public into thinking a certain way. Look at flu shots, they do absolutely nothing for the flu, yet people still believe they will be safer if they pay for a shot that claims to help fight the flu. It's even more amazing that people take pills for ADD, bipolar disorder, and depression. What if there was a pill that cured heartache, would people take it? Of, course. Our goal is to feel as free from pain and sadness as physically possible. But some of these experiences are unavoidable, and taking a pill gives someone an unhealthy short-cut. It's sad the pharmaceutical empire convinces people they can't change their lives with a little moderation, eating right, exercising, and getting as many natural vitamins we can. We should be able to make an informed decision (as Jacob states), and the information is out there to research. But who really has time to look at every facet of a company they buy from. What if companies gave everyone the complete information about their product in every advertisement? We would see less advertising, but that way the consumer could make an informed or conscious decision about the brand, instead of believing what they thought was the truth.
Craig
Instead of debating about branding and whether or not it is good or bad, I'll just offer some thoughts about how important brands are to Americans, and how they use brands to identify themselves. In this respect, brand allegiance becomes very important. As a kid growing up in South Carolina, I remember how important branding was to the regional culture. My parents were from New Jersey, so they had stockpiled in their cabinets certain brands no respectable Southern family would permit. For example, they used Hellman's mayonnaise, but in the South it was near sacrilege not to spread Duke's mayo on your sandwich. No one strayed from Duke's mayo, and a near brawl may ensue if you chose to defend any other brand. I don't think that people in a lot of other cultures debate about mayonaisse brands while they are standing in the bread line...
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.