Comments on: brand geography. http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/ "cartoons drawn on the back of business cards" Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:17:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: mamagiggle http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3648 mamagiggle Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:14:27 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3648 It is traditional for companies to start from the bottom and build, unless of course they are children of rich parent companies. Advertising has traditionally glommed onto the already wealthy and ready to be wealthier model. But as is the way witha ll things that grow they will get big and top heavy and come a-tumblin down. This is archetypal and not new. However we find new bottoms to start from and that is exciting, we've reached a new low people, but new heights await as well, trippin' It is traditional for companies to start from the bottom and build, unless of course they are children of rich parent companies. Advertising has traditionally glommed onto the already wealthy and ready to be wealthier model. But as is the way witha ll things that grow they will get big and top heavy and come a-tumblin down. This is archetypal and not new. However we find new bottoms to start from and that is exciting, we’ve reached a new low people, but new heights await as well,
trippin’

]]> By: hugh macleod http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3647 hugh macleod Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:09:19 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3647 Tom, "environment", from the Latin root, which means "surround". Tom, “environment”, from the Latin root, which means “surround”.

]]> By: Tom Guarriello http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3646 Tom Guarriello Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:45:37 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3646 Of course, Hugh. I agree. I'm just puzzled by the "environment" metaphor. Of course, Hugh. I agree. I’m just puzzled by the “environment” metaphor.

]]> By: hugh macleod http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3645 hugh macleod Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:57:20 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3645 Tom, the word "Brand" is a metaphor. Brands are interactive. Interacting with brands therefore is perfectly kosher. Tom, the word “Brand” is a metaphor. Brands are interactive. Interacting with brands therefore is perfectly kosher.

]]> By: Firas http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3644 Firas Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:16:09 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3644 Hey Hugh, you were way clearer in this post than in some of your 'not-so-edited' Hughtrain thoughts. Good stuff. Hey Hugh, you were way clearer in this post than in some of your ‘not-so-edited’ Hughtrain thoughts. Good stuff.

]]> By: Tom Guarriello http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3643 Tom Guarriello Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:07:55 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3643 Well, I "live in" environments, but I don't usually speak of that as interacting with them according to the construction you've created. Here's an example: ""By interacting with Gerber, she becomes a better-informed mom." Here the word, "Gerber" is hard for me to understand as an environment. It's like saying, "by interacting with 'Connecticut,' she's become a better mom." I believe a real person might say, "because of the people, relationships and experiences she's had in Connecticut, she's become a better mom," and that would sound more like, ahem, TrueTalk to me. ;-) I'm just curious about the value (benefits) of changing the notion of "relationship" from one between conscious agents (people) to one between a person and a context (environments). Not that we don't have relationships with environments, but that those relationships are very different than the richly interactive kind we have with other people. Well, I “live in” environments, but I don’t usually speak of that as interacting with them according to the construction you’ve created. Here’s an example:
”“By interacting with Gerber, she becomes a better-informed mom.“
Here the word, “Gerber” is hard for me to understand as an environment.
It’s like saying, “by interacting with ‘Connecticut,’ she’s become a better mom.” I believe a real person might say, “because of the people, relationships and experiences she’s had in Connecticut, she’s become a better mom,” and that would sound more like, ahem, TrueTalk to me. ;-)
I’m just curious about the value (benefits) of changing the notion of “relationship” from one between conscious agents (people) to one between a person and a context (environments). Not that we don’t have relationships with environments, but that those relationships are very different than the richly interactive kind we have with other people.

]]> By: Jozef Imrich http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3642 Jozef Imrich Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:10:33 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3642 They talked personality brand, which is the language of making and selling dreams or nightmares ... Sound bites don't last this long, so the personality brand trends must be real ... Ach, because using Fred Allen means you want the best for your future (smile) "I don't want to own anything that won't fit in my coffin." - Fred Allen (quoted in John Dunning, On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio) They talked personality brand, which is the language of making and selling dreams or nightmares …
Sound bites don’t last this long, so the personality brand trends must be real …
Ach, because using Fred Allen means you want the best for your future (smile)
“I don’t want to own anything that won’t fit in my coffin.“
– Fred Allen (quoted in John Dunning, On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio)

]]> By: Bill Denneen http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3641 Bill Denneen Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:31:58 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3641 In my view, branding is all about connecting into the consumer's belief system. The mom has beliefs about what good moms do. Everything about the Gerber brand--its architecture, its positioning, its personality--is an attempt to insert the brand into the belief system. These tdon't replace each other; it's not a progression from personality to architecture over the years. They work together to work the brand into the consumer's belief system. The "Kinetic Quality", or thinking of brand as a place, is another way of characterizing this belief system, but I don't think it replaces the other ways we talk about the brand. The interaction with the brand always involves personality and architecture and promise and positioning, whether the marketer intends it or not. The consumer has to process all of these things in order to move in the geography. So, I guess what I'm saying is, I agree that interaction and movement are fundamental to branding, but I think they are ideas that build upon, not replace, the many dimensions of branding that have been developed over the years. In my view, branding is all about connecting into the consumer’s belief system. The mom has beliefs about what good moms do. Everything about the Gerber brand–its architecture, its positioning, its personality–is an attempt to insert the brand into the belief system.
These tdon’t replace each other; it’s not a progression from personality to architecture over the years. They work together to work the brand into the consumer’s belief system. The “Kinetic Quality”, or thinking of brand as a place, is another way of characterizing this belief system, but I don’t think it replaces the other ways we talk about the brand.
The interaction with the brand always involves personality and architecture and promise and positioning, whether the marketer intends it or not. The consumer has to process all of these things in order to move in the geography.
So, I guess what I’m saying is, I agree that interaction and movement are fundamental to branding, but I think they are ideas that build upon, not replace, the many dimensions of branding that have been developed over the years.

]]> By: hugh macleod http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3640 hugh macleod Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:32:25 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3640 What Tom, you mean you can't/don't interact with an environment? ;-) Seriously, if the metaphor doesn't work for you, find one that does. Both "true" and "talk" are metaphors, also ;-) What Tom, you mean you can’t/don’t interact with an environment? ;-)
Seriously, if the metaphor doesn’t work for you, find one that does.
Both “true” and “talk” are metaphors, also ;-)

]]> By: AdPulp http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3649 AdPulp Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:29:50 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3649 <strong>Brand Architects Give Ground To Brand Geographers</strong> Hugh MacLeod, the writer-guy who draws (sometimes raunchy) comics on the back of business cards, says brands are a place. "A place where something happens when somebody (not necessarily the customer) interacts with it: -By interacting with Gerber, she ... Brand Architects Give Ground To Brand Geographers

Hugh MacLeod, the writer-guy who draws (sometimes raunchy) comics on the back of business cards, says brands are a place. “A place where something happens when somebody (not necessarily the customer) interacts with it: –By interacting with Gerber, she …

]]> By: Tom Guarriello http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3639 Tom Guarriello Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:25:56 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3639 It's kind of an odd construction for me, Hugh. I don't speak about interacting "with" a place, I interact with someone (or something) "within" a place. I can twist the thing a bit and say I'm interacting with a place if I, for example, relax in it, but it feels clumsy. Conversations do take place somewhere, but they take place between entities. It’s kind of an odd construction for me, Hugh. I don’t speak about interacting “with” a place, I interact with someone (or something) “within” a place. I can twist the thing a bit and say I’m interacting with a place if I, for example, relax in it, but it feels clumsy. Conversations do take place somewhere, but they take place between entities.

]]> By: hugh macleod http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3638 hugh macleod Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:23:55 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3638 "it's that if Hugh is right, and companies DO start looking at a Bottom-Top strategy - uh, where's the "Bottom?" It's where their EMPLOYEES are." Agreed, Jon.... that's why I said in The Hughtrain, "the future of advertising is internal". Incompetent manager assholes are a thing of the past. Sit back and watch the cull ;-) “it’s that if Hugh is right, and companies DO start looking at a Bottom-Top strategy — uh, where’s the “Bottom?“
It’s where their EMPLOYEES are.“
Agreed, Jon.… that’s why I said in The Hughtrain, “the future of advertising is internal”.
Incompetent manager assholes are a thing of the past. Sit back and watch the cull ;-)

]]> By: Jon Lawrence http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3637 Jon Lawrence Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:22:02 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3637 Here's the exhilarating and terrifying part of this (much like the SMARTER CONVERSATIONS blog/thread) - it's that if Hugh is right, and companies DO start looking at a Bottom-Top strategy - uh, where's the "Bottom?" It's where their EMPLOYEES are. So imagine a company wants to do this - do you think a smart exec would go pay an agency or marketing or brand guy tens of thousands of dollars to figure out his own business and report back, or do you think a smart exec might leverage the technology that's driving this revolution, and encourage his (or HER) own employees to help reshape the company (perhaps via an internal blog?). It could be a disaster, or it could be spectacularly successful. Once again, I think it might start being a LOT harder for the incompetent managerial assholes to stay hidden in the shadows when a company starts being a smarter company. (Oh, and Post Note - SMART IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.) Here’s the exhilarating and terrifying part of this (much like the SMARTER CONVERSATIONS blog/thread) — it’s that if Hugh is right, and companies DO start looking at a Bottom-Top strategy — uh, where’s the “Bottom?“
It’s where their EMPLOYEES are.
So imagine a company wants to do this — do you think a smart exec would go pay an agency or marketing or brand guy tens of thousands of dollars to figure out his own business and report back, or do you think a smart exec might leverage the technology that’s driving this revolution, and encourage his (or HER) own employees to help reshape the company (perhaps via an internal blog?).
It could be a disaster, or it could be spectacularly successful.
Once again, I think it might start being a LOT harder for the incompetent managerial assholes to stay hidden in the shadows when a company starts being a smarter company. (Oh, and Post Note — SMART IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.)

]]> By: John D. Mitchell http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3636 John D. Mitchell Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:43:12 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3636 The community (mediated by the conversations) is the brand. The community (mediated by the conversations) is the brand.

]]> By: Matthew T http://gapingvoid.com/2005/01/12/brand-geography/#comment-3635 Matthew T Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:35:06 +0000 http://gapingvoid.com/?p=1172#comment-3635 If agencies are to reinvent the client's business, what are the brand people supposed to do? Blindly execute on what the almighty agency people are recommending? Or should the agency just do/be what it's supposed to do/be -- outsourced design and media creation function that's prohibitively expensive to build from the group up for every brand. At its most complex (therefore, most lucrative), it seems that an agency could be a thought-provoker. Not actually doing the strategy, planning, re-thinking, but spurring the guys with the brains, desire and mandate to do "it." In short, shouldn't agencies look to make the brand folks the heros (and giving them the tools/rope) instead of making themselve mini-celebrities? Isn't that where we all win -- brands, agencies and consumers? If agencies are to reinvent the client’s business, what are the brand people supposed to do? Blindly execute on what the almighty agency people are recommending?
Or should the agency just do/be what it’s supposed to do/be — outsourced design and media creation function that’s prohibitively expensive to build from the group up for every brand. At its most complex (therefore, most lucrative), it seems that an agency could be a thought-provoker. Not actually doing the strategy, planning, re-thinking, but spurring the guys with the brains, desire and mandate to do “it.“
In short, shouldn’t agencies look to make the brand folks the heros (and giving them the tools/rope) instead of making themselve mini-celebrities? Isn’t that where we all win — brands, agencies and consumers?

]]>