Comments on: Cognitive science and the black magic of brand building http://www.semanticargument.com/2009/06/19/cognitive-science-and-the-black-magic-of-brand-building/ Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:55:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Paul van Winkle http://www.semanticargument.com/2009/06/19/cognitive-science-and-the-black-magic-of-brand-building/comment-page-1/#comment-98 Paul van Winkle Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:20:53 +0000 http://www.semanticargument.com/?p=404#comment-98 I like your use of the word 'bias' to describe the game of brand influence-building - very much. This resonates, like with reality. I once worked for an agency that touted itself as generating brand "belief" -- and "brand liberation" (whatever that meant). It was a cult, run by cultish personalities that were so busy being frothy they didn't really listen to what clients wanted (more business) -- and they set about cult-building rather than business-building. It felt like Elmer Gantry. There's an awful lot of deep water bullshit thrown in the way of simply and interestingly clarifying image and value propositions, while providing and communicating alternatives to the marketplace that are better, or cheaper or more convenient. Understanding the relatively simple reasons we all switch and choose something different doesn't take genius. Or a PhD in anthropology with time researching in the Siberian Tundra (that only makes us interesting people). It takes some dedicated observation, some curiousity and a little creativity. I'd personally like to see a few more people capable of doing the work, and fewer "experts". A good one, Rob. I like your use of the word ‘bias’ to describe the game of brand influence-building – very much. This resonates, like with reality.

I once worked for an agency that touted itself as generating brand “belief” — and “brand liberation” (whatever that meant). It was a cult, run by cultish personalities that were so busy being frothy they didn’t really listen to what clients wanted (more business) — and they set about cult-building rather than business-building. It felt like Elmer Gantry.

There’s an awful lot of deep water bullshit thrown in the way of simply and interestingly clarifying image and value propositions, while providing and communicating alternatives to the marketplace that are better, or cheaper or more convenient. Understanding the relatively simple reasons we all switch and choose something different doesn’t take genius. Or a PhD in anthropology with time researching in the Siberian Tundra (that only makes us interesting people). It takes some dedicated observation, some curiousity and a little creativity.

I’d personally like to see a few more people capable of doing the work, and fewer “experts”.

A good one, Rob.

]]> By: Paul http://www.semanticargument.com/2009/06/19/cognitive-science-and-the-black-magic-of-brand-building/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Paul Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:15:37 +0000 http://www.semanticargument.com/?p=404#comment-97 Maybe this is less of an issue with the rise of internet shopping, but brand is important in terms of getting some initial consideration, so that you're one of the few brands among which the functional criteria are sorted. For example, if you wanted to buy a multi-tool, you might look up Leatherman, Gerber, and Swiss Army products and choose the one that best fit your features/price criteria. But that initial decision of which products to consider would have been informed by brand. Maybe this is less of an issue with the rise of internet shopping, but brand is important in terms of getting some initial consideration, so that you’re one of the few brands among which the functional criteria are sorted. For example, if you wanted to buy a multi-tool, you might look up Leatherman, Gerber, and Swiss Army products and choose the one that best fit your features/price criteria. But that initial decision of which products to consider would have been informed by brand.

]]>