Scribd
Upload
102 views

The Case For Brands - Docx A Good Article

1) The document discusses the nature and role of brands, arguing that they began as a form of consumer protection by providing reliability and quality guarantees for products. 2) While some critics see brands as tools of oppression that curtail choice, the document counters that brands reinforce their value in an age of globalization by building consumer trust across distances. 3) The power of brands also makes companies reliant on maintaining that consumer trust, incentivizing consistent quality and responsiveness to customer loyalty and satisfaction. Complaints against brands ultimately give protesters power over companies.

Uploaded by

Junaid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views

The Case For Brands - Docx A Good Article

1) The document discusses the nature and role of brands, arguing that they began as a form of consumer protection by providing reliability and quality guarantees for products. 2) While some critics see brands as tools of oppression that curtail choice, the document counters that brands reinforce their value in an age of globalization by building consumer trust across distances. 3) The power of brands also makes companies reliant on maintaining that consumer trust, incentivizing consistent quality and responsiveness to customer loyalty and satisfaction. Complaints against brands ultimately give protesters power over companies.

Uploaded by

Junaid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

The case for brands

Far from being instruments of oppression, they make firms accountable to consumers
 Print edition | Leaders
Sep 6th 2001

IMAGINE a world without brands. It existed once, and still exists, more or less, in the
world's poorest places. No raucous advertising, no ugly billboards, no McDonald's. Yet,
given a chance and a bit of money, people flee this Eden. They seek out Budweiser instead
of their local tipple, ditch nameless shirts for Gap, prefer Marlboros to home-grown
smokes. What should one conclude? That people are pawns in the hands of giant
companies with huge advertising budgets and global reach? Or that brands bring
something that people think is better than what they had before?

The pawn theory is argued, forcefully if not always coherently, by Naomi Klein, author of
“No Logo”, a book that has become a bible of the anti-globalisation movement. Her thesis
is that brands have come to represent “a fascist state where we all salute the logo and
have little opportunity for criticism because our newspapers, television stations, Internet
servers, streets and retail spaces are all controlled by multinational corporate interests.”
The ubiquity and power of brand advertising curtails choice, she claims; produced
cheaply in third-world sweatshops, branded goods displace local alternatives and force a
grey cultural homogeneity on the world.

Brands have thus become stalking horses for international capitalism. Outside the United
States, they are now symbols of America's corporate power, since most of the world's
best-known brands are American. Around them accrete all the worries about
environmental damage, human-rights abuses and sweated labour that anti-globalists like
to put on their placards. No wonder brands seem bad.

Product power or people power


Yet this is a wholly misleading account of the nature of brands . They began as a form not
of exploitation, but of consumer protection. In pre-industrial days, people knew exactly
what went into their meat pies and which butchers were trustworthy; once they moved to
cities, they no longer did. A brand provided a guarantee of reliability and quality. Its
owner had a powerful incentive to ensure that each pie was as good as the previous one,
because that would persuade people to come back for more.

Just as distance created a need for brands in the 19th century, so in the age of
globalisation and the Internet it reinforces their value. A book-buyer might not entrust a
company based in Seattle with his credit-card number had experience not taught him to
trust the Amazon brand; an American might not accept a bottle of French water were it
not for the name of Evian. Because consumer trust is the basis of all brand values,
companies that own the brands have an immense incentive to work to retain that trust.

Indeed, the dependence of successful brands on trust and consistent quality suggests that
consumers need more of them. In poor countries, the arrival of foreign brands points to
an increase in competition from which consumers gain. Anybody in Britain old enough to
remember the hideous Wimpy, a travesty of a hamburger, must recall the arrival of
McDonald's with gratitude. Public services live in a No Logo world: attempts at
government branding arouse derision. That is because brands have value only where
consumers have choice, which rarely exists in public services. The absence of brands in
the public sector reflects a world like that of the old Soviet Union, in which consumer
choice has little role.

Brands are the tools with which companies seek to build and retain customer loyalty.
Because that often requires expensive advertising and good marketing, a strong brand can
raise both prices and barriers to entry. But not to insuperable levels: brands fade as tastes
change (Nescafé has fallen, while Starbucks has risen); the vagaries of fashion can rebuild
a brand that once seemed moribund (think of cars like the Mini or Beetle); and quality of
service still counts (hence the rise of Amazon). Many brands have been around for more
than a century, but the past two decades have seen many more displaced by new global
names, such as Microsoft and Nokia.

Now a change is taking place in the role of brands. Increasingly, customers pay more for a
brand because it seems to represent a way of life or a set of ideas. Companies exploit
people's emotional needs as well as their desires to consume. Hence Nike's “just-do-it”
attempt to persuade runners that it is selling personal achievement, or Coca-Cola's
relentless effort to associate its fizzy drink with carefree fun. Companies deliberately
concoct a story around their service or product, trying to turn a run-of-the-mill purchase
(think of Häagen-Dazs ice cream) into something more thrilling.

This peddling of superior lifestyles is something that irritates many consumers. They
disapprove of the vapid notion that spending more on a soft drink or ice cream can bring
happiness or social cachet. Fair enough: and yet people in every age and culture have
always hunted for ways to acquire social cachet. For medieval European grandees, it was
the details of dress, and sumptuary laws sought to stamp out imitations by the lower
orders; now the poorest African country has its clothing markets where second-hand
designer labels command a premium over pre-worn No Logo.

The flip side of the power and importance of a brand is its growing vulnerability. Because
it is so valuable to a company, a brand must be cosseted, sustained and protected. A failed
advertising campaign, a drop-off in quality or a hint of scandal can all quickly send
customers fleeing. Indeed, protesters, including Ms Klein's anti-globalisation supporters,
can use the power of the brand against companies by drumming up evidence of workers
ill-treated or rivers polluted. Thanks, ironically enough, to globalisation, they can do this
all round the world. The more companies promote the value of their brands, the more
they will need to seem ethically robust and environmentally pure. Whether protesters will
actually succeed in advancing the interests of those they claim to champion is another
question. The fact remains that brands give them far more power over companies than
they would otherwise have. Companies may grumble about that, but it is hard to see why
the enemies of brand “fascism” are complaining.

 Print edition | Leaders


Sep 6th 2001

You might also like