Home page
About Us          Leadership          Services          News          Weblog          Contact Us
Strategic Public Relations To Make Your Business Bloom
 
 

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Why Branding Is Bad for Democracy


Here's another thought for the day, riffing off of Wednesday's:

We love branding. Helping companies develop identities, in fact, is one of our favorite things.

But you know us -- we think too much. So it occurred to us this morning (as we pore over logo alternatives for a client) that branding just might be bad for democracy, in some ways.

How so?

Well, one of the things we try to do in branding is to create an emotional attachment to the brand. We want it to have a personality, and thus, we want people to personify the brand in their minds.

But brands aren't people. And neither are the corporations they represent.

Corporations, by law, are chartered for the purpose of making money for their shareholders. They have the same rights under the law that people do, but that's where the similarities to people end.

But real people -- in the United States, in particular -- seem to think corporations act (or should act) like they do. With humanity. Factoring in all sorts of values in their decision-making beyond the profit motive.

It just doesn't work that way, though -- because it can't.

Here's an example we gave in a previous post, regarding the problem of sex and violence in the media:

Hmmm....so why does the problem never seem to get better? Quite simply, it's because a small number of publicly traded companies control most of what our children see and hear -- and the business of these corporations is to make money, not shape our children's values.

I don't blame the media conglomerates for this. Remember, these corporations are owned by you, the public. And in a free market system, a corporation's mandate is to maximize return to its shareholders. If you held stock in Viacom, for example, how would you react if the company hired a born-again Christian CEO who announced that he was pulling the plug on MTV's sexy rap videos, vowing to make similar changes across other operating units? Well, you might be outraged or delighted -- but either way, you'd dump the stock.

That's just how it works, gang.

Don't blame the corporations; it's not their fault.

We're the ones who've delegated responsibility for our social welfare to corporations. The blame, therefore, rests with us.

Speaking of branding, check out our branding strategyworkshop.

Technorati tags: , ,

3 Comments:

  • Organizations tend to reflect the values, mores & daily zen of their members, no? In my old agency life, we had a phrase: clients get the advertising they deserve.

    Perhaps we also get the corporatations, non-profits, governments, etc. we deserve & demand.

    None of which is an out for someone in a big monolith who tries to cloak actions in some sort of inherited mandate. We all have choices to make.

    By Anonymous Brian Oberkirch, at 3/30/2006  

  • To an extent, Brian. Certainly, there are bad actors out there. Enron was a very different kind of company than, say, GE is -- because of the differences in the leaders.

    But ultimately, corporations are required to put return to shareholders first. As I said, I have no problem with this. I just think it's important for people to understand this, so we will realize that we -- as a society -- must have a personal commitment to public policy, the social welfare of those among us, the environment and other concerns -- rather than apathetically thinking BP (because they have a green happy logo now) will suddenly take care of the energy problem for us.

    By Blogger SB, at 3/30/2006  

  • Word up. More active involvement. I have a naive hope that distributed media makes us (potentially) better citizens. Better pals. Better.

    Or, vis-a-vis Shmumpette, we can just use them to reinscribe our existing dynamics. Bo-ring.

    By Anonymous brian oberkirch, at 3/30/2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 

 
Copyright 2006 Idea Grove