They recently posted an article that discusses upon new research:
What if 70 percent of brands in the world disappeared overnight? Most people wouldn't care, according to a new study of 50,000 people in 14 global markets performed by Havas Media, an international communications firm.
Along with urban development, I'm sincerely interested with how we as humans, individually, interact with corporations. How much does an individual corporation impact your life? In the Good article, the brands Google and IKEA topped the list of companies that people believe actually have a good impact on something, be that their own lives, the globe, or otherwise. In fact, the NYT published an article that says that iPhone users literally love the little electronic device, and Investor Place report on the many ways Bank of America regulators, investors, employees and customers hate it.
The corporations that push new technologies - Google, IKEA, Apple in my generation, and Ford, John Deere, Sears Roebuck in past generations - seem to be perceived as the most "valuable" to individuals (at least in developed nations such as the US; what about Monsanto's high-yield, DNA-patented seeds in Africa that are so controversial here?). Nevertheless, I'm sure that the firm that provides you with a job, regardless of its product or service, is pretty valuable to you.
Corporations have been around as long as humans have been able to conceive of them. Back in the day, even churches and governments were "incorporated" as a means to preserve the organization's existence beyond the lives of those currently involved.Is this research legit? Does it ring with you? What brands do you think are legitimately important? What brands would you actually miss if they were to disappear overnight?
Brands are a tricky thing. Ideally, you want a label that means something in regards to the product (e.g. Toms means giving free shoes), but you don't want that to bleed into creating value above and beyond the goods themselves (e.g. Air Jordan muggings in the 90s). This is from a customer's perspective of course.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, from a manufacturer's perspective, you'd like to have a fanaticism about your goods in the way that Nike does without the expense of doing something like Tom's shoes does. This allows you to maximize the price you charge without actually making a better product.
Generally, merketing functions to create this skew of opinion where a product is judged emotionally rather than critically.
This leads to tension between consumers and producers where the first is trying to buy a product and the second is trying to sell an image. Obviously, these don't have to be exclusive or even interchangeable, but therein lies the danger.
If a company succeeds in selling an image instead of a product, it creates a schism between perception of a good and its physical nature. This screws up markets in all kinds of ways.
There are of course other issues to consider beyond humanitarian causes like environmental, financial, political, or social concerns. Sadly, these concerns don't often align themselves with one's personal goals.