What Will Replace the Brand?

Over the past 25 years branding has flourished as the cultural keystone and pseudo-scientific discipline of choice for marketers everywhere. Hipster author, Douglas Haddow, is calling bullshit. Tell us what you think.

52 comments Douglas Haddow , 25 Mar 2009

We will change the way information flows, the way we interact with the mass media, the way in which meaning is produced.

The monolithic notion of a “brand” – an infinitely dependable symbol of prosperity, happiness, comfort and security – is over. For nearly a century brands acted as the definitive medium through which we experienced capitalism. A brand’s strength came from its ability to transmit a consistently identical static message. Brands gave our reality a strong foundation: symbols dotting our mental and physical landscapes that we could use to navigate our way through life. But then brands began to show their age. They started to rust, chip, degrade, fall apart. All of a sudden brands cease to be the impenetrable fortresses of consumer relations we thought they were, and anyone could start a brand and do whatever he wanted with it. Gen X created flexible brands that catered to subterranean audiences, prompting Gen Y to embrace the idea of the “personal brand” - individuality expressed through a marketable system of identifiable signifiers.

And so these slick little icons – towering planets that represented entire universes of product experience – were slowly deconstructed to a point of irrelevance. Our daily lives are now inundated by a torrent of dead images and meaningless symbols from a bygone era, leaving us with one very important question to answer: What’s next?

Douglas Haddow

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

Adbusters #82

I read a great article in

by john kooz on April 18 2009, @08:36 pm I read a great article in the Earth Island Journal about the Pacific Trash Vortex. I'll post a blog on it at my site: www.validatelife.com but basically this awesome chemist captain dude was saying marketing (and brand) creates the plastic packaging that contributes to literally a HUGE floating trash vortex in the north pacific. Nasty!! horrifying!

People and corporation spend

by mirfan on April 15 2009, @04:56 pm People and corporation spend a lot of money to keep their brand alive. You might see some thing under a different sub brand but they will never go away. Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Instant Credit Cards

A follow-up post to my

by Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Part Two, in an apparent series. on April 14 2009, @01:43 pm A follow-up post to my comment on April 9, 2009: Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Read it at: http://briancreath.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/brands-are-not-dead-part-2/

This book was awful.

by Anonymous on April 12 2009, @11:46 pm This book was awful. Completely contradictory. Poorly constructed arguments all around. Branding has evolved but it far from dead. The author's reluctance to admit it crushes the premise of his argument from the beginning.

Brands Are

by Brian Creath on April 09 2009, @06:45 pm Brands Are Dead. (Really?) Johnathan Salem Baskin and now you. “Brands Are Dead,” according to Mr. Baskin, who wrote, “Branding Only Works On Cattle.” In a November 2008 post, he says, among other things, “Nobody carries brands around in their heads. Nobody has a relationship with a brand. Or lives a brand lifestyle. Brands aren’t conversations, and they’re not bought, possessed, or coveted. Companies don’t own them. Neither do consumers or shareholders.” Funny. As I drove from Walmart through McDonald’s to the Apple Store the other day, I could have sworn he was wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a guy playing devil’s advocate to sell a few books; but c’mon, dead? Read the rest of this post, here: http://briancreath.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/brands-are-not-dead/

I know what you mean. LOL.

by Anonymous on April 18 2009, @08:39 pm I know what you mean. LOL. Apple is a brand with which I have a strong allegiance and history. haha!! I don't think it's dead, but definitely transformed. People like the consistency of a brand but the idea of "slapping a brand on something and "buying a brand" is definitely dead I think. (it is for me atleast LOL!) If I stick with a certain brand it's because of the quality of the product (like apple). etc. interesting though . I just hope less branding means less packaging, which means less plastic pollutatns, which means safer healthier clean oceans, which means less plastic and pollutants in fish, which means less pollutants in our diets, which means we're healthier and happier with less branding plastic packaging! haha!! TRUE! lol www.validatelife.com www.destinationescapade.com John Kooz, Master-lifecoach

Branding has been around for

by Moeafati on April 07 2009, @12:17 am Branding has been around for quite some time, having evolved to the form we know from "marks of trade" and symbols stating manufacturer or origin. Brands are symbols, and humans are symbolic creatures. Language, art, religion, and commerce are all symbolic activities. A brand is a special kind of symbol, in that it is attributed to a product, somewhat arbitrarily, and it is attributed to things that are for sale. What has happened in the last hundred or so years, what I would say capitalism has made possible, is the application of brands (symbols of commerce) to things that had not previously been for sale. When something previously unsaleable (a religion or a lifestyle or a political party or a subculture or an individual - I will refer to this thing as an individual) brands itself it puts itself up for sale. Not only is it enabling advertisers to co-opt the symbols of the lifestyle or subculture in order to apply the symbols to their own product, the individual is setting up a scenario in which the individual no longer controls the symbols that define it. This is the essence of alienation; the individual interprets itself in terms of the symbols that refer to it and sees those symbols also refer to something that is not itself. Regardless, brands will continue to exist and evolve. What will have to end is the way we all allow the symbols in our world to seem to create their own meaning, rather than to refer to the meaning of the objects that they are intended to symbolize... to "see through" brands as symbols that represent ideas. Ideas that are used in ways that may not be true. The symbol is not the the thing. The car is not the happiness on the face of the woman driving it. The sneaker is not the skill. It might be on an athlete the first time you see it, but wearing it does not make you an athlete too. The church is not the belief. The logo is not the quality. The scarf is not the solidarity. The flag is not the country. Sometimes we see through the symbol to the essence beneath, sometimes we don't. Soon we won't have a choice... to take the symbols that surround us at face value is to see the world as empty and alienated from itself. To see the objects of the world as they are and to apply our own values and symbols to them is to see the world as full and fascinating. My two cents.

Until humans turn on more of

by eddiebrio on April 05 2009, @11:57 am Until humans turn on more of our brains, and start conceptualizing in ways that I can't conceive, symbols (brands) will continue to be an important part of our mental dialogue.

I’m eating a milk

by Anonymous on April 02 2009, @11:14 am I'm eating a milk chocolate biscuit.

as long as there are people

by Anonymous on April 01 2009, @07:16 am as long as there are people who believe, and worship, and those who are self important. we will always need a symbol to relate with. a brand to tell ourselves that it is okay. that the world is not so dark.

don’t be

by natberger on April 01 2009, @04:11 am don’t be naive. Acai Guru “the brand” was exploited very well for the purpose of getting the current president elected.Acai Guru dead? it’s just be “refreshed”

…or may it be you Nat

by 0stress on April 17 2009, @04:42 pm ...or may it be you Nat misinterpreting Obama as a brand while it is a man and his family name? Branding is more than brands, it's a scheme of ideas. Very popular and automatic, as you can see, though unnecessary.

I don’t know about

by Anonymous on April 02 2009, @08:59 pm I don't know about exploited, but it was definitely made use of. In addition to the traditional "Obama 08" buttons and stickers (which there were plenty of) we saw so many that were just the Obama symbol--the Obama "O" said it all. Just the brand transmitted that clear and unwavering messaging that this author references. And has anyone else noticed that the new Pepsi symbol looks a lot like the Obama symbol? When I was in D.C. for the inauguration, I even noticed that the advertisements in the Metro stations used marketing slogans like "Got Hope?" It seems odd (maybe revolutionary?) that advertisers should want to piggy-back on a political brand, instead of politics wanting to grab onto a popular marketing schpeel. Branding may very well be evolving forward, not toward extinction.

pepsi v obama …. pepsi

by go to Znet ,read Paul Street on April 19 2009, @12:36 pm pepsi v obama .... pepsi copies O? bollocks uh, pepsi, "choice of the new generation" circa 1984-1991... decades of evidence of pepsi pushing things like "new, refreshing, generation, youth.." longer than O....and if anything, O's advertise firm who created his logo --which reinforces the "O" brand-- ripped from pepsi.... historical references important even for partisan hacks.... but the bottom line issue isn't if one ripped the other, the issue is the marketing of BOTH. ... adbusters should be on top of this but when prejudices are reinforced, I suspect even the anti-ad campaigners are willing to suck a breast in the night when offered for free....

Who here believes the brand

by Robert Drane on April 01 2009, @04:44 am Who here believes the brand was NOT exploited to elect the current president? There are so many unsayables there that they're almost worth saying! I still don't think Duggie is claiming this is not the case, or that the "brand" itself is dead - in fact, that's almost too asinine for words! That's like saying the symbol is dead, or the meme! While we're at it, the meme is a classic example of our ability to pretend something exists in order to be able to talk about it, hence bringing it into existence! The power of "brands" will come and go the same way. I think he's talking more about the brand's re-contextualisation.

I can’t see the problem

by Robert Drane on March 31 2009, @05:50 pm I can't see the problem with Adbusters using the media and methods that are available to it. Those of you who are quick to point out Adbusters' "hypocrisy" are merely creating a straw man so you can kick the crap out of it. Hypocrisy is an overrated vice at the best of times, as absolutely none of us manifest complete integrity in every single action and thought. We contradict ourselves somewhere along the line. Adbusters can either completely marginalise itself, in which case its entire raison d'etre is rendered pointless, or it can use the weapons currently available to it. If we're going to judge Adbusters mag harshly, we can only do so sometime in the future, in the context of the very changes it will have helped to bring about. If complete, morphogenic chnge occurs in the next decade, I'm sure the mag will be right there, and in the meantime, let's see if it makes those little, exemplary, morphostatic changes along the way. Right now, it's a magazine, it needs to say something, it needs to say that something to as many people as possible; it needs to shout louder from the newsstands than other mags; it needs to utilise modern means to reach people; it needs revenue. This means it has to advertise. I'm sure they scrutinise the philosophical bona fides of every advertiser before they give them space. A sharp sense of hypocrisy is one of the few things we take with us from our childhood. It doesn't make us as insightful as we think. The wisdom we supposedly acquire in adulthood should tell us when to apply this sense and when to refrain. Because hypocrisy on a grand scale is one of the vices this mag attacks, it will always be easy for us to turn its weapons back on itself. But is it always productive? Are we really being insightful, or just spiteful? BTW - I'm not some paid employee of the mag. I only just discovered its existence recently, with the Big Ideas issue. Besides, I live in Australia - what the hell do I know?

You’re right, Robert about

by Dashiell Brown on April 14 2009, @01:59 pm You're right, Robert about Adbusters using the current means to spread their message. But I'd like to know what other alternative means there'd be if not our modern, "capitalist" ones? As far as i know, in any other system, no one would have the right to spread a message unless they were in power. It would be illegal. The cream rises to the top by being cream. The dregs sit at the bottom. The coffee's in the middle. This is never going to change. Someone will always be in power, and those in power control those without it. That's The Wall. In this case, the consumers really have the power and they actually dictate what they buy and what they don't. Why do you think GM's going down? No one's buying their crap. And what does the government do? It gives them billions of dollars. Smart move, people. Here's the rest of my post on this, http://thenewspin.ca/blog/?p=777 in sound, dashiell brown

Where’s that smiley

by Robert Drane on March 31 2009, @07:45 pm Where's that smiley emoticon when you need it?

Brands will never go away-

by Andrew in Ireland on March 31 2009, @03:17 pm Brands will never go away- They will just "re-brand" and come back in the same form different name. After all we have had ways to form uber-groups throughout the ages; be it religion, tribalism, genotype, geolocation, monarchy and even artistic and intellectualism cliques.

Although I agree, I can’t

by Larry on March 31 2009, @01:55 pm Although I agree, I can't take this article seriously with an ad for Black Spot shoes and another for an Adbusters T-shirt on the side bar. IMO, there is really no difference between branding Nike or branding Black Spot. It's still advertising, all manufacturing processes/issues aside.

Bravo Larry- hit the nail

by Andrew in Ireland on March 31 2009, @03:18 pm Bravo Larry- hit the nail right on the head

The day Naomi Klein ditches

by Rimm Johb on March 31 2009, @07:06 am The day Naomi Klein ditches the designer and Adbusters comes in a plain brown wrapper, will be the day I might listen to you. So I call bullshit on your theory. The evidence doesn't back you up. If you so hate brands and logos and design, then lead the way by not deploying any of these things. But I know you won't because you like to get rich and successful just like everyone else. You wouldn't want to be ignored in the bookshop or on the 'net. A more progressive analysis is to regognise that actually it has been radicals that pioneered branding and logos, and that this was only ever co-opted and adapted by corporations to peddle goods and services. But it started with the radicals.

Geez, I think we’re being

by Robert Drane on March 31 2009, @04:27 am Geez, I think we're being a bit hard on Dougie. If the ad mass society is actually finished and conspicuous consumerism becomes a distant memory, then the hegemony of the brand will inevitably loosen. But brands themselves? Well, divested of that overweening power they have to fill the pockets of greedy plutocrats, they are mere symbols, signifiers, bearers of meaning and aids to recognition. No harm in that. We are meaning makers, that's the entire premise of this magazine, and this dialogue between the meanings we attach to objects and events, and the power of those objects and events to shape that meaning, is what this "war" is all about. Adbusters is trying to help us to appropriate some power in that conflict, because, for a long time, it's been pretty one-sided. It's probably incorrect to assume that Doug believes the brand will die. It may be that he believes it will take its rightful role in the marketplace of ideas.

If religions were early

by bikefilms on March 30 2009, @11:05 am If religions were early brands and footwear companies were modern brands and people are now brands.... then we have 6.5 billion 'brands' and counting. Consolidation of power has lessened.

Here’s a question for

by Ford (Ironic, I know) on March 30 2009, @10:27 am Here's a question for everyone...do brands make life more interesting?

Brands will never go away. A

by TR on March 30 2009, @09:02 am Brands will never go away. A strong stance such as yours has a "facebook" link right below it. It's a nice thought that all the large, corporate brands will go away. Those that take advantage of consumers and workers. And, I think we should work towards evening the playing field. But what about your local co-op market? They've built a brand on a smaller level. Or the American Cancer Society? A brand for a good cause. Adbusters is a brand, proving that good brands exist. Heck, you could consider religions, countries, states, cities, gangs...just about everything could be a brand.

Branding has gone on

by Anonymous on March 30 2009, @08:42 am Branding has gone on forEVER. We just didn't call it "branding" and make it a science to study at school. It's going nowhere and will be replaced by nothing. Unless Adbusters wants to take the first step and publish under a different title every month?

i agree branding, marketing,

by kat1986 on March 29 2009, @07:50 pm i agree branding, marketing, and so called "social online networks" have gone too far to capture our undivided attention and tell us what we need to feel complete. However, when quality of product or service comes into to play this is where some companies have built their brands upon, they want to produce and provide the best possible service. Not just stuff another product or website into an already bloated social marketplace. Such companies do still exist, you just have to look for them. They aren't represented by celebrities or by a swoosh symbol, they are represented by real people working to make a difference. One more thing... Adbusters why do you have link to twitter on your site when you shit talk facebook, twitter and many other social networking sites???