New Technologies and Branding

Philippe Sachetti, Thibaud Zuppinger

• Publisher: Wiley-ISTE
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781786301970
• eBook ISBN: 9781119510550
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Small Business
• Index: Business

Between cases of study, theoretical panorama and practical reflections, this book gives brand leaders the means to defend their brand in a changing environment, where new technologies and manipulation techniques have rendered old defense schemes obsolete. Rather than suggesting a reflection from the point of view of the crisis, the authors deal with the question under another, broader theme: conflict.

1
What is a Brand?

1.1. The brand: a concept built from relationships

A brand is a construct, invented by a company or an organization, to establish a strong and productive relationship with the individuals who will allow it to grow.

We are aware that this definition given here is hardly the first definition of a Brand, but it is useful in that it highlights the essential purpose of Brands, which is to create and maintain a social contract based on a relationship with individuals.

Another virtue of this definition is that it leads us to a discussion on whether it is necessary to create Brands as complicated as they currently are.

Not so long ago, we were content with the fact that companies design, manufacture and sell good products, in the right places, at the right prices and that organizations (parties, unions, federations, associations) should correctly structure their ideas and implement the actions for which they were created.

Today, we demand that Brands behave as a kind of superhuman entity, equipped with a lavish personality, cultivating a look and a style that distinguishes them; speaking with a unique voice; setting themselves apart with coherent, constant and, if possible, admirable behaviors; pursuing a great mission; nourishing a vision of the world; ambitions and convictions grounded in clear and superb values; emphasizing their good qualities with owning up to their faults and maintaining friends and enemies.

This change that has taken place over the last 30 years is staggering, to say the least. Brands have become focal points of society, and their survival depends on the judgment of the people who consume their products, regardless of the form this consumption takes.

There are a number of reasons why this staggering form of tyranny is inflicted on them:

• – the level of competition that only continues to grow, and, at the same time, the power held by the consumer that brands compulsively seek to place at the center of everything (where was this power before?) are the simplest reasons, and perhaps the most simplistic;
• – the pandemic of defiance and distrust that has spread to all aspects of social life is another, more complex reason, and a more worrying one as well. We will make sure to return to this point in our analysis;
• – the abandonment of the major authorities is an argument which, although it is frequently challenged as being conservative and perhaps a bit reactionary, is nonetheless difficult to question.

The philosopher Chantal Delsol describes this phenomenon well: we, the active members of this society, have been trying for 50 years, and particularly during the social upheavals of the late 1960s (such as the revolution of 1968 in France), to progressively stifle our main authority figures: parents, teachers, bosses, the army, churches, political parties, trade unions, etc. In getting rid of them, we have also lost the moral commitments that come along with them, that have allowed us to make sense of life. But giving meaning to life requires finding something that we value more than our own selves as individuals.

One example from politics can help us to understand: at one time, communism was spreading aggressively. People could be for it or against it, but they were practically required to at least have an opinion, take sides or even fight. As the philosophers observed, this fighting spirit disappeared when communism disappeared.

Individuals, when they are no longer experiencing suppression, find themselves like boxers without an opponent in the middle of the ring. And a boxer alone is ridiculous: no longer able to put on a show, he is worthless and his audience flees in dismay (or “disenchantment”, to use the current lexicon). His presence in the ring no longer makes sense to him.

This experience of suppression has left an opening that consumption is uniquely suited to fill. But the fact remains that consumption is an activity that is personal, individual (or nearly) and it is an act of “I”, not “we”. And thus many of our contemporaries are turning toward consumption to give meaning to their lives. This is much like considering that “the one thing that I value more than myself is me”. This is impossible, terrifying, mortifying; this moral dead end would lead to the conclusion that consumers are expecting Brands to fill the void left by the major authorities that have now been toppled.

---

GAP: we can't even dress the way we want!

On October 4, 2010, the brand Gap presented its new logo, which sparked significant pushback on its Facebook page. Consumers rejected this change. The most vehement of them resorted to outright ridicule of Gap’s new idea. Some even saw it as an attempt at diversion, to conceal the accusations made against their highly objectionable methods for producing clothes. Seven days later, Gap announced the return of its original logo, thus avoiding a conflict that could have caused significant damage. This example illustrates the extent to which consumers are able to build a strong relationship with a Brand, to the point where they make it part of their “personal life”.

---

---

Volkswagen: not too many apparent wounds

The brand is one of the leaders in society. It has its own set of values that the community of consumers adheres to. On the basis of this, in a scandal such as the events of Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate”, we see that the conflict that has emerged goes beyond the mere disappointment felt from being deceived. The Brand had patiently built its image as the embodiment of reliability, to the point where it could lay claim to being at the very forefront of this area. When the news broke of the company’s falsification, it did not simply tarnish the image of the company, but it affected its many claims to reliability, honesty and the trust that customers could have in its oversight measures. Commercially, Volkswagen is doing well, but this will remain in the consciousness of consumers – not the falsification itself, but the company’s ability to deceive. This resentment may give way to resignation, which is even worse.

---

1.2. The brand is anthropomimetic

Glorified in this way, Brands find themselves with responsibilities that go far beyond the organizational functions used to create them.

In describing these phenomena, we constantly attribute human characteristics to these Brands. The Brand is a contact point for consumers. Human beings can only enter into a relationship and maintain this relationship with a living being – a being like themselves. The brand is anthropomimetic.

Over a brand’s existence, it takes on human characteristics that will be worked on, chosen and specified in the processes of brand construction, to the point of establishing strong, admirable personalities that encourage consumers to discover, recommend, follow and defend them.

This anthropomimetisism does not imply anthropomorphism, which would instead be the incarnation of the brand in the form of a mascot or a human being (in some cases, the founder). The link between an individual and a brand is therefore very similar to an interpersonal relationship. As a result, this relationship is not balanced. As we have seen, the individual demands a great deal of Brands, and our purpose here is to study the conflicting consequences of the actual or perceived shortcomings of brands with regard to the demands imposed upon them. Why allow individuals to exercise this tyranny? Why accept it, let alone work to maintain it? Because the link between the individual and the Brand is a connection that is essentially commercial in nature. The brand sells, while the individual chooses to buy or not to buy. The transaction can apply to anything that can be subject to a commercial exchange: a product, a service, a commitment, a membership, a boycott, even a vote.

The brand is a merchant, and thus it takes on the characteristics of one. We discuss here three of these characteristics due to their indispensable nature for the purpose of optimizing trade and for their major contributions to the processes of conflict: exaggeration, fame and fallibility.

1.3. The brand as merchant

1.3.1. Exaggeration

Merchants are required to exaggerate. In order to increase product advantage, they therefore need to do a better job of selling them, for an increasingly longer period of time. This exaggeration forms part of an extended gradient that ranges from paying close attention to the presentation of its commercial offering, to outright lies. The choice of the level of exaggeration done by merchants is regulated by their own morality, by the awareness of the acceptability of its potential buyer and by the risk that this exaggeration would backslide into abuse.

Exaggeration reaches its limit when it is rejected by customers, and every merchant knows how to walk the line between the effectiveness of exaggeration and the risk of doing so excessively. This balancing act allows for a delicate regulation of commercial activities.

This phenomenon had already been analyzed as early as the 18th Century. During that time, the kind of economic liberalism that was beginning to take hold promoted the idea that the market regulates itself better than if state-imposed regulations are imposed on it. It was an innovative idea to consider that a natural equilibrium point would be more effective than the artificial balance set by laws. In The Wealth of Nations, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723–1790) wrote:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”.

Furthermore, exaggeration is a natural part of a process of seduction – a complex social phenomenon that takes many forms, whose purpose is to arouse the desire of others and the preference that will allow for commerce to take place, understood both in the sense of transactions and of relationships.

The phenomenon of seduction continues to mobilize researchers, some of whom claim that it is indeed a sexual concept. Men tend to favor action, initiative and demonstration, and women tend to prefer appearance, attitude and behavior.

We will not take the risk of judging this overly brief description of sexualization here, but we must note that...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Contents
• Title
• Copyright
• Prologue
• Introduction
• 1. What is a Brand?
• 2. Conflict
• 3. The Players in Conflicts
• 4. Hostility, from Yesterday to Today
• 5. The Techniques of Conflict
• 6. Preparing for Conflict
• 7. Acting in Conflict
• Conclusion
• Epilogue
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index
• Index of Brands
• End User License Agreement