Who's the Fool?

Myth:  You can have it all.

Reality: You cannot cut your way to greatness, and that's valid figuratively as it is physically. Olivier has a very well written post on killing American brands, one lousy CEO at a time. I think the other part of the brand killing spree is the idea that we can manage what the brand means to our customers and decide which parts need attention. Usually that's where the disconnects start to appear.

Reality: It's the patient who grow tall, writes Tom Fishbourne. We know all of these things, yet we are constantly in search of the big idea, the instant win that will tie us over. I'm thinking that those who succeed today are those who have the discipline and the patience to create value - over time. Is that different from any other time?

Reality: Balance is bunk! wrote Keith Hammonds a couple of years ago. It's the central myth of the modern workplace: With a few compromises, you can have it all. But it's all wrong, and it's making us crazy. Balance is a relic, a fleeting phenomenon of a closed, industrial economy that doesn't apply in a global, knowledge-based world.

They say you may fool most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. One of those people may be you.

Comments

[Peter]

Co-incidentally I picked up a copy of Barthe's Mythologies today and now find myself reading you on myths through his definition of myth as a type of speech.

That aside (or inside), I'd like to return to who is killing brands/capitalism and in particular the "myth" "that we can manage what the brand means to our customer".

I think Customers may rely on things external to the brand to give meaning to the brand ( and independently of the brand).

Take the concert violist in the subway - he has an inherent brand which is all but unheard/felt etc without external clues or signifiers of greatness( except to the kiddies) - clothes, the concert hall, the revues, the high price ticket etc.

What if a similar thing happens with companies- what if brands need a parallel catalyst ( the cue or signifier) in order to be seen/heard/felt by the consumer?

Ideas that follow from this:

* is there a lingua franca of capitalism which enables consumers to give meaning to brands

* is that language becoming a dead language

* what does a company do if, consumers can no longer recognise the external cues, signifiers etc that give meaning to its brands? As with the concert violinist, they (consumer) may not work out the violinist's brand without some clues in the background.

Interesting

Peter

[Peter (2)]

Thinking further (and this is as good a place as any to think) - I suspect there is something which I'll call a brand artifact which triggers a brand response in the consumer.

What may be happening in late capitalism is that technology has enabled brand artifacts to essentially multiply to the point that it is becoming harder for consumers to see/hear etc brand for the fog/noise of old and new brand artifacts . Moreover, attempts to develop new artifacts to signify brand ie. twitter, by their ubiquity quickly lose their ability to signify anything to the consumer.

I suspect that the rise of social media is somehow linked to an environment essentially polluted by an excess of these artifacts. Unable to simply rely on the artifact the consumer must engage with companies to find the meaning once silently and without awareness imported into the relationship.

Again interesting ( to me anyway).