Not all people agree with Naomi Klein, myself included, and don’t consider branding “a company’s manipulative attempt to white-wash over third-world production, horrible labor practices, monopolistic distribution, and consumer brainwashing” (Brand Channel). Michel Chevalier and Gerald Mazzalovo, in their book Pro Logo: Brands as a factor of progress, and Sameena Ahmad, in her article called Pro Logo: Why Brands are good for you, critize Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and give another, refreshing, side of the branding story. In the words of Chris Raab, written on the website of Brand Channel: “Brands sometimes guide consumer decisions; decisions consumers make guide brand decisions. The relationship is reciprocal, not unilateral”.
Why Brands are not the Enemy
Michel Chevalier and Gerald Mazzalovo wrote in their book Pro Logo: Brands as a factor of progress, that brands are considered the ideal scapegoat by radical anti-globalization activists who are inspired by Klein’s No Logo. According to the activists, brands equal commerce and capitalism, and are considered as the symbol of a future where people will become machines, only programmed to consume. However, Chevalier and Mazzalovo regard brands neither good nor evil in themselves, and consider them a “force for progress to the degree that they are well managed and that the consumer behaves responsibly” (Chevalier & Mazzalovo, 2004, p. 4).
Why Brands are Good for You
The Economist published an article written by Sameena Ahmad called Pro Logo: Why brands are good for you in September 2001. Ahmad critizes the arguments presented in Naomi Klein’s No Logo, and finds them exaggerated and inaccurate. She perceives Klein’s arguments to be based on the assumption that helpless consumers are seduced by powerful multinational corporations through alluring brands, symbolized by their logos. This picture of passive consumption does not match reality: according to studies consumers have become very fickle. Thus, if big brands make more noise, “it is out of desperation” rather than out of arrogance, they can be seen as the victims in this situation. Ahmad points out the “wrongheadedness of the ‘anti-brand’ movement, and highlights the broad economic and social benefits of brands” (Clifton). She wrote that:
Brands began as a form not of exploitation, but of consumer protection. A brand provided a guarantee of reliability and quality [...] The flip side of the power and importance of a brand is its growing vulnerability. Because it is so valuable to a company, a brand must be cosseted, sustained and protected. A failed advertising campaign, a drop-off in quality or a hint of scandal can all quickly send customers fleeing.
The association of brands with a lifestyle rather than with a product quality makes corporations more vulnerable, not more powerful, as consumers “will tolerate a lousy product for far longer than they will tolerate a lousy lifestyle” (Ahmad). Jonathan Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum wrote in their article Talking to Today’s Cynical Consumer that:
Consumers are like roaches. We spray them with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance.
Ahmad concludes that companies use brands to influence consumers, but that in turn, consumption is a reflection of the influence of the brand has on the consumer.
The New Coke Fiasco
A good example of the influence the consumer has on a multinational corporation is the introduction of New Coke in 1985 by the Coca Cola Company. In the beginning of the eighties, the Coca Cola Company was losing the cola war to the Pepsi Cola Company. Studies showed that people preferred the taste of Pepsi. This was confirmed by the popularity of Diet Coke, which tasted more like Pepsi. The Coca Cola Company then created New Coke, based on Diet Coke. Taste tests showed that people really liked the new drink, and found it to be better than either Coca Cola or Pepsi. The Coca Cola Company decided to discontinue classic Coca Cola, and only sell New Coke. This was a fatal mistake, millions of surprised Americans were outraged that this traditional soft drink was taken off the market. The passion for the original Coca Cola was stronger than the company had anticipated. The Coca Cola Company then returned the original drink on the market, and this product gained popularity again, defeating Pepsi in 1986 (Mikkelson).
As spokesman of the Coca Cola Company said after the failure of New Coke; "today we discovered we do not own the brand, the consumer does". Of course brands create a world around their product through advertising to sell it more effectively, thus influencing the consumer. But to regard consumers as passive factors in the world of powerful multinational companies is a mistake, which the failure of New Coke can prove.
*
Ahmad, S.
(2001). “Pro Logo: Why brands are good for you”, in The Economist, issue 08-09-2001.
*
Clifton, R.
(2002). “Editorial: Brands and our Time”, in Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 3.
*
Chevalier, M. & G. Mazzalovo
(2004). Pro Logo: Brands as a factor of progress. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
*
Mikkelson, B.
Knew Coke. Retrieved at http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp, 30-05-2007.
*
*