A bridge too far
Via Doc Searls, I found this piece by Hugh Macleod. I liked a lot of what he said, and this in particular makes some sense:
That's easy enough to explain. Blogging is all about ECO-logy. Branding is all about EGO-logy. The two are not compatible. Which is why brand-wimpy Microsoft has hundreds of bloggers [a well-known fact], and why you can get fired for blogging at uber-brand Apple [so I've been told].
Certainly true of his examples, and of a few other places that come to mind :) However, I don't go with him on his "branding is dead" theory. I think Apple's entire iPod campaign pretty much puts the lie to that. If you have a compelling product, a good branding/marketing campaign still works. But it has to be a good product - it's really, really hard to promote crap with all the word of mouth that spreads over the net.
Comments
Re: A bridge too far
[ Rich Demers] December 30, 2005 12:59:25.522
Comment by Rich Demers
Promoting crap is where TV advertising comes in. You know, the incessantly repeated ads one sees for foam beds, air cleaners, steel buildings, junk life insurance, and mortgages. The product does not have to be good it just has to burn its way into public consciousness. Someone will buy almost anything if it is advertised enough.
This, of course, is just another example of the BIG LIE.