that holds each of its members in place.In this system, humans go to themarketplace not only to purchase whatthey need, but to find what they havegiven up — to pay for its return in analienated form. We may have lost ourright to nature, but we sure as hell canbuy the Timberland boots that enableus to explore it (if the opportunityshould ever arise, that is). We may nothave enough time for ourselves, butdamn if we can’t head into Starbucksand buy ourselves a cup of it, in theform of a ‘grande’ French roast. Andmaybe we can’t invest hours and hoursgetting to know our kids, but we mostassuredly can take them to Disney.

Image branding was made to or-der for this system where pricelesshumanity has been priced, tagged andpackaged for quick, just-in-time dis-tribution, in handy, conveniently sizedchunks. It is the attempt to exploithumans’ need to recapture what theylost, gave up, or had taken from thembecause of the triumph of capitalism.Unlike classical branding, which func-tioned simply as a seal of trust be-tween buyer and seller (and affirmedthe basic human need for security),image branding is all about turningpeople into products and products intopeople.

So the lure of image branding, itspromise if you will — over and abovethe promise of any one particularbranded entity — is to deliver sub-stitute human interaction that is almost

Image-based branding — the Disneys,the Nikes and the Starbucks — is anextreme capitalist construct, built onthe alienation of humans from them-selves, and is therefore ultimatelydoomed to fail. (I know this soundsstrange coming from a proponent ofbranding, but be patient if you can. Ihave an alternative and will get to itsoon. Let me first explain what I’mtalking about.)

Under capitalism, humans must sup-press their innate, non-monetary needs— for self-reflection, self-expression,time with loved ones, a naturalenvironment, and so on — in order toearn money. Every activity is shaped(perverted) by the pressure to earn.Young children are trained to passtests rather than simply enjoy learn-ing. College students seek high-payingvocations rather than following theirinterests. Couples work primarily ontheir jobs and secondly on theirrelationships. And older people, whoused to look forward to retirement,find they simply cannot afford it andwork until they literally cannot anymore. (And all of us are living in thecity, or close by, because we have toget to work.)

So we live in a world wherepeople have, essentially, exchangedtheir humanity for currency, just asMarx explained it. We’ve put a pricetag on ourselves, and on all theelements of our lives, and in doing sowe are part of an interlocking system

148 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 3, 148–150 FEBRUARY 2005

Editorial

Why branding, as we know it, isabout to collapse

have in my hand?’. When you pay thefee (or sell your soul), you find out thatthere is — nothing.

Since the image-brand system isbuilt on fakery, it is vulnerable to anypoint in the illusion where the fakerycannot be sustained in a consistent way.That is why image brands tend toemphasise slick packaging: it is easy tofool ourselves when we see advertise-ments, jewel cases, car exteriors andfabric. But image brands fall apart onthe one dimension that cannot truly bebought, ironically the one dimensionthat would lend the most credence tothe deception — customer interactionwith the brand’s service representatives.I can will myself to believe that thefragile world created by the brand isreal and perfect, that the brand cangive me friendship and respect, untilthe very first moment I deal with ahuman representative of the brand whoacts in a way that is inconsistent withthe illusion.

If the brand’s human service repre-sentatives can fake it well enough, thebrand can be sustained for a time. Buteven this is doomed to fail over thelong term, because — although theysay they understand the ‘human factor’or whatever — most companies todayhave zero comprehension of how criti-cal people are to their brands. Instead,the focus is on whatever products andservices they sell, which in the end are,of course, doomed to be generic. Sothey don’t know how to treat people,they don’t know how to pay people,and they don’t know how to create aculture where a consistent brand imagecan be sustained.

Lost and drifting, confused andirritated by the intrusion of messyhumanity into their perfect worlds,image-branders find themselves unable

as good as the real thing. Not onlythat, but image-brand gratification hasnone of the downside of genuinehuman activity — no messy demandsthat interfere with your ability toparticipate in the marketplace. It takesa lot of time to train for a marathon,but only a few seconds to buy a Nikerunning outfit, right? And when youwear one you see yourself as havingachieved something, and others seeyou that way too.

You see, your relationship withyourself is the beginning of theimage-brand promise, because the wayyou perceive yourself shapes the wayyou relate to others, and how they seeyou in return. I may not be wealthyand stylish, but if I buy a Mercedes andwear Prada, I feel that way, and otherstreat me accordingly. They are part ofthe same social-cultural system, and canread the signs and symbols.

Image brands interlock with thecapitalist system to promise us that wecan have our cake and eat it too. Wecan make the money we need tosurvive in a world run by money, andfeel like we’re living meaningful,achievement-laden lives at the sametime — even if we’re spending all ourtime working to pay for things. Notonly that, say image brands, but themore we buy, and the more we crave,the more fully alive we are.

Yet here is where the system fallsapart: it’s a fake, and people know it. Infact, they buy particular brands specifi-cally to create identities that do notreally exist. They therefore know, in-side, that they are fakers, and that thebrand is fake as well. This reminds meof something the great Rabbi Nach-man of Breslov once said: that the evilimpulse is like a trickster who runsaround asking ‘What do you suppose I

HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 3, 148–150 FEBRUARY 2005 149

EDITORIAL

pursuit of image and instead focus oncreating and delivering products andservices that provide real honest valuewith no promise of anything over andabove functionality itself. In that world,a toaster is just a toaster; a car is just acar; and a musical band is just a musicalband. The difference between brandsand generics, then, becomes the dif-ference between companies you cantrust and those you can’t.

Of course, trust branding wouldn’tundo the damage that the endless pur-suit of money does to the humanpsyche. But it certainly would stopadding to it. And it might, just might,return to the discipline of brandingwhat little integrity it has left.

� 2004 Dannielle Blumenthal

Dannielle BlumenthalEditorial Board

to use their brands to sustain acompetitive advantage. They have onlythe vaguest understanding of what it isthat they really sell, and only the mosttenuous connection to the people who,in the end, sustain their companies,both as consumers and as producers ofthe brand.

Now, I believe that there is analternative possibility here: to acknow-ledge the ‘doom spiral’ of imagebranding and shift to another, life-affirming paradigm instead. Brands canand should go back to serving asgenuine marks of value, to serving asan objective intermediary betweenconsumer and consumed, even toemphasising the fact that a product isjust a product, and nothing more. In sodoing, they would once again becomenames people trust to help them livetheir lives more fully. But it will takea sea change in thinking to achievethis: marketers will have to give up the

150 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 3, 148–150 FEBRUARY 2005

EDITORIAL