Taking another leaf from Richard's book, I fancied putting some more thinking up on the blog, just to provoke a bit more discussion on the blog (and not just posting spam emails with amusing surnames).
There is a school of thought which says that no brand was ever cut off, isolationist and able to dictate exactly what people thought.
However, I think that's bollocks; certainly, there was a time when people were more than willing to trust the advertising agency and the advertisers themselves (NB: This trust probably only lasted from the 1920s to probably about 1950).
However, now advertising is looked upon with skeptism, no brand can be seen to be completely from the top down, broadcasting a message onto the masses.
However, now advertising is looked upon with skeptism, no brand can be seen to be completely from the top down, broadcasting a message onto the masses.
That's just a wrong headed approach, and I think people realise this.
There's also a debate which suggests that more brands (and agencies, for that matter) NEED to adopt the island approach and not get too wound up by what consumers can do to your brand.
Just have a point of view, and don't be bloody stupid - harping on about HSBC at this point, but WHY does it have to have a discussion about everything? That doesn't explain to me why I should use the bank (even if it is supposed to be a repositioning). If being an island means you stick with what you know, more's the better.
Thoughts, readers?
0 comments:
Post a Comment