“

The more ‘physical’ the media channel was, the more ‘solid’ was the impression it formed in the respondents’ brains. The signage on the storefront was the most trusted, followed by the billboard. They outperformed, by far, the print ad and banner ad. Not only was there greater trust for the fictitious insurance company when viewed on a building or a billboard, the volunteers also expressed a stronger emotional relationship with it.

Perhaps more surprisingly, people also felt a stronger sensory relationship with the brand that they saw on the shopfront and the billboard. When asked what senses they linked with Insursafe, the storefront and billboard registered three times more sensory connections than the print or banner ad. Bear in mind that no one had ever heard of this brand before and exactly the same logo and message appeared in all four options.We have been led to believe that, as the world transitions to all things digital, we will naturally embrace whatever is on offer. This is far from true. Our brains regard a physical presence as a more reliable and trustworthy conveyer of messages and we also log more sensory impressions to the brand. Why, you may ask, is that so important? When I was conducting fMRI experiments for my book Buyology, I learned that the more sensory impressions a brand conveys, the more likely we are to remember it. This perhaps goes some way to explaining why that handshake is so important.

What occurs when we’re consistently deprived of sensory cues? My theory is that, for example, when we sit in front of a screen and push away at order-confirmation buttons, we need to find a way to compensate for the absence of touch.

”

From “Brands Get Physical to Build Trust”

Via Fast Company

Link
View high resolution
“Iron Fists: Branding the 20th Century Totalitarian State” Description: “This provocative survey reveals how four of the most destructive dictatorships of the 20th century - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia and Communist China - used graphic design to sell their messages. Explores each regime’s distinctive strategies for seducing public opinion and infiltrating people’s lives, in media ranging from logos, flags, typefaces and posters to children’s books and figurines Remarkable archival photographs set the disturbingly powerful graphic devices in historical context. The perceptive text analyses how these four regimes established the most effective modes of visual propaganda, which were later adopted and adapted by many other dictatorships.” I’ll be picking this up next week, if for no other reason than it confirms my beliefs that no one was better at messaging and branding than Italian and German fascists. 

“Iron Fists: Branding the 20th Century Totalitarian State”

Description: “This provocative survey reveals how four of the most destructive dictatorships of the 20th century - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia and Communist China - used graphic design to sell their messages. Explores each regime’s distinctive strategies for seducing public opinion and infiltrating people’s lives, in media ranging from logos, flags, typefaces and posters to children’s books and figurines Remarkable archival photographs set the disturbingly powerful graphic devices in historical context. The perceptive text analyses how these four regimes established the most effective modes of visual propaganda, which were later adopted and adapted by many other dictatorships.”

I’ll be picking this up next week, if for no other reason than it confirms my beliefs that no one was better at messaging and branding than Italian and German fascists. 

The Semiotics of Brand

Paul Manning’s anthropological analysis of the semiotics of branding. Much of the language and style is impenetrable and obtuse. Manning’s definition of branding is a bit tenuous and confusing. The brand is essentially an aggregation of semiotic (signs and signals) moments indexing tensions and relationships between producers, consumers, material and immaterial goods.  

I work for the largest independent PR firm in the world as a research analyst. Branding is always top of mind for me because, unlike my colleagues who help create brands, I have to figure out how measure and assess their impact and reception in traditional and social media. The way I make sense of branding is to liken it to myth-making; brands are the mythology surrounding products, companies, and stakeholders.

I understand myths as the cultural space between the idealized and reality. A brand can be the idealized face of a company, the company a client wants to be. Other times, it can be a means to outright lie to stakeholders about the reality of a product, the means of its production (see Marx’s commodity fetishism) and the values of the company. My definition is not nearly as nuanced and detailed as Manning’s but it serves me well.