Between the time I first started working in advertising in 1998 and now, the word brand has replaced identity. We are no longer individuals so much as we are brands. We're individual brands. Individuals are basically left to define their individuality by staying off the internet, which in and of itself can be a brand, the opting-out brand.
The challenge at this point is helping a brand understand they're not just commissioning a viral video but tapping into an existing fan base and an audience that's very loyal... It's two brands working together: the Rhett and Link brand and their brand.
There are two brands of discontent: the brand that merely fosters greed and snarling and back-biting, and the brand that inspires greater and greater effort to reach the desired goal. Which is your brand?
Whatever you and your team decide your new brand will stand for, deliver on that promise. That's the only way you'll ever control your brand. And beware: brands always mean something. If you don't define what the brand means, your competitors will.
Your brand is your public identity, what you're trusted for. And for your brand to endure it has to be tested, redefined, managed and expanded as markets evolve. Brands either learn or disappear.
Your brand is your public identity, what you're trusted for. And for your brand to endure, it has to be tested, redefined, managed, and expanded as markets evolve. Brands either learn or disappear.
Brands are in your face 24/7; I'm sure you've consumed a couple brands today. So it's fun working with them. People recognize brands, and people are starting to recognize my brand.
Eponymous brands aren't that popular with analysts and investors now. You can only take an eponymous brand with a living figurehead so far, they argue. What happens when they grow old and die? What happens when they misbehave and go seriously off-brand?
Brands no longer own their message. They can try to control it, but they do not own it. Today, consumers own the message. What they say about a brand carries more weight than what the brand says about itself.
What drew me to this job is that Univision is a brand unlike any other in all of media. Univision has the highest brand affinity of any brand, and that includes Microsoft and Apple and some of the iconic brands in all of industry.
...consumers do not buy one brand of soap, or coffee, or detergent. They have a repertory of four or five brands, and move from one to another. They almost never buy a brand which has not been admitted to their repertory during its first year on the market.
Ksubi' - the Australian jean brand, they're one of my favourite brands of just clothes and stuff, and the Swedish brand 'Acne', but other than that, not at this point in time designing. I wouldn't mind collab'n with those guys though.
A major celebrity is a major brand, and major brands pick very critically what other brands they're going to associate with. So an A-list celebrity usually picks an A-list brand.
We are very excited to re-launch the collaboration with Fred Perry. We have great appreciation for the heritage of the brand as well as their dynamism in guiding the brand towards the future. Their openness to create synergies between both our brands will bring interesting, creative results.
Brands are the solution, not the problem. Brands are how you sort out the cesspool. ... Brand affinity is clearly hard wired. It is so fundamental to human existence that it's not going away. It must have a genetic component.
As an entrepreneur, one of the biggest challenges you will face will be building your brand. The ultimate goal is to set your company and your brand apart from the crowd. If you form a strategy without doing the research, your brand will barely float - and at the speed industries move at today, brands sink fast.
Brands are useful ways of short-handing practically anything - look at the way Tom Wolfe first used brand name lists to sharpen up a character and a situation. Look at the most brand-referenced novel, Bret Easton Ellis's 'Glamorama.'