Branding

It's just too hard to deconstruct the nonsense offered by Owen in Brand Value- for Whom? I don't understand it, because I don't think that an economy is a static outcome susceptible to manipulation by Scientists through the mechanism of government. When I see an advert for a new iPod then I feel that I've received information about a new product. I don't feel abused.

Once more, in the name of fairness and/or equality, we see a nonsense proposal to tax advertising that would only benefit large encumbant companies. But I won't lobby government for a new label to Owen's blog, but rely on the voluntary spirit of dialogue to make my point. I find that pursuasion is a more affable method than coercion.

Owen displays a classic example of Analytical inegalitarianism, by professing equality and yet making the assumption that he - of the elite political class - can improve your life by making your decisions on your behalf. In my experience, even poor people are capable of action.

“What should we do about it?” WE, you say, but you probably mean government, don’t you? Usually the answer that suits the population best is “nothing” because YOU, the government, will so often make matters worse. So why not push off and show us all that you can run something, indeed anything, properly before offering to run our beans supply? That’s what many, very wisely, will think.

Comment by dearieme

Comments

[Quinn]

I think that branding (geddit!) Owen's post as "nonsense" is a bit harsh. As a critique of brands I think he is pretty much on the money; he makes some good points but I am just not that sure that brands are a big problem. Certainly I think that the idea to tax advertising etc. is likely to create far more problems than it will solve.