logo-a-gogo

The Economist's assertion that brands are something developed by the modern world in order to perpetuate a corporate image is not exactly true. Graphic chops, marks, and, lest we forget actual brands have been used for more than a millenium. Some artisan's marks have been identified and recognized across the years through archeology. Lets not forget, that even the Messopotamians would look for a good pot based on the artisan's mark. Over the years this mark has evolved to encompass more than simple craftsmanship. Now brands attempt to encompass whole emotions, experiences, and dreams. This transition probably came about innocuously enough. Someone back a few centuries realized that showing happy people with their product will make people believe on some level that they are buying a little of that happiness.

However, I will have to call shennanigans on the statement that municipal branding isn't successful:
SPQR
Anyone with book lerninz will recognize this as one of, if not THE longest lasting brand of the western world. It is still in use today. The architecural style as well backed up the strength of this brand whenever it situated itself in a new market.

Naomi Klein is right, she does seem cynical. She isn't wrong, but she isn't right. By now, the average consumer is aware of many of the hypocracies perpetuated by most branded companies. That brands try to sell MORE than their product is unfortunate, but a result of free market capitalism. It ain't a good system, but it's the best we've got so far.