I'm really sorry to diss an article posted on this site.

But just think it is important to actually get some facts right ...

If you read the article that says we are all basically slaves to brands, I'd advise you to take it with a grain of salt.

Yes, it's a theory of advertising that is now - a bit old-skool. It's basically saying people are motivated to buy brands because they make them feel a certain way - blah blah blah. It's about identity, empathy, empowerment.

The latest theory is that people are

a) Bored of this take on things. We are more self-actualised than ever before. Previously, we'd try and angle marketing campaigns to get people to feel that they were achieving an ideal. Showing people a brand and trying to get them to buy into that brand was effective because it was perceived as aspirational. People just don't really work that way anymore. So the motivational model is definitely challenged.

b) More about making *simple* decisions. We buy a brand because it's familiar. There is so much going on in this world that we take mental shortcuts - it's not because we aspire to something that a brand portrays, it's simply easier to go for familiarity (what we are USED to buying). This theory is very much based on cognitive psychology.

This is backed up by the fact that advertising spend is down - marketers have clicked that there are other ways to get brands into people's repertoires than just 'advertising'. Viral marketing anyone?

I work for a global marketing/media/research company and one of our BPPs is based around this - so yea, brand names don't have quite the effect on 'emotions' as that article implies

Just my errr few dollars worth heh.