Bonfire of the vanities -is all vanity?

I blogged this a few days ago. Apparently the guy got quite a lot of negative comment, some of which is repeated in the comments of this column. What I did think was worth flagging up in the comments was this one from a poster under the moniker of BetaRish

** raises head above parapet as someone who works in branding and marketing... **
Oh Lordy, here we go again. Neil raises some valid points (which are things, believe it or not, some of us in the industry do wrestle with.) But:
1) Neil doesn't say if he has stopped consuming completely. If he hasn't then chances are that he is still engaging with and buying brands on the daily basis. Someone's already alluded to the paycheck from The Guardian. One presumes that Neil still watches and uses the BBC. What Neil means is that he's not using those brands which are self-consciously 'brands', that make a lot of noise about who they are and what they stand for. That's no bad thing.
2) Brands function as an editor of choice. There are so many products and services out there in the world today, some consumers need help or shortcuts to making the choices that they want and need to make. If they previously know a product's reputation (the definition of a brand) then that saves time when faced with 500 options on the shelves. An unbranded world would be a difficult one to navigate (and being 'unbranded' is as much a brand as one that 'exists')
3) Why be surprised that people haven't joined you in burning stuff (and no I don't think that a handbag is of equal value with a book)? Choice and individuality means that, hey, people tend to be able and pretty good at making up their own minds, and spurious projections of one's own career insecurities on to a wider population was never going to be successful. Neil's argument serems to be, "Burn your stuff because knowing some pricks in agencies makes me uncomfortable."
4) Brands can do good. Efforts like Make Trade Fair and Bono's Project Red, not only raise money, but also raise awareness of issues, and provide a way in to complex subjects. If Chris Martin waving a logo around on his hand means more people look at the Oxfam site, get involved, read the research, then the brand is doing its job there.
5) Could some brands be a bit quieter? Undoubtedly so - not every brand needs to advertise all the time, and most could do so more subtly and with more elegance. This is Naomi Klein's most accurate insight - not all public space should become commercial brand space.
But equally, brands can equally open up new worlds and possibilities. Who drank smoothies before Innocent came along (incidentally a 'brand' that has its heart in the right place, and a company that strives to do the right thing). Orange and Apple are other examples where people have become attached to the brand precisely because of the opportunities that consumption of their products allows. Again, no bad thing.
So, burn away by all means. But don't be surprised that people might just choose to engage with brands for the positive possibilities that they allow as well.

Food for thought, eh? We need to recall that there is a proper function for advertising and even branding, it's the poisonous developments where it feeds psychically unhealthy fads and contributes to the degradation of planet or workers ... we need to keep our eyes on those balls.
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Bonfire of the vanities:
Filed in: branding, labels, consumerism, logo, advertising