17.02.10
Vilmar
The Man and the Brand
On my MA seminar debate last week at Goldsmiths we discussed the ‘author function’ in relation to value-creation in the economic context, interrogating the notions of originality and distinctiveness posited by Foucault in his essay “What Is an Author?’. Curiously, that topic led the group to challenge the definition of brands, in the classic sense, and ask themselves: what exactly constitutes a brand? Or even, what are the elements necessary to characterize an individual or name as a brand rather than an author/individual?
To start with, in a marketing intensive environment celebrity endorsement can be an efficient way to connect with consumers. The media exposure such individuals receive facilitate the process of communication as audiences recognise personal traits and identify themselves with another individual more easily. Brands, thus, get on the fast track to reach consumers, saving time and costly marketing efforts at the same time they eliminate much of the noise in the communication process. Sometimes – most notably in the sports and fashion business – this process gets such a traction that individuals move further and trademark their names and then a brand roll-out of different lines of products and commercial enterprises ensues, sometimes very successfully (Beckham, Moss, O’Neal, etc). However, differently from brands that are formed around entrepreneurs who strive in their field of expertise (fashion houses as the most typical examples), sports people, celebrities, designers and even artists (YBA) become brands through different means.
I would like to start the argument by acknowledging the importance of IP in the process of branding. The very raison d’être of any brand lies in their ability to combine a set of signs that create a distinguishable character in relation to the competition. The audiences thus recognise and decode the signs through cognitive processes, conferring the brand with a relatively distinctive set of meanings and perceptions, that is, one brand is a thing/object and not another. More importantly, brands try to delineate the boundaries, the semiotic space around their names; firstly by constructing a coherent system of visual signs (visual identity); secondly by using the mechanisms provided by intellectual property legislation (copyright and trademark) to safeguard their identity assets against unauthorized use. So, in what way a person, or a name can be suddenly designated as a brand?
First of all, brands should be understood in accordance to the industries and markets within which they operate. As an example, FMCG brands don’t work in the same way financial services or media brands do. In fact, brands and commodities become potential media themselves. In the past three decades they have become active actors in the circuits of culture, and that is exactly where their sign-value accrues, increasing the exchange-value of their products and services as a result. Brands, thus, operate within more or less complex networks; they engage in processes of synergy, co-creation and culture that according to Jürgen Habermas (among other critical theorists from the Frankfurt School) deems the distinction between the cultural and economic spheres irrelevant in this particular case. Henceforth, in the postmodern context, individuals who get a high level of exposition and adhere to specific sets of cultural values can be transformed into successful brands with real commercial value. In that respect, anyone has the potential to become a brand. But it’s not to say it is a simple process or that it can be constructed through a formulaic approach. There needs to be a base, a starting point upon which a branding exercise can then be developed: think of popular blogs, reality show stunts, sports, art performances, and so on. There’s also the case of artists who deliberately flirt with the concept of transmuting their image/names into brands – Andy Warhol featuring in a TDK TV ad, or the establishing of Interview magazine under the ‘Warhol’ brand; Keith Haring and its PopShop enterprise that sells diverse merchandising; Damien Hirst and the resulting dialectics of art x commodity found in his assembling line/factory-like approach.
To conclude, I think that individuals have the potential to become brands but it is not a venture suitable for all. There are certain connections and network interactions that must be already in place before one starts to license its name and image to products and/or services. So, in my opinion, it’s not only the road lying ahead but, more importantly perhaps, the walked miles that count when one’s trying to build a genuine, trustworthy person/brand.
