The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware. Next comes one whom they love and praise. Next comes one whom they fear. Next comes one whom they despise and defy.

Anne reviews a book called Brand Zeitgeist, Embedding Brand Relationships into the Collective Consciousness. It's hard to beat that title for hubris and ugliness, though it represents how many old fashioned marketers seem to see the networked world - just another way to peddle their wares. Anne's a tad kinder than I am but I think gets to the same point.

Rob says

When we began to wonder how to use TV and an issue as a Social Object - to convene and help a community - we spent months finding our way. It was all new - we had absolutely no idea what to do or what would work...Now with many such projects done and the most recent with 60 plus stations in over 30 markets (Facing the Mortgage Crisis) it took a few days to start our work on Flu.

That phrase - issue as social object - really caught my eye. It requires abandoning narcissistic branding and maybe public media have found that easier to do that some others I could mention.

Bonus link: one of Hugh's explanations of the idea of social objects. Plus doff of cap to Jyri Engestrom

I'd like to propose that he's potentially a more useful, if bothersome, case study now than he was then.

Most branding is still obsessed with idealisation, creating notions of perfection and excellence, fuelled by aspiration. The trouble with such fixations is this: what do we do when we can't live up these ideals? The likelihood is, in most cases, that we'll use denial. First a little, and then a lot. We might get away with it, but in our hyper-networked world it's more likely that the facade will crack and get noticed.

I wonder about the discussions taking place now inside companies who have - lazily, in my view - promoted themselves by suggesting they share Tiger's qualities. Are they, as I would fear, simply counting the cost and wondering who they should pick as their new shiny icon?

Or might they think more deeply about the dangers of narcissism - not for their hired celebrities, but for themselves?

It is scientifically proven that most decision-making is inaccessible to introspection by the conscious, rational mind. There is, however, a race apart: a race of geniuses who have the rare and unique ability to see into other peoples’ brains and understand their decision-making processes – even when ordinary mortals cannot do this for themselves. This race of geniuses also have an even rarer and more precious ability (generated by their unique access to special ‘insights’ that they alone have access to). They can reach into peoples’ brains, “embedding slogans and images” into them, thereby changing what they think and do … without the dumb klutz ordinary mortals even being aware that it’s happening!

Hat tip: Tweet from Eaon Pritchard

I feel like an addict in recovery. I used to get very excited about those little perks like using the premium lounges... but when I really examine the experience, there was also stress in structuring my travel to make sure I span the airline's hamster wheel fast enough. And I think all that worrying whether I'd get comped an upgrade caused more stress than the occasional success ever really gave me. And to be honest, I always found something a bit depressing about those lounges, that we'd all sold a tiny little piece of our soul to be there. Likewise in Business Class: I wonder if secretly we all know we don't really BELONG and are all faking it.

We'll see how my recovery progresses. I could easily have a relapse.

Years ago, when dinosaurs walked the land, I worked for an ad agency called Valin Pollen. It insisted on always presenting its name in capitals: VALIN POLLEN. You don't need much imagination to imagine the impact of VALIN POLLEN trumpeting its self-importance this way, in every single document spewing out of the bank of word processors (heady technology in those days). It seemed out to keep tripping over a large VALIN POLLEN recommendation to its far, far bigger and richer clients, most of whom were happy to settle for modest upper-and-lower case.

VALIN POLLEN was a remarkable place to work in all sorts of ways. But I don't think many of us really thought this capital letter vanity was much of an idea. At least, I didn't find myself in the pub with any who did.

Jeff, needless to say, finds all this name fetishism absurd. One of his commenters alludes to the notion that having rigid control over your logo/name is meant to imply you have the same rigorous control over your organisation.

Now even supposing that were true, does anyone really think that's such a good thing these days?

And sorry but I can't resist the obvious Python reference.

Consider some of the statements the Onion puts in the mouth of the Pepsi Boss:

"Frankly, it just feels sort of weird and desperate to put all this energy into telling people what to drink. If they don't like it, then they don't like it."

"Look, Coca-Cola is a terrific product," Nooyi continued. "Millions of people choose it over Pepsi every day. Are those people wrong? Of course not. Concepts like 'right' and 'wrong' shouldn't even apply. It's a soft drink."

Of course, vast marketing hierarchies a have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo. Too much Onion really would bring them to tears.

But there may be some smaller businesses that would do very well to use the Onion strategy. Run one last farewell ad, hack huges costs out of flim flam promotion and bet the ranch on actually delivering good stuff and services that people will want to talk about.

For every vaguely memorable slogan, there are countless utterly forgettable ones. Tom lists ones McDonalds have used over the years as evidence, and also suggests this list of company slogans. Barely a spark of memorability among them.

I think that's a radical perception of branding, and creates quite a challenge to anyone who sees themselves as a brand manager.

It reminds me a precept of facilitation: get out of people's way and they'll organise themselves more intelligently than you can.

It's also taps into thoughts I've been having lately about the circle of concern/circle of influence model. Regular readers will know I'm not a huge fan of models but this one is simple and carries some wisdom, despite some pedantic reservations of mine*

So often, I see stress caused when we try to manage conerns that are truthfully beyond our individual reach. A huge amount of brand building fails because it gets ahead of itself with grandiose ideas of when can be achieved. An awful lot of wasted effort goes into designing meetings and expecting fixed outcomes to be reached on a predetermined timetable - an approach that denies the participants the ability to organise themselves more subtly and enthusiastically.

* Circles with sharp boundaries suggest a neatness that's missing in the real world; we might do better to think of fuzzy, irregularly shaped areas. With some animation to show that even the fuzzy boundaries are moving.