> Brands don’t have a frame. [...] The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements. Ideas are framed in the facts, context, beliefs and assumptions that sur

> Brands don’t have a frame. [...] The brand is an idea, not logos and advertisements. Ideas are framed in the facts, context, beliefs and assumptions that surround them and lead up to them. Even though the article defined frames at the top as visual rectangles, the rest of text mixes in unambiguous uses of the social sciences definition of the word ‘frame’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) For example “What is art? How is it made? Where does it belong? Context changes meaning. Frames change the way we think.” The article is freely mixing the two definitions, hopping back and forth between them. I haven’t decided if I like it or not. It might be considered conflating two different things. But I think that’s their very point, and in art and literature, as in advertising, metaphors and suggestions are useful and common. You might even think of this article as a framing that visual frames are as important as social frames, which is an idea that makes a great story for ad firms that are good at and depend on selling visual ads.