3 ms·

had anyone else posted the story, it would have been dismissed as a rant And that would have been a mistake, because this isn't really a rant. Its formal struc

had anyone else posted the story, it would have been dismissed as a rant And that would have been a mistake, because this isn't really a rant. Its formal structure is that of a complaint, but in fact it is a short essay, in complaint form, about the nature of branding and company culture. Why doesn't this count as a rant? There's no hard and fast rule. But one sign is that the company is unnamed and unidentifiable. There is a very good chance that it is fictional, or that it is a composite archetype that doesn't correspond to any specific company. None of which would change the meaning of the essay in the least.

omouse 17y ago
Stop playing semantic games and just agree that this post by Godin sucks.
netsp 17y ago
In fact, I think that on HN a sethgodin post is more likely to piss people off. BTW, I think that it's a bad sign how quickly these shallow dismissive comments rise to the top here. If you prefer arguments to be presented in a a logical form fine, but the information remains the same. It's not patentable, but it's worth thinking about if you feel like thinking about that sort of thing. Here's the translation: A brand is presented as a brand. A way of of thinking about a collection of things (people, products, procedures, history) as a single thing. It is the psychological equivalent to a legal entity. A kind of Anthropomorphism. You can say: "Apple (the brand) did X" when obviously the reality is that a bunch of people or policies 'do'. This is a useful metaphor for letting customers interact with you. When you leverage a brand, you are working this metaphor to your advantage. But you can't say we (the brand) have excellent customer service & still say they (individuals making it up) are responsible for that bad product.

3 ms·

had anyone else posted the story, it would have been dismissed as a rant And that would have been a mistake, because this isn't really a rant. Its formal struc

by mechanical_fish 17y ago

omouse 17y ago
Stop playing semantic games and just agree that this post by Godin sucks.
netsp 17y ago
In fact, I think that on HN a sethgodin post is more likely to piss people off. BTW, I think that it's a bad sign how quickly these shallow dismissive comments rise to the top here. If you prefer arguments to be presented in a a logical form fine, but the information remains the same. It's not patentable, but it's worth thinking about if you feel like thinking about that sort of thing. Here's the translation: A brand is presented as a brand. A way of of thinking about a collection of things (people, products, procedures, history) as a single thing. It is the psychological equivalent to a legal entity. A kind of Anthropomorphism. You can say: "Apple (the brand) did X" when obviously the reality is that a bunch of people or policies 'do'. This is a useful metaphor for letting customers interact with you. When you leverage a brand, you are working this metaphor to your advantage. But you can't say we (the brand) have excellent customer service & still say they (individuals making it up) are responsible for that bad product.