5 ms·

For my taste, brand loyalty is drastically less harmful and unsavory than the equally troublesome loyalty to political parties. (At least in the US, can't say

by colomon 12y ago

For my taste, brand loyalty is drastically less harmful and unsavory than the equally troublesome loyalty to political parties. (At least in the US, can't say about elsewhere.)

Yetanfou 12y ago
Brand loyalty does more personal harm as it turns individuals into milch cows. As to whether loyalty to a political party or orientation is harmful depends on whether that loyalty is balanced - will the party stand up for issues you care about? The bigger the party, the smaller the chance they will. It does not get much bigger than the D/R split in the US while still maintaining the semblance of choice.
- rconti 12y ago
  Unfortunately, political loyalty lasts far longer than brand loyalty.
specialist 12y ago
Political party membership is about identity, not brand loyalty. Related, but distinct.
- uptown 12y ago
  I'd argue it's likely both identity and brand loyalty. Identity, because it gives individuals a language with which to declare ones self, and those that classify individuals a way of referring to groups of people. Brand loyalty, because it results in individuals supporting a political agenda that may run counter to their personal or philosophical self-interests.
netcan 12y ago
I'm not sure I agree, but I think I can see where you're coming from. Political parties and loyalty to them tend to devolve into something fairly absurd. But, at least this is using the instinct for what it's meant to be used for. Making factions and tribes and getting your tribe into power. If the tribe Chiefdom is up for grabs, get your clan's main man the hat. That's what this instinct is designed to do. Loyalty to a brand of shoes or phone or whatever and developing a tribalism over that is a weird absurdity. With a prospective chief (or president) there is at least the theoretical possibility that your candidate represents your interests and gets your support that way. With brand loyalty, we can't even pretend that's possible. You're loyal to the brand because of an instinct being hijacked, for sure. It's like being loyal to a fictional character, being sad because a couple break up in a soap opera, or getting a mouse all excited with a pheromone soaked cue tip.
collyw 12y ago
My personal belief is that we have more power as consumers than as voters.
- netcan 12y ago
  What did we just say about bias and personal belief! ;)
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    Could you spell it out? Because the words "bias" or "belief" don't appear above this comment as of right now (and I've read them all in detail)...and I'd like to know what the snark you're point is :) You seem to be saying that whatever the bias or belief is, it's probably illogical. Is that correct?
    - netcan 12y ago
      Sorry. I didn't mean to be snarky, or serious. It's just that we were talking about biases inherent in brand loyalty, beliefs, religion, political affiliations and world views.

by colomon 12y ago

For my taste, brand loyalty is drastically less harmful and unsavory than the equally troublesome loyalty to political parties. (At least in the US, can't say about elsewhere.)

Yetanfou 12y ago

Brand loyalty does more personal harm as it turns individuals into milch cows. As to whether loyalty to a political party or orientation is harmful depends on whether that loyalty is balanced - will the party stand up for issues you care about? The bigger the party, the smaller the chance they will. It does not get much bigger than the D/R split in the US while still maintaining the semblance of choice.

rconti 12y ago
Unfortunately, political loyalty lasts far longer than brand loyalty.

specialist 12y ago

Political party membership is about identity, not brand loyalty. Related, but distinct.

uptown 12y ago
I'd argue it's likely both identity and brand loyalty. Identity, because it gives individuals a language with which to declare ones self, and those that classify individuals a way of referring to groups of people. Brand loyalty, because it results in individuals supporting a political agenda that may run counter to their personal or philosophical self-interests.

netcan 12y ago

I'm not sure I agree, but I think I can see where you're coming from. Political parties and loyalty to them tend to devolve into something fairly absurd. But, at least this is using the instinct for what it's meant to be used for. Making factions and tribes and getting your tribe into power. If the tribe Chiefdom is up for grabs, get your clan's main man the hat. That's what this instinct is designed to do. Loyalty to a brand of shoes or phone or whatever and developing a tribalism over that is a weird absurdity. With a prospective chief (or president) there is at least the theoretical possibility that your candidate represents your interests and gets your support that way. With brand loyalty, we can't even pretend that's possible. You're loyal to the brand because of an instinct being hijacked, for sure. It's like being loyal to a fictional character, being sad because a couple break up in a soap opera, or getting a mouse all excited with a pheromone soaked cue tip.

collyw 12y ago

My personal belief is that we have more power as consumers than as voters.

netcan 12y ago
What did we just say about bias and personal belief! ;)
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  Could you spell it out? Because the words "bias" or "belief" don't appear above this comment as of right now (and I've read them all in detail)...and I'd like to know what the snark you're point is :) You seem to be saying that whatever the bias or belief is, it's probably illogical. Is that correct?
  - netcan 12y ago
    Sorry. I didn't mean to be snarky, or serious. It's just that we were talking about biases inherent in brand loyalty, beliefs, religion, political affiliations and world views.