Shalva Radiani MA Graphic Branding and Identity
Global brands are often perceived as catalysts for globalization. Many believe their branding strategies are a threat to cultural identities around the world. Will global brands and branding in general succeed in erasing and eroding each nation’s cultural identity?
Introduction: ”Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments of different nations in a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology”. (http://www.globalization101.org) Many academics, celebrities, activists and politicians around the world have expressed their discontent with the way globalised brands are eating away at the uniqueness of national cultural identity. Naomi Klein is a name clearly associated with criticisms of corporate globalization. Her book No Logo which focuses on branding became a manifesto of the anti-corporate globalization movement. Although she raises many valid points which merit a response, there are strong counter-arguments as well… This essay will examine both the pros and cons of global branding and its effects on cultural identity. The conclusion will state that although globalised brands create a certain degree of homogeneity in societies, nations and national cultures are flexible and resilient, capable of absorbing new and powerful influences on their respective cultures without diluting the values that define them. Key factors include religion, art, literature and the lens of history. Regardless of the exogenous factors, there will always be a community within each society capable of promoting and in many cases, strengthening cultural identity.
Discussion: Presently, people around the world are discussing and debating the challenges, opportunities and implications associated with the globalization of brands. As a result, globalization has become one of the most controversial and contested issues of the 21st century. For those who see globalization as a force for positive change, one of its chief promises is that it will lead to positive developmental advances in poor countries, including the promise that wages will go up and living standards will improve. While the results of this potential outcome continue to be debated, one visible result of globalization today is that people around the world are becoming more similar. In practical terms, due to globalization, today we often eat the same food, watch the same TV programs, listen to the same music and wear the same designer clothes as billions of others in communities around the world. As a result, it may appear that global diversity and the uniqueness of our cultural identities are being lost or consumed en masse. “ Brands are in the dock, accused of all sorts of mischief, from threatening our health and destroying our environment to corrupting our children. Brands are so powerful, it is alleged that they seduce us to look alike, eat alike and be alike. At the same time, they are spiritually empty, gradually (and almost subliminally) undermining our moral values.” (The Economist, Sept 6th 2001).
“ Brands are in the dock, accused of all sorts of mischief, from threatening our health and destroying our environment to corrupting our children. Brands are so powerful, it is alleged that they seduce us to look alike, eat alike and be alike. At the same time, they are spiritually empty, gradually (and almost subliminally) undermining our moral values.” (The Economist, Sept 6th 2001).
If we accept that there is some truth to the argument that unique cultural identities are starting to blur, some of this can be blamed on the spread of multinational brands across the globe. In the age of the dominance of brands, logos are everywhere; and these graphic signs accompany us in our every day lives. In near future it is reasonable to expect the emergence of places such as Logoland, similar in spirit to Disneyland or Legoland. The best example of this is the short animation movie called “Logorama” where brand images and logos represent characters, props, locations, vehicles and other content. Today, when you type in a search engine online what a brand or branding is, you will most probably get the following answer:
“…Name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers”. Therefore it makes sense to understand that branding is not about getting your target market to choose your product over the competition, but rather it is about getting your audience to see you as the only one that provides a solution to their problem. Wally Olins, generally recognized as the world’s most experienced practitioner of corporate identity and branding says:
“ Brands and branding are all pervasive and ubiquitous. The media are obsessed with brands, everybody now uses the “brand” word. In recent times enormous changes have taken place in the world of branding which have put it right in the spotlight. These changes include: the development of digital technology, the emergence of high profile companies, with branding moving from the periphery to the centre of corporate concern, branding moving into countries, regions and cities and also into charities, the arts and academia and perhaps above all the changing attitude of society to environmental danger, and the beginning of the emergence of a more caring twenty first century society”. So is branding a tool for changing cultural identity? One could argue that this is a narrow definition of culture and in fact cultural differences are as present as ever. Cultural identity is built on far more than just the designer clothes we wear or the food we eat. I personally believe that the foundation of cultural identity is shared or collective values. When one examines in detail different cultures, important differences emerge wherein different values are assigned to similar events and relationships, hence creating cultural differentiation and unique cultural identities As a result, consumerism per se does not define cultural identity, nor is it defined by individual products. Rather, it has a wide range of expressions manifested in history, religion, architecture, art and much more. While it is true that brands and products are today a part of our cultural identity and have the power to change or even affect it to a certain degree, brands – and the power of globalization – cannot replace or make cultural identity disappear. This is because, ultimately, the consumers of brand driven information are able to acknowledge and absorb globalized messaging through their own unique and culturally subjective value systems. It is the value system that underlies and is responsible for each nation’s cultural identity and hence the dominant factor – notwithstanding the attractiveness or power of a globalized and homogenized assault. It is worth highlighting that even in so-called non-commercial spheres, such as universities, charities, opera companies and orchestras, brands have emerged and branding has taken place. For example just as the Walmart brand carries certain connotations for consumers and department stores, so too has the Guggenheim name developed into a global arts brand. Even cities, countries, regions and nations are developing branding programmes to attract investment and tourism and to build or enhance self-esteem. One of the best examples is the logo “I love NY” created by the well-known graphic designer Milton Glaser in the 1970’s which became a commonly recognized symbol and is strongly associated with New York. Other examples are I am-sterdam for Amsterdam, C-open-hagen for Copenhagen etc. While these non-traditional spheres are not exempt, neither are they vulnerable.
â€œâ€ŚName, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellersâ€?.
Is the brand immoral, can it get us to do things we don’t want to? No. When we like a brand we manifest our loyalty in cash. If we don’t like it, we walk away. Customers are in charge.”
“Products, peoples, countries and companies are all racing to turn themselves into brands-to make their image more likeable and understandable.” (The Economist, September 6th 2001). The value of branding in the age of globalization and the Internet is more than just creating a way to identify a product or company. Brands today spell reliability, quality and trust. It is this value that explains why all companies need to brand themselves. It is equally true that people like brands. They simplify choices, guarantee quality and add fun and interest “ In technocratic and colourless times, brands bring warmth, familiarity and trust” says Peter Brabeck, head of Nestle. Just because brands have these benefits does not mean they subtract or dilute traditions and cultural identities. Brands are not as powerful as their many suggest because the public is not so easily manipulated and values have a foundation in individually unique historical and geographical contexts. Today, due to the rapid spread of accessible information, communities around the world have enough comparative information about products and companies to be able to make independent and informed choices. “Consumers are like roaches,” says Jonathan Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum in their book Under the Radar – Talking to Today’s Cynical Consumers. “We spray them with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance.” This temporary effect is an added reason why cultural identities are still safe and can survive brand bombardment. The fact that people have better access to information regarding product choices allows them to be in control and in some ways to dictate to companies and decide their fate, rather than the other way round. Example abound, including the failure of such high profile launches as “New Coke”; the disastrous effect on Hoover of a badly designed sales promotion in Britain a few years ago and the boycott of genetically modified foods by European consumers. It seems clear that consumers are increasingly influencing the behaviour of companies, not vice-versa. Arrogance, greed and hypocrisy are quickly punished as seen in relation to Nike, where they’ve had to revamp their entire supply chain after accusations of operating sweatshops. “Is the brand immoral, can it get us to do things we don’t want to? No. When we like a brand we manifest our loyalty in cash. If we don’t like it, we walk away. Customers are in charge.” So too are citizens in charge and able to make choices that result in the establishment of durable and unique cultural identities. It is undeniable that brands influence us but they do not alter our ability or our instinct to make intelligent choices; this ability to choose is a reflection of our values, manifested in cultural heritage, upbringing, history and education.
“Consumers are like roaches, We spray them with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance.”
Some of the best known and most successful multinational brands are McDonald’s, Subway, Burger King etc. They have branches throughout the world, each catering to their own unique consumers and customer base, each claiming to offer standardized experiences, regardless of geography However, tastes differ in all countries and the reality is that these mega-brands do integrate national habits, values and attributes into their products – and they do so because they are forced to. In India, McDonald’s cannot and does not serve beef – instead they have adapted and adopted, creating the lamb-based Maharaja Mac. Similarly, in my home country, Georgia, hamburgers are made with local spices, which give them local taste. Even Coca-Cola is made with local water, which gives it a unique flavor. Moreover, for Georgian people their national traditional cuisine remains the number one choice, despite the brand onslaught. The history of Georgian cooking dates back to ancient times and although the secrets of many Georgian dishes have been forgotten for various reasons, Georgian cuisine is one of the most diverse in the world. In 2010 a project titled “Treasures of the Georgian Feast” was created,- with the goal of searching for recipes and rules for cooking traditional Georgian dishes in order to save and protect them so that modern consumers and future generations would not abandon them. Efforts like this represent a small but significant cultural response to the power of branding and globalization. Indeed, perhaps globalization sparks backlashes, and in a counter-intuitive sense, can actually strengthen local cultural identities. The list of examples goes on – in particular in France where the opposition to McDonald’s is widely considered to have been the inspiration for the now wildly popular Slow Food Movement – a movement whose essence is the celebration of regionalized cuisine and identity.
Conclusion:
Many continue to argue that branding and multinational companies that use brands are a collective force with the capability to destroy national identities, incorporating them into a larger global culture. McDonaldization, Nike-ification or Coca-colaization are now common terms in the 21st century. I believe these are powerful trends but the assumption that they are predominant remains unfulfilled. .
Looking at history, the 19th century is noteworthy for the rapid development of free trade that brought previously de-linked countries closer together, and was particularly characterized by cultural inventiveness. This phenomenon however does not apply only to the past. Now more than ever, we are living in an era defined by choice and plenitude, when individuals experience increased diversity, whether we are talking about literature, science, art or entertainment. Countries may therefore look alike, but that similarity is centered on the fact that they offer commonly diverse choices. If cultures are at times linked through common or shared beliefs – beliefs that exploited by globalized branding, it this does not mean they are homogeneous or without identity. Rather, these beliefs provide the common foundation for understanding the world we live in and the forces that shape today’s world. In conclusion, the power of globalization and branding is not likely to recede in the near term: there is too much momentum and too much wealth driving them forward. For some, this capitalist driven trend implies that globally, nations and peoples will continue merging towards a unified, homogenous world culture at the expense of national identity. I however reject that thesis because of the enduring strength of indigenous value systems, value systems that shape events, spawn new ideas, including destructive ones such as wars, or controversial ones such as religion or patriotism. These are the canvas upon which a tapestry of cultures will always retain their individual identities despite the influence of large companies and their products around the globe. The uniqueness of history, literature, and the arts all demonstrate that while cultures have been merging and blending for hundreds of years they have not limited the spectrum of diversity, but rather – they have enriched it. I believe globalization and global branding can do the same.
Bibliography: Books: Bond, J; Kirshenbaum, R; (1998) Under the Radar. New York: Wiley Cullen, C.H; (2001) Promotional Design That Works. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers Douglas, B.H; (2004) How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press Klein, N. (2001) No Logo. London: Flamingo Olins, W. (2008) The brand handbook. London: Thames & Hudson Internet: http://www.adme.ru/brending/kak-brendiruyut-goroda-69951/ accessed on 01.04.11 http://www.economist.com/ - (Sept 6th 2001). accessed on 30.03.11 http://www.globalization101.org/ accessed on 28.03.11 http://marketing.about.com/cs/brandmktg/a/whatisbranding.htm accessed on 30.03.11 http://info.mymovies.ge/ accessed on 02.04.11 http://www.wikipedia.org/ accessed on 30.03.11
2011 London College of Communication