Corporate logos -- do they suffer as we do?

The IPKat had a good chuckle, and a good think too, concerning the corporate logo parodies published in Corporate Pundit and drawn to his attention last week by his friend Tomasz Rychlicki. There are several different schools of thought relating to parody of this nature. One is that it is unfair to the brand owner and ultimately corrodes the value of the brand; another is that it is just good clean fun; a third is that it is not so much a reflection on the brands parodied as on the diminished aspirations of the consumers whose support and loyalty brought them to prominence in the first place. In the case of Chrysler and Ford this is particularly so: the products remain desirable but it is the reduced purchasing of the power that results
in weak sales as even many of the most loyal drivers find that their new or replacement purchases must be delayed or deferred.

To parodies such as this, the best sort of response is probably "grin and bear it" -- not least since even the choice of brands to parody is a sort of compliment: these are the logos we choose to accompany us on our long hike through the nether world of diminished consumer aspirations. And these are the brands that we will return to when our spending power is restored ... if they're still there.
Corporate logos -- do they suffer as we do? Corporate logos -- do they suffer as we do? Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, December 22, 2008 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.