Manu, the coke soda example u gave. I haven’t seen a coke glass bottle for the last five years, since I’ve had only 500 ml bottles (or more). Once last year, I almost ended up ridiculing a friend who was trying to order a 300 ml glass bottles with Dominos, before I realized they still had those (not at Dominos though).

Shefaly, I’ve heard abt the BMW hit and run cases, but I am not gonna judge a car by the actions of some unruly kids. With regards to Scorpio, this is the first time I’ve heard abt it being referred to as gangster’s car. Which is not exactly a big deal, since I am not concerned about them or have enquired about them.

What I am trying to say is brand images are not fixed nor are they based on majority opinion, but fluid and independent. It may be beyond the control of the brand manager, but that does not mean they cannot try to influence its formation. A consumer judges from his experiences and it includes ads, promotions and even the movies.

Arby: The reason why Mercedes/Coke did what they did is obvious – a control over the imagery they project to consumers.. the soda example was used to show that this control is becoming a myth now… what matters more is what consumers make of the brand from experiences – theirs, and others… effectiveness is secondary, depends on the intent to a large degree, and if that’s not right, there’s a problem…

Manu makes a very important point about the fleeting – even illusory – control that brand managers have over their brand images. I mention above another high profile car brand that is often – unfortunately for them – linked with drug dealers in London. On a recent trip to India I learnt that BMW is the car in which spoilt rich brats run over poor people sleeping on pavements! I also heard that the Scorpio is deemed a gangster’s car in India.

Ergo, it does not matter what image Mercedes – or that other car brand – wants ‘to maintain’. Their ‘control’ is non-existent. Brand image is a negotiated societal agreement, not a product of advertising or promotions.

As an interesting illustration of how these agreements ‘shape’ up, watch this:

http:// http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR4XvsNenk8

Thanks!

As for usage of Coke bottles in Kerala, the primary market for SDM was US & UK. Coke may have a different association there.

arby: like i said, i would have no arguments if these were brand communications, they’re not.. “supposed to”, “not meant for”.. will brands dictate usage? you’d have seen coke bottles being used for lousy soda in kerala? what happens to brand association then?

May be Mercedes would have chased him with a lawsuit? Who knows? As they say, asking for forgiveness is a lot easier than asking for permission.

Besides, brands ‘earn’ a positioning unrelated to what brand managers hope for and spend on. Another high profile brand is often – unfortunately for them – linked with drug dealers in London. These are the conversations that are hard to verify on ‘online’ or ‘social’ networks but every Londoner knows what I am referring to. An information asymmetry brand managers can eliminate by getting out of their ivory towers perhaps? 😉

shefaly: i would agree with merc if they decided not to associate themselves with poverty etc in their communication… absolutely fine.. but like i said, if someone posted a photo of a merc with a slum kid standing next to it, would they seek to control that too? to me, it shows a mindset more than anything else.. Danny Boyle asked because that’s his way of working, do you think the regular Bollywood director would? What does Merc do then?

roop: i’m not sure if they can be compared… besides it is this ‘consciousness’ of brands that i am against, because it then becomes about control, and the reality is that consumption can’t be controlled…