Comments on: Beyond run-of-the-mill

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:56:50 +0000

I don’t know* about “good products” at Dunkin’ but I could not avoid seeing that Dunkin’ will necessitate Nike. May be they should co-promote? 😉

* Actually having been subjected to their products occasionally when I lived in MA (take-a-right-turn-at-Dunkin’ is the best instruction to get people to get lost in MA) I would distinctly not use good in the same sentence as Dunkin’.

By: manu prasad

manu prasad — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:53:18 +0000

i am a bit ambivalent on that, since i do believe in the emo connect, but also believe that if fundamentally there is no value, its not going to last… hmm, so yes, i would tend to agree with you on this.. that’s the reason i liked these two, since they were relying on their basic strength – good products (assuming that about Dunkin) and using the net to add value on top of that…

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:45:35 +0000

And the donut will almost certainly need to be annulled by running.

Interesting post. I do think however that so far any efforts brands make to engage ‘socially’ seem to end up being tedious time-wasters instead of being useful, value enhancers. Yes, you could turn around and tell me brands are about emotive connections and not just about utilitarian value. But without utilitarian value, the most emotive connections with ephemeral things like brands could wither away. Would you look at Nike if the running shoes were crap?

Where is the meaning?