Talk:Brand management: Difference between revisions
(moved declared nonsense) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Brand management''' is the exploitation of positive [[repute]] and association of one's [[service]]s with [[good thing]]s, thus making it appear as a [[good thing]], regardless of its actual [[comprehensive outcome]]. Thus, it is a [[bad thing]], and one [[Consumerium Services]] seeks to undo. | '''Brand management''' is the exploitation of positive [[repute]] and association of one's [[service]]s with [[good thing]]s, thus making it appear as a [[good thing]], regardless of its actual [[comprehensive outcome]]. Thus, it is a [[bad thing]], and one [[Consumerium Services]] seeks to undo. | ||
:This is non-sense. [[Consumerium Services]] can also be used to enhance the [[repute]] a [[brand]] for example if it has a good history of [[Workplace Upgrade]]s. | :This is non-sense. [[Consumerium Services]] can also be used to enhance the [[repute]] a [[brand]] for example if it has a good history of [[Workplace Upgrade]]s. | ||
::No, that is an abuse and such a use would make you a [[usurper]] if you did not also consider other elements of its [[comprehensive outcome]]. A paradise workplace in a company mining [[tantallum]] or making [[charcoal]] is not good enough, and any [[brand management]] of this kind would simply be destructive: "gee look at the monkey, we pay our workers more and improved their health, but what they do is still destroying the entire planet and wiping out our nearest relatives." This proves the point. | |||
:No point in fighting over the fact that there are numerous people working in [[Brand management]] working hard to make it look good through [[advertising]] and pr-stunts or real [[charitable contribution]]s --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:45, 9 Mar 2004 (EET) | :No point in fighting over the fact that there are numerous people working in [[Brand management]] working hard to make it look good through [[advertising]] and pr-stunts or real [[charitable contribution]]s --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 22:45, 9 Mar 2004 (EET) | ||
::Know thy enemy. We must investigate this question very critically, as it ties closely to the question of negative vs. positive [[repute]] and whether positive repute is just dangerous. Consider the [[dissuade reputation]] arguments they make over at [[MeatballWiki]] for instance, or the [[trolls]]' anonymity focus. There are reasons for these policies. | |||
Latest revision as of 20:55, 9 March 2004
Brand management is the exploitation of positive repute and association of one's services with good things, thus making it appear as a good thing, regardless of its actual comprehensive outcome. Thus, it is a bad thing, and one Consumerium Services seeks to undo.
- This is non-sense. Consumerium Services can also be used to enhance the repute a brand for example if it has a good history of Workplace Upgrades.
- No, that is an abuse and such a use would make you a usurper if you did not also consider other elements of its comprehensive outcome. A paradise workplace in a company mining tantallum or making charcoal is not good enough, and any brand management of this kind would simply be destructive: "gee look at the monkey, we pay our workers more and improved their health, but what they do is still destroying the entire planet and wiping out our nearest relatives." This proves the point.
- No point in fighting over the fact that there are numerous people working in Brand management working hard to make it look good through advertising and pr-stunts or real charitable contributions --Juxo 22:45, 9 Mar 2004 (EET)
- Know thy enemy. We must investigate this question very critically, as it ties closely to the question of negative vs. positive repute and whether positive repute is just dangerous. Consider the dissuade reputation arguments they make over at MeatballWiki for instance, or the trolls' anonymity focus. There are reasons for these policies.