"
. With In The New York Times Magazine: The Polo logo
Posted Under: Consumed
THE BRAND-NESS OF STRANGERS:
We’re incidentally exposed to familiar logos constantly, but that doesn’t influence us — does it?
This week in Consumed, a look at an iconic logo, and at what recent research suggests about how exposure to such symbols — via “incidental brand-consumer encounters” — may exert an influence we don’t notice.
Read the column in the November 16, 2008 issue of The New York Times Magazine, or here.
[Bonus link: Study cited in the column is summarized here.]
Consumed archive is here, and FAQ is here. The Times’ Consumed RSS feed is here. Consumed Facebook page is here.
To make a point about Consumed that you think readers of The Times Magazine would be interested in: “Letters should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, Magazine, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10018. The e-mail address is magazine@nytimes.com. All letters should include the writer’s name, address and daytime telephone number. We are unable to acknowledge or return unpublished letters. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.”
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A
Reader Comments
No How Brands Become Icons icon reference? I guess you can’t do too much in one article…
What cultural contradiction did Polo match with a hit identity myth, in the 80’s?
Repetition seems to work as long as you want to become or stay mainstream. You see Golden Arches and you know exactly what they stand for wether or not you eat there. Seeing the polo logo will indeed help the company, and the walking billboards are great subconscious way to keep polo on the mind. This brand was never intended for “outsider”. The business world seems to always want the label. As far as Dasani goes this brand it is already extremely popular and was probably already tasted prior so the subconscious mind played a small but effective enough roll. This would have been an impressive stat if they used a water such as Pioneer or another no name.
Of course walking billboards play on the sub-conscious. To what extent, that will vary by brand and test subject. Think about when you start wanting an item, especially a certain car, now you start seeing it all over. Are there all of a sudden so many more of those cars, or are you paying attention more. Most likely you’re paying attention more.
Now Polo, in some ways that particular brand, not Ralph Lauren (Lipshitz) is past it’s peak. The Big Pony started to appeal to younger consumers. And for their Purple Label or Black Label, outside logos are for the riff-raf. The more expensive the item, the more it is to please you and let others only guess. Plus if you can afford it you don’t have to advertise status as much any more.
People who have been used to less status on average have a greater need to advertise status. I know this will sound offensive on the surface, but look past the knee jerk reaction. Think about how many people from working class or poor backgrounds are into outward displays of fashion, the logo is important, let’s completely deck out this Ferrari ala Dub magazine. They grew up craving status because they didn’t have any, now that they have it they want to display it. Conversely if a person grew up high status, the want to downplay it, it’s the essence of the preppy look, how torn can look cool. It used to be more true, when America used to care about that sort of classiness, now we have a noveau riche sensibility. The Purple Label is about country club, the Hamptons class, not pretenders.
Let me just reiterate, in response to these longer comments making broad points, that you’re really better off writing a letter to the Times Magazine, which might print it, and thus give a much broader platform to your views than this site does.
The comments on this site are better suited for discussion.
Dr. H: Apart from my use of the word “icon,” I’m not sure how this particular column relates to Holt’s views. While his stuff is great, I would actually say your question raises an issue I do have with his work, which is that it explains his examples really well, but is hard (for me at least) to extrapolate into the Theory of All Branding that he seems to want it to be. But maybe that’s just my own limitation. Anyway, I didn’t mean to exclude him per se, but I think I can say “icon” without citing his work!
I agree, “icons” have been around much longer than Holt.
Can you write a post on counterexamples to Holt?
That’s a pretty labor-intensive request!
I’ll think about it. But mostly this site is about, you know, stuff I’m thinking about, and I’m not sure I want to suddenly start thinking about Holt a whole bunch. In general I think his work and theories are very interesting, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. But I have “other priorities,” as Dick Cheney once said.
And you know, you get what you pay for on Murketing.com.