Lovemark Why?

A “lovemark” according to Kevin Roberts is a certain brand that a human is loyal to even though there is no real reason for it. I personally cannot think of any particular brand that I am totally loyal to. However, there are several reasons that one could use to justify such a way of thinking.

First off having loyalty to a specific brand can help relieve one of decision making. If you have a brand of lets say… pants that you really like, you know where to find them in the store and you know which size you wear in that brand. Therefore, it would only make sense for you to go buy that kind of pants. With this in mind there are positive and negative effects that come with buying one brand of something. Staying with the idea of pants... it is likely that there is another brand of pants that will fit you better, or they may be more comfortable, maybe even cheaper. Sure, you would have to spend some time to locate those pants but being stuck in a rut generally is not a good thing. Apart from the decision making issue some may stick with a certain brand to obtain or maintain status.

If you read a fashion magazine… for instance “Vogue” and flip to the ’10 Best Dressed’ section you will see woman dressed in Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Versace (hands down some of the most expensive brands you can find). In the socialite setting these brands represent status, and status is important. In the world of Paris Hilton a new ‘Louis’ bag coming out is a must have because generally in the socialite world they are loyal to that brand. In this situation the loyalty to a brand relies on the need to maintain status or to gain it. These people could justify their love of expensive items simply by showing that they have the money to purchase such things; but again it would make more sense to shop around and spend a more practical amount of cash.

A truly good justification for a “lovemark” would be absolute knowledge of an item. Unfortunately there is no way to know everything about a company (unless of course you are the owner). It is obvious why one cannot truly understand everything about a company. All bad aspects are hidden from the public to maintain consumers. On the other hand people can gain a good amount of understanding with much research, debatably enough to rationalize a “lovemark”. For example one might want to only buy cloths that were not made in a sweatshop, but researching that topic you may find a particular brand that intrigues you.

There are other reasons that would validate a human’s loyalty to a brand name… but these are the first that came to my mind. With that being said Robert’s thesis was wrong there are most certainly real reasons to be loyal to a company. Whether or not one takes these ideas seriously is up to them.

Know how know why

“Those who know how, work for those who know why” is a very interesting statement; but what does it mean? It may be obvious that this statement can be interpreted in many ways. However, I believe the most logical analysis of this comment is as follows. Humans who think up ideas are often the ones who are set on pedestals, and those who create the 'idea' are simply using their skills to assist the inventor. All of this relates to critical thinking in the sense that without the inventors of the world our working hierarchy would not exist, and our society would not be nearly as advanced as it currently is. A perfect example of this statement would be Bill Gates.

In 1975 Bill Gates and his friend and partner (Paul Allen) officially created the Microsoft Corporation. This semi small time corporation grew out of control over the years, and Gates now is worth an estimated 53 billion dollars. Gates was obviously an idea man. Him and Allen both set out with the simple idea of making the computer industry bigger and better. In doing so they have employed thousands of people. These thousands of people know how to put together, program, and sell computers but they are not the idea men. Hence why Bill Gates is a perfect example of the quote stated above. This idea can be applied to religious followings as well.

For instance Gautama or 'the Buddha' always had a flock of followers, because those around him cherished his ideas. The Buddha taught his doctrine and shared his ideas and then those who knew how to work his ideas lived by them and spread him. The Buddah was 'enlightened' and knew why and how he had reached this level of peace (and it was very much by critical thinking). Others wanted to reach that level so they did as the Buddha taught. Again this is a perfect example of putting the given phrase into context. Furthermore this quote can be carried to smaller businesses (meaning smaller than Microsoft).

It is obvious that humans have a natural want to be the best. Those who compete for the better grades in school are ultimately competing for their spot as a boss in the work world. The more intelligent, well rounded, and creative you throughout your school years the more likely you are to succeed in the work world. On the other hand those who do not push themselves to learn generally stick with what they do know and allow others to instruct them at work. It could be argued that some succeed without any true brilliance, however in a study done by RePEc statistics have shown that competence really does effect the success of a business.

Overall it would seem that those who are true free thinkers, and those who are critical thinkers are the people who will excel in life. As long as the world continues to invent the man kind will continue to maintain it's working hierarchy; and those who know how will continue to follow those who know why.