by Jonathan A. J. Wilson

Extracts from: Wilson, J.A.J. and Liu, J. (2009), “The Polytheism of Branding: Evaluating brands through their Worship”, in Nafees, L., Krishnan, O. and Gore, T., Brand Research, Macmillan Publishers India Ltd., New Delhi, pp.207-229.

Brands are created with the intention by their owners, of encouraging consumption, patronage and the formation of a relationship; which it could be argued ultimately craves their worship. So much so, that with their increase in importance, some brands have both individually and collectively managed to attain ‘god-like’ statuses. Driving this movement, has been a trend of drawing from, aligning and blending religious language, rituals, mythology, symbolism and meanings – in order to gain deeper significance and competitive advantage. This has either been embedded within the brand itself, and/or through supporting marketing communications messages.

Wilson and Liu (2009) argue “that a brand is created with the aim of transcending the tangible boundaries faced by a product”, (p.47). They cite Klein’s (2000) observation of the Nike swoosh being one of the most requested tattoos in the USA as being not only evidence of this, but in addition proof that consumers feel free to adapt or separate the brand from the product in some way; and extend their level communication and consumption of the brand. Wilson and Liu (2009) assert that the permanence of a tattoo goes towards “explicitly demonstrating that the brand is of more significance and desirability than the product… In addition, it appears that brands can develop sublime characteristics, which outlive their associated products,” (Wilson and Liu 2009, p.47).

Brand Polygamy?

In tandem, there is an established notion in relationship marketing theory, which draws from a metaphor; ascribing interactions between companies and customers as being an engagement in a form of a marital relationship. As an extension, this has also been adopted when looking at brand relationships. It would appear that this contains within it certain weaknesses – due to an inevitable distance, asymmetry and polygamy between parties. Furthermore, as brands increase in strength and polygamous practices within society are on the decline, it is possible that the terms of engagement associated with branding, may stretch the definition beyond being rooted in a comparable manifestation of a marital relationship.

 Or, Brand Polytheism?

A review of existing literature shows that a brand’s value, from a consumer’s perspective, is demonstrated primarily through offering: a means for identification, dissonance reduction, attractiveness, prestige, a representation of quality and convenience, (Miller, 1995; Collins, 2001). Within this construct, these factors are ill equipped to be able to deliver fully on what could be seen as being a premise for comparable meaningful and human relationships. The position of the authors is that firstly brand relationships should be housed within a paradigm of Brand Polytheism and subsequently an additional component should be added when assessing a brands efficacy and value; which has been termed the worship dimension. This is in-keeping with Holt (2002) who adopts a methodological approach which uses “microlevel data – people’s stories about their consumption – to investigate macrolevel constructs”, (p.73). Polytheistic worship is favoured by the authors in preference to the metaphors of friendships or marital relationships – as they address issues concerning the tangibility of a brand, intimacy, distance, multiple adoptions, and the level of interaction.

Further to this, it is felt by the authors that brand and marketing theory has unnecessarily restricted itself through constructs which at times fail to address a gamut of perspectives pertaining to brands, consumption and perceptions; by creating such universals. As there are different religions and cultures, the authors suggest that it is possible that there will also be different interpretations, surrounding the nature of a brand. Therefore, the assertion is that a more valuable method for assessment lies in analysing the processes leading towards the outcome. In short the ‘how’– rather than the ‘how much’.  In addition, a more expansive definition of ‘why’, which is in-keeping with the suggested worship perceptive, is vital – in that it also takes into account the more figurative interpretations of value and worth; reflective of kinship and reciprocity.

Even within monotheistic doctrines, there is the suggestion that humans have a propensity towards comparable polytheistic practices; whilst however being discouraged. In the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, worshipers are commanded to worship one deity. Maltby et al (2002) state that “the word ‘‘gods’’ is usually interpreted broadly to include not just other religious deities, but non-religious concepts and persons as well” (p.1160). Muslims are reminded on numerous occasions within the Qur’an and supporting religious texts, such as ahadith of the ease by which they may in fact behave as polytheists.

In addition, atheists and agnostics, as part of a polemical discourse, are often described by their religious counterparts as in fact creating their own rituals and objects of desire; which could be comparably interpreted as being a form religion, as observed by Jindra (1994). Examples of which lie in politics, sport, music and celebrities, amongst others. Jindra (1994) also talks of Star Trek fans organising, recruiting and holding ceremonies/conventions, with fan bases that resemble religions. Furthermore this appears to stretch to inanimate objects, where consumers have queued up overnight to purchase the latest Apple handset or sports jersey; despite already being able to fulfil many of the functions, through existing product offerings.

Brand Worship

Giles (2000) argues that fame can be interpreted as a quest to preserve a unique part of life for eternity – which applies the concept of a belief in the hereafter. From this Giles (2000) extends this to liken celebrity worship to religious worship. Evidence of this lies in the illicit acts of some celebrities being ignored, mentally deleted, mitigated, or even forgiven. Furthermore, according to Giles (2000) the similarities between religion and celebrity worship in their psychological and physical demonstration of obsessive compulsion appears apparent. These are manifest in surrounding rituals and day dreaming. 

An argument could be made to suggest that the classification of a brand as assuming a god-like status, is perhaps an over-exaggeration of their status and perceived worth. In answer to this, the authors assert that for many brand owners, if their brand is idolised and worshipped, they will not seek to discourage such practices. And further to this, brands seek to control and dominate a consumer’s psyche; on as many levels as they are able. Therefore, to suggest that brands seek to have a merely mortal relationship, is perhaps only a precautionary expression on the brand owner’s part; to avoid potentially negative reactions from consumers, at such brand aspirations.

A Global perspective to managing and creating brands

In cultures and religions, such as Paganism, or Japanese Shintoism, the belief already exists where objects are seen to have a soul and a god that watches over them. This results in followers being encouraged to not only show reverence to objects, which have been traditionally perceived by other European cultures and monotheistic religions as inanimate; but also that these objects do in fact have feelings worthy of respect. Having stated this, the authors propose that similar practices appear to be present to a certain degree, within brand relationships experienced by the wider global community. Branding aspires to have iconic deep-rooted resonance amongst both users and non-users; in order to increase its worth. Supported by marketing communications, aesthetic product design and semiotics; consumers are led along a path of desire, which tends towards idolatry. Evidence for this lies in the metaphors used by marketers and brand architects, when creating brand personalities and messages. As consumers enter relationships with several brands, these too can be seen as a demonstration of almost polytheistic practices; amongst the loyal and committed.

Further to this, brands are being evaluated and defined according to human characteristics; such as having a personality and identity. Therefore, as they tend towards such values, it is suggested that like humans, they will posses a soul or spirit of sorts. In doing so, brands have the potential to outlive their physical product being and in fact need not be seen has having a finite life cycle; as is suggested by the more traditional marketing product life cycle constructs. In addition within cultures lies a myriad of situation-specific interpretations as to what constitutes beauty, attractiveness and desirability. Traditional Japanese culture craves porcelain-white flawless skin, hidden from the sun; whilst popular Japanese culture encourages some of the younger generations to chase golden brown sun tans, or even obviously fake ‘orange’ tans from a bottle. Conversely the Japanese aesthetic concept of wabi sabi is lauded when appreciating gardens and ceramics. Wabi sabi guides towards assessing beauty in terms of the impermanent, imperfect and incomplete. Withered leaves, half opened flowers, cracked glazes on pots, and purposefully created wobbly crumpled irregularly shaped ceramics are all seen of as being prized possessions.

Traditional brand thinking tends to view brands as having one blueprint, with exemplars which converge and carry across cultures and borders. Where there are differences, these are often explained as a brand-product drift and addressed through some form of re-brand, adaptation, refinement or extension. The suggestion is that these metamorphoses would be best served and executed with a more inclusive and pluralistic understanding upstream of the brand creation process. The authors propose that further clarity can be gained through viewing brands in a more esoteric manner – as part of a wheel of life; which does not follow a linear progression. Instead, by examining polytheist doctrines, the implication is that this opens up possibilities of brand re-incarnation and everlasting brand spirituality. Whilst this does not change the concept of a brand being created, changed or adapted; it does pulls brand theory away from more Darwinian, materialistic and capitalistic interpretations – towards Creationism, intelligent design and a sense of karma. Rather, as with polytheistic doctrines, fate, lineage, reincarnation and the worship of ancestors; each will play a significant role in the future successes of a brand. It is suggested that such perspectives would go some way towards further investigations into why some brands are able to succeed, where others have not.

Collins, D. (2001), “The branding of management knowledge: rethinking management ‘fads’”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, 2003, pp. 186-204.

Giles, D. (2000),  Illusions of immortality: a psychology of fame and celebrity, London: MacMillan.

Holt, D. B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June): 70-90.

Jindra, M. (1994), “Star-Trek fandom as a religious phenomenon”, Sociology of Religion, 55, 27–51.

Klein, N. (2000), No Logo, Flamingo, London.

Maltby, J. et al. (2002), “Thou shalt worship no other gods — unless they are celebrities: the relationship between celebrity worship and religious orientation”, Personality and Individual Differences, 32, pp.1157–1172.

Miller, D. (1995), “Consumption as the vanguard of history: a polemic by way of an introduction”, in Miller, D. (Ed.), Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies, Routledge, London.

Wilson, J.A.J. and Liu, J. (2009), “ ‘The Pinocchio Effect’ – when managing the Brand Creation process, across cultures”, TMC Academic Journal, Vol. 4(1), pp.45-58.

 Jon Wilson is a Senior Lecturer and Course Leader in Advertising and Marketing Communications Management, at the University of Greenwich, London, UK. Jon is also on the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal of Islamic Marketing.

 Jon Wilson can be reached at: j.a.j.wilson@gre.ac.uk