#my love for the first two is especially based in very irrational nostalgia I will say

[cutegirlmayra]

Hiiiiii, I rly like your writing X3 I was wondering if you’d answer this question: What is your interpretation of what SEGA is doing with SonAmy as of right now? Seems like it’s becoming more and more canon. I know you’ve done similar question before, but could you maybe just answer this for 2021? Thanks!💖💙

No problem! And thank you, lovely Anon~<3 I love writing for the feels~ But also for the accuracy to be as close as possible if I can manage it! First of all, they’ve always been canon? Maybe not ‘in-world dating’ canon but canon in the sense that they are a official SEGA advertised couple since the get-go.

Amy was created to literally be in the slot of ‘Sonic’s Girlfriend’ where she had feelings for Sonic and always a fun mystery as to decipher Sonic’s subtle ‘returned caring’ for her.

As for 2021 we are so FREAKIN’ HAPPY to hear that SEGA is FINALLY marketing the two and VISUALLY SEEING the sales of their ‘couple shirts’ and the like make some profit. Furthermore, we have long-time fans and professionals in the careers within SEGA also vocalizing that they don’t mind the couple and even support it. With less emphasis on the ‘fandom fanatics’ of the raging past and more so on the fantastic marketability and popularity the couple brings to SEGA’s exposing their main IP, it’s become almost common ground to expect more and more people liking romantic and suggested romantic couples in all ranging medias.

We need also mention the alarming rate of the worrisome numbers in Japan recently. Conducted studies have shown that most of Japan’s population is elderly, and in the very near future (About 5 years or so) a good chuck of Japan’s population will die. This means the Japanese Government is promoting more and more companies within both entertainment, advertising, etc. to be more ‘promoting family’ in their media. Japan needs more babies! And guess what?

Mario Odyssey comes out with a completely ‘Wedding themed’ video game.

Dramatic romantic underlying's in Zelda’s new game.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake’s focus on romantic underlying’s along with Cloud willingly saying (English version) “Do I have any say in this?” As though to fight the idea that romance can’t happen and-

Kingdom Hearts 3′s romantic underlying that literally has a song (Japanese) talking about rings and getting married called “Chikai” or also ‘Oath’ that in English is rewritten to a romantic song about going deeper into love called “Don’t Think Twice” but literally has the two ‘making their fates intertwined’ in a symbol of ‘romantic intentions’ such as marriage or even just fidelity in a relationship.

So? How does all this influence the latest Sonamy supersonic boom we’ve seen in the media recently?

Although Sonic is his own character, he’s also only 15 (But as many of you have seen in Anime, Japanese ages of appropriateness are different then our own cultures and societies) we see faint glimpses. In the mostly American-made Sonic Boom t.v series, the comedic moments of Sonic and Amy are very much to a genre of American audiences and how we view ‘funny love’ should normally be marketed as. (I don’t always agree with what they say, but that’s how they’re trained and believe the ‘trends’ go... so ... can’t argue with professionals? Eh? -I personally think they’re outdated *cough cough*)

Sonic is not one to express feelings in overly dramatic ways which is common place in American television and media, but he’s also got a ‘boy’s heart’ which means we won’t see a lot of things from him BESIDES ‘romantic underlyings’ that are probably going to be initiated and themed mostly and primarily in Amy Rose’s character (If at all shown or expressed.)

For these reasons, I believe SEGA is just hopping on the bandwagon and doing what they’re told, while also following the latest trends that the other big fellow companies are making a significant profit on. I know we wish and want SEGA to be ‘special’ in how they think, but they really are just a company that is trying to survive and outlast the competition.

It’s sad to think that way, especially when SEGA used to be so creative and always influencing the next best thing but that was YEARS ago and they’ve learned to tread water since then...

(Goku being a grandfather emphasizes family in this particular scene where they take his granddaughter before a big tournament fight to a fair/festival. We see Goku with his family too, or at least, a successful son with his wife and daughter, spending time with his Father-In-Law, and the like.)

We see it in Dragon Ball emphasizing family, we see it in more romance-themed animes (and those that have only recently done romance, when they--for the longest part--never indulged in such things before or previously) and we now see more japanese games and media centralized around that.

What does that mean for Sonamy? Hopefully good things! Because if you buy the merch, they’ll produce more content. It’s a basic ‘supply and demand’ formula. If the demand (meaning how much you spend and want Sonic and Amy couple merch) goes up, then they have to supply to keep their business afloat. If they don’t they sink, but that DOES NOT MEAN TO BE AGRESSIVE. It means just support when they do something you like, and positively, kindly mention what you liked and wish to see more of if the future allows. No one reads aggressive writing unless, they too--wish to be aggressive back.

SEGA’s had issues with aggressiveness before, please let them see that couples in the sonic world won’t have a negative impact on their branding with irrational and bad-media frenzies. (Now, after saying this, I know people will start to do just that, don’t feed fire with fire, just let the fire burn till it has nothing left to consume, and carry on happily posting fanart or fanstories of what you love. Ignore to extinguish, which is what SEGA will do to Sonic shipping fans if we don’t act somewhat reasonably, okay?)

My predictions are such: 1. Amy’s crush will sadly lessen in impact and become more of a novelty, something that is treasured when moments arise to reveal her crush on Sonic, which in my opinion, is not her personality, but due to the heavy influence of women’s portrayal (Especially in America) being overemphasized and not done well, this is how they will try and combat it... (No one does this right and you shouldn’t base a characters solely on political reasonings...) 2. Sonic will have moments of caring for Amy or doing something sweet that can and probably will be interpreted as ‘a couple moment’ but he’ll remain mostly about other things, and the ‘underlying romance’ will have to come through Amy Rose’s character. 3. SEGA will loosen some rules after seeing more and more of the productivity and trend associated with marketing romance, and to keep up with demand and growing times, will finally let small moments emerge between the two, but the fandom will not be satisficed since we will now be desensitized to overly avert demure and oblivious stereotropes that will date their characters. and won’t allow them to proceed smoothly into the new area of customers and audiences.

Children are becoming extremely observant and aware. They are clever, and they always have been. It’s time to market to Children and Young Adults, not babies.

My ways to avoid this, predictions 1: New employees will surface that will start to get a name and reputation in the Sonic Fandom, along with youtube and internet stars who will influence certain marketing schemes (as is starting to appear now, and I feel will be just like ‘star marketing’ or ‘influencers’ that will be popularized in fandoms that companies will slightly make use of.) that will encourage new ideas and bring about a sudden ‘boom’ not expected. (Especially after the lull of the pandemic, I feel there will be an abundance of things happening in the upcoming years... but nothing right now, unfortunately, but at least they’re forced to focus on working on things instead of just releasing to keep up with other companies.)--In other words, they will incorporate new blood with the old, and they will lead Sonic’s IP into a ton of nostalgia and new beginnings that will actually stick and become Sonic’s new brand identity. (This will resonate with fans old and new, but still be a fresh leap into the future for the franchise and fandom.) 2. Sonic’s negative popularity will start to decrease, leading and paving the way for fame and possible adjustments such as more romantic themes to keep up with trends and Japanese Government demands (especially when the population starts to wither and it becomes an emergency situation to start encouraging family ties). Other than sonamy or romantic things, I believe new characters will pop up to ‘test the waters’ and see if we like romance intertwined adventures. 3. Villains will become more sentimental and caring, less comedically, they will be redeemable entities so that the company can market them more. This can also lead into funny romances that help other romances develop and have more meaning. (In other words, they’ll dig into their vault of familiar and new faces, go off the trend of ‘redeeming the villain’ and have more heart-to-heart moments that may inspire more canonical couples... especially if a newer villain were to have a crush that ended up helping two canon characters get together and leave the audience sympathizing more with the villain. This is an actual trend starting where Villains have more character and roles other than just being evil and staying that way till death. I suspect this will be popularized in American and possibly foreign media as time goes on.)

(I actually have a lot of the sonamy shirts lol But here’s an example of the villain actually helping the canon couple have more ‘romantic underlying’ moments together <3)

Those are my current predictions, though I admit that some don’t sound all that hopeful. But hey! All my hopeful and positive predictions have already come true XD Sonamy is being marketed, the new media (Sonic Boom at the time) had subtle but more forward comedic hinting (that I don’t feel went all that well? But eh, that’s just me!), and SEGA continues to try and reface Sonic which his brand doesn’t need. I believe they will still try and rebrand Sonic continually until something sticks for them that they like. Sonamy may go through many iterations, as they are still hesitant with it, and we see that by only marketing their ‘younger selves’ as in Classic Sonamy, and are too ‘shy and uncertain’ if backlash would happen if they advertised a more mature-looking Sonic and Amy marketing. Again, I don’t know if they’ll fully grow out of this, so I predict they won’t.

(I have this one but in black <3 <3 <3)

That’s it for now! My positive last comments would be the more we buy/purchase Sonamy merch, the more we’ll start seeing it in their media and entertainment products. Until then, do your best and write, draw, and review -kindly- to keep those articles of enchantment alive with the sweet sound of--”When will Sonic and Amy finally have a love song AMV moment for us?” lol

[glenmenlow]

How Brand Codes And Narratives Can Deceive Us

Facebook rolled out an updated visual identity for its mobile interface last week. And the desktop version will be launched in the following months. The big question here, however, is why? It’s not as much about what the new visual identity looks like or what cool new functions it offers but what motivates a company with a catastrophic loss of consumer trust to invest their money in the one thing that matters the least at this point: what their logo looks like.

You have to ask, is it truly a makeover, or just a mask to cover up the ugly reality? In my most recent thought piece here on Branding Strategy Insider, Why Global Brands Fall Into The Gap Of Meaning, I identified the four most prevalent gaps of meaning occurring in brands and corporations when it comes to relevance, symbolism, value, trust and accountability. Perhaps the most important one of them is the “gap of trust” as, without trust, there is no reputation, no relevance and no long-term value. This is the gap that occurs when what the company says and what the company does aren’t in alignment, which is what seems to be happening with Facebook right now.

Why Brands Divert Attention By Facelifting In Times Of Crisis

Why do brands attempt to divert our attention by facelifting in times of crisis instead of facing the root cause of their problems and actually fixing the issues that they have?

For one, a cosmetic facelift of the company’s branding is certainly an easier exercise than mending the serious problems with their website algorithm, data and privacy breach, dissemination of fake news and exploitation of the platform to skew U.S. Presidential election results or the Brexit referendum polls by Russian troll farms – all legitimate reasons that together stand behind Facebook’s plummeting sense of users’ trust since 2016.

The second reason is that by investing in new branding Facebook is effectively trying to rewrite and redefine their own trajectory by creating an image that precedes the future company reality they want to create. This wouldn’t be an issue as brands are vehicles to mirror the company’s values and beliefs and assets to help businesses achieve better futures, the problem is that this only broadens the gap of trust that already exists.

Let’s take a look at Facebook’s new identity in more detail and reveal the reasons why it’s so troubling not only as a strategic move, but also in the kind of effect it produces.

Visual Style Of The Interface

Facebook’s new white-dominated makeover move sends a clear and very important message to the global audience that says: “Our service is trustworthy and it’s easy and safe to use.” It skillfully hijacks the symbolic space of “whiteness” which in our Western society serves as a visual metaphor signifying the trinity of “purity, innocence and clarity” in attempt to clear one’s own conscience and portray a lack of guilt. However, it’s very existence says the opposite. Psychologically, it’s a clear move of someone whose conscience isn’t clear and who wants to steer clear of their problems by putting on a show to sway people’s perception. Purity and innocence is an image that Facebook wants to put up front possibly to divert attention from its own privacy issues, which is not innocent, but the very opposite of innocence – it’s morally corrupt.

Redesigned Logo

The pure visual identity creates great synergy with the redesigned logo. The overt playfulness, slight goofiness and overall banality of the new Facebook logo in the style a la Google then sends a message saying: “You don’t have to fear us or feel threatened, we’re just playful and safe.” It shows a clear move towards the space of simplification and entertainment. The new logo with no sharp edges and very round shapes styled in baby blue sends a subliminal psychological signal of pacification. We feel calmed down, non-threatened and at ease, even though the reality of the service itself doesn’t match up the image that Facebook has created and wants you to believe.

How Brands Can Fool Our Brain Circuitry By Deploying Visual Cues & Narratives

The thing with childhood is that it makes us feel safe and cared for. The subconscious program triggering feelings of nostalgia, unconditional love and safety then fires off a powerful (yet misleading and untrue) association which links Facebook to feeling safe. This link creates a faulty meaning which makes it possible to continue to use service we might see as hazardous and even develop a positive emotion associated with using it. This feeds our never-ending need for ontological security in the world that’s intrinsically unstable, deceptive and full of unwanted chaos and drama making us feel blissfully at ease with using a service such as Facebook, a website using practices that are morally questionable, as a safe haven to escape this cruel harsh reality.

From the storytelling standpoint, you can see that this move is very smart. But its genius is evil as it exploits our own subconscious programming which bypasses reason and mines the nature of the human mind for its own benefit. As the inner workings of our subconscious mind are about 10x more powerful than our conscious mind, these psychological shortcuts can work even if we don’t consciously believe them and know better based on past data or our own previous experience.

Behavioral scientists call this powerful instrument the System 1 – it’s the rapid-processing, intuitive, subconscious mind that is based on quick hunches, our instinctive bodily reactions and automated thinking and feeling patterns, rather than having to deliberate in a long and time-consuming manner through logic and reason each time as the System 2 likes us to do. If we were to process all stimuli we get in contact with every single day based just on System 2, we’d never leave the house. We’d probably draw the line at making a cup of coffee, paralyzed by deciding what outfit to wear or what are all the pros and cons of taking a morning shower.

In a similar vein to Elizabeth Holmes, Founder and CEO of the now defunct company Theranos, (who is on trial facing charges for two counts of conspiracy for wire fraud, defrauding investors and deceiving doctors and patients), Facebook uses practices to mask their own reality and make you believe the skillful narrative they’ve crafted about themselves through a new, innocent and non-threatening take on their brand.

This only brings more questions:

Why is it so difficult for corporations to take accountability for their own actions? Why do they mask the presence of conscience by signalling virtues such as purity instead of actually developing real conscience? Why is it so hard for a business to act humane and moral, when its basic premise is to connect people and facilitate human relationships to bring people closer? This is a very noble idea, so what exactly went so terribly wrong? When did our dreams become our biggest nightmares?

A brilliant idea of a social network with an aim to connect us suddenly poses the very reason why our societies are facing a major social disconnect. The global rates of isolation and social anxiety have never been higher in the history of mankind. The lack of trust is becoming magnified as we don’t know whom to trust anymore. Everything and everybody has become suspicious, which drives an unprecedented level of anger and surfaces long-repressed emotions of pain and grief across the Western world…

Focus On The Inner, Not The Outer Work First

In my opinion, Facebook should focus all their conscious attention on doing their inner work first, instead of polishing the outer layer. If it is to continue, Facebook needs to urgently address its own privacy and security issues and find new ways to create relevance for their users and a real sense of value in people’s lives, rather than redesigning their logo to make us feel warm, fuzzy and blind to their transgressions. Because it doesn’t work anymore. People increasingly see through the layers of deception. Consumers are now waking up and are less and less inclined to tolerate missteps, especially if they’re the ones to lose things they care about: privacy, security, safety, stability and connection.

The outer layer of any company – also known as The Brand – only has value, when the inner workings of the business remain intact, uncorrupted, and with integrity. Otherwise, it’s just a charade of public deception that you play with your trusting customers. You might ask why anyone would still use Facebook, when it’s battling a complete erosion of trust and reputation and breach of privacy, and it would be a right question to ask.

The answer isn’t rational, however, it’s strictly irrational yet important, especially when it comes to branding in times of crisis. The level of emotional investment we’ve put into building our lives there and the degree to which Facebook has become a valued part of our lives over the past decade subconsciously trumps and supersedes the allegations the company faces in reality. We will always value our own emotional investment much more than the hard evidence. There are more human behavior biases you might want to look up in this case: they’re the sunk-cost fallacy, IKEA effect and confirmation bias.

Confirmation Bias: We tend to favor and look for information that further confirms the feelings, views and beliefs we already have about the reality as our minds detest the state of cognitive dissonance. This is when we have one or more opposing streams of information challenging our prevailing worldview, and therefore threatening the integrity and stability of our inner worlds. We will do whatever we can to avoid this state, even if it means acting irrationally and doing things that are not always in our own best interest.

Sunk Cost Fallacy: We will always be subconsciously inclined to protect the investments we’ve already made in an attempt to maximize reaping our future benefits by continuing to invest more. This is true even when there is no return. We often continue to invest out of the habit of doing so, out of hope that it will get better or because we want to avoid the feeling of dissonance by adopting new and unfamiliar behaviors. Especially if we feel that such behaviors would stretch our minds beyond our comfort zone, could jeopardize our future rewards or make us miss out completely.

IKEA Effect: We will always value the emotional labor we put into building, creating or investing in something more than the actual thing that we are investing in. This is why we tend to keep the IKEA furniture long past its shelf-life and sometimes even past its own utility because we value the work (both manual and emotional) we had put into assembling it far more than we value the actual piece of furniture itself. We want to keep the positive feelings of sharing, togetherness, dreaming and envisioning our future – it’s the fantasy that we protect. It’s what the furniture means and represents to us than the furniture itself. Remember, it’s all about meaning.

These three biases might very well explain why we continue to use brands like Facebook long after we’d stop trusting them, and vice versa how something we no longer trust can still bear significance and value in our lives only because of how much we experienced together in the past. The relationship between meaning and utility is in itself peculiar and sometimes isn’t very clear even to us who use these brands. This is why it’s important to follow our hunches and understand what motivates companies to put their best face forward when the reality lags a long way behind.

In my next piece, I will look deeper at this mutual relationship of meaning and utility and explain why hiding behind utility is not the best strategy. Especially if it’s brand meaning, reputation and trustworthiness that are taking the major toll in your company.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Dr. Martina Olbertova, founder and chief executive at Meaning.Global.

The Blake Project Can Help: The Strategic Brand Storytelling Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

from WordPress https://glenmenlow.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/how-brand-codes-and-narratives-can-deceive-us/ via IFTTT

[joejstrickl]

How Brand Codes And Narratives Can Deceive Us

Facebook rolled out an updated visual identity for its mobile interface last week. And the desktop version will be launched in the following months. The big question here, however, is why? It’s not as much about what the new visual identity looks like or what cool new functions it offers but what motivates a company with a catastrophic loss of consumer trust to invest their money in the one thing that matters the least at this point: what their logo looks like.

You have to ask, is it truly a makeover, or just a mask to cover up the ugly reality? In my most recent thought piece here on Branding Strategy Insider, Why Global Brands Fall Into The Gap Of Meaning, I identified the four most prevalent gaps of meaning occurring in brands and corporations when it comes to relevance, symbolism, value, trust and accountability. Perhaps the most important one of them is the “gap of trust” as, without trust, there is no reputation, no relevance and no long-term value. This is the gap that occurs when what the company says and what the company does aren’t in alignment, which is what seems to be happening with Facebook right now.

Why Brands Divert Attention By Facelifting In Times Of Crisis

Why do brands attempt to divert our attention by facelifting in times of crisis instead of facing the root cause of their problems and actually fixing the issues that they have?

For one, a cosmetic facelift of the company’s branding is certainly an easier exercise than mending the serious problems with their website algorithm, data and privacy breach, dissemination of fake news and exploitation of the platform to skew U.S. Presidential election results or the Brexit referendum polls by Russian troll farms – all legitimate reasons that together stand behind Facebook’s plummeting sense of users’ trust since 2016.

The second reason is that by investing in new branding Facebook is effectively trying to rewrite and redefine their own trajectory by creating an image that precedes the future company reality they want to create. This wouldn’t be an issue as brands are vehicles to mirror the company’s values and beliefs and assets to help businesses achieve better futures, the problem is that this only broadens the gap of trust that already exists.

Let’s take a look at Facebook’s new identity in more detail and reveal the reasons why it’s so troubling not only as a strategic move, but also in the kind of effect it produces.

Visual Style Of The Interface

Facebook’s new white-dominated makeover move sends a clear and very important message to the global audience that says: “Our service is trustworthy and it’s easy and safe to use.” It skillfully hijacks the symbolic space of “whiteness” which in our Western society serves as a visual metaphor signifying the trinity of “purity, innocence and clarity” in attempt to clear one’s own conscience and portray a lack of guilt. However, it’s very existence says the opposite. Psychologically, it’s a clear move of someone whose conscience isn’t clear and who wants to steer clear of their problems by putting on a show to sway people’s perception. Purity and innocence is an image that Facebook wants to put up front possibly to divert attention from its own privacy issues, which is not innocent, but the very opposite of innocence – it’s morally corrupt.

Redesigned Logo

The pure visual identity creates great synergy with the redesigned logo. The overt playfulness, slight goofiness and overall banality of the new Facebook logo in the style a la Google then sends a message saying: “You don’t have to fear us or feel threatened, we’re just playful and safe.” It shows a clear move towards the space of simplification and entertainment. The new logo with no sharp edges and very round shapes styled in baby blue sends a subliminal psychological signal of pacification. We feel calmed down, non-threatened and at ease, even though the reality of the service itself doesn’t match up the image that Facebook has created and wants you to believe.

How Brands Can Fool Our Brain Circuitry By Deploying Visual Cues & Narratives

The thing with childhood is that it makes us feel safe and cared for. The subconscious program triggering feelings of nostalgia, unconditional love and safety then fires off a powerful (yet misleading and untrue) association which links Facebook to feeling safe. This link creates a faulty meaning which makes it possible to continue to use service we might see as hazardous and even develop a positive emotion associated with using it. This feeds our never-ending need for ontological security in the world that’s intrinsically unstable, deceptive and full of unwanted chaos and drama making us feel blissfully at ease with using a service such as Facebook, a website using practices that are morally questionable, as a safe haven to escape this cruel harsh reality.

From the storytelling standpoint, you can see that this move is very smart. But its genius is evil as it exploits our own subconscious programming which bypasses reason and mines the nature of the human mind for its own benefit. As the inner workings of our subconscious mind are about 10x more powerful than our conscious mind, these psychological shortcuts can work even if we don’t consciously believe them and know better based on past data or our own previous experience.

Behavioral scientists call this powerful instrument the System 1 – it’s the rapid-processing, intuitive, subconscious mind that is based on quick hunches, our instinctive bodily reactions and automated thinking and feeling patterns, rather than having to deliberate in a long and time-consuming manner through logic and reason each time as the System 2 likes us to do. If we were to process all stimuli we get in contact with every single day based just on System 2, we’d never leave the house. We’d probably draw the line at making a cup of coffee, paralyzed by deciding what outfit to wear or what are all the pros and cons of taking a morning shower.

In a similar vein to Elizabeth Holmes, Founder and CEO of the now defunct company Theranos, (who is on trial facing charges for two counts of conspiracy for wire fraud, defrauding investors and deceiving doctors and patients), Facebook uses practices to mask their own reality and make you believe the skillful narrative they’ve crafted about themselves through a new, innocent and non-threatening take on their brand.

This only brings more questions:

Why is it so difficult for corporations to take accountability for their own actions? Why do they mask the presence of conscience by signalling virtues such as purity instead of actually developing real conscience? Why is it so hard for a business to act humane and moral, when its basic premise is to connect people and facilitate human relationships to bring people closer? This is a very noble idea, so what exactly went so terribly wrong? When did our dreams become our biggest nightmares?

A brilliant idea of a social network with an aim to connect us suddenly poses the very reason why our societies are facing a major social disconnect. The global rates of isolation and social anxiety have never been higher in the history of mankind. The lack of trust is becoming magnified as we don’t know whom to trust anymore. Everything and everybody has become suspicious, which drives an unprecedented level of anger and surfaces long-repressed emotions of pain and grief across the Western world…

Focus On The Inner, Not The Outer Work First

In my opinion, Facebook should focus all their conscious attention on doing their inner work first, instead of polishing the outer layer. If it is to continue, Facebook needs to urgently address its own privacy and security issues and find new ways to create relevance for their users and a real sense of value in people’s lives, rather than redesigning their logo to make us feel warm, fuzzy and blind to their transgressions. Because it doesn’t work anymore. People increasingly see through the layers of deception. Consumers are now waking up and are less and less inclined to tolerate missteps, especially if they’re the ones to lose things they care about: privacy, security, safety, stability and connection.

The outer layer of any company – also known as The Brand – only has value, when the inner workings of the business remain intact, uncorrupted, and with integrity. Otherwise, it’s just a charade of public deception that you play with your trusting customers. You might ask why anyone would still use Facebook, when it’s battling a complete erosion of trust and reputation and breach of privacy, and it would be a right question to ask.

The answer isn’t rational, however, it’s strictly irrational yet important, especially when it comes to branding in times of crisis. The level of emotional investment we’ve put into building our lives there and the degree to which Facebook has become a valued part of our lives over the past decade subconsciously trumps and supersedes the allegations the company faces in reality. We will always value our own emotional investment much more than the hard evidence. There are more human behavior biases you might want to look up in this case: they’re the sunk-cost fallacy, IKEA effect and confirmation bias.

Confirmation Bias: We tend to favor and look for information that further confirms the feelings, views and beliefs we already have about the reality as our minds detest the state of cognitive dissonance. This is when we have one or more opposing streams of information challenging our prevailing worldview, and therefore threatening the integrity and stability of our inner worlds. We will do whatever we can to avoid this state, even if it means acting irrationally and doing things that are not always in our own best interest.

Sunk Cost Fallacy: We will always be subconsciously inclined to protect the investments we’ve already made in an attempt to maximize reaping our future benefits by continuing to invest more. This is true even when there is no return. We often continue to invest out of the habit of doing so, out of hope that it will get better or because we want to avoid the feeling of dissonance by adopting new and unfamiliar behaviors. Especially if we feel that such behaviors would stretch our minds beyond our comfort zone, could jeopardize our future rewards or make us miss out completely.

IKEA Effect: We will always value the emotional labor we put into building, creating or investing in something more than the actual thing that we are investing in. This is why we tend to keep the IKEA furniture long past its shelf-life and sometimes even past its own utility because we value the work (both manual and emotional) we had put into assembling it far more than we value the actual piece of furniture itself. We want to keep the positive feelings of sharing, togetherness, dreaming and envisioning our future – it’s the fantasy that we protect. It’s what the furniture means and represents to us than the furniture itself. Remember, it’s all about meaning.

These three biases might very well explain why we continue to use brands like Facebook long after we’d stop trusting them, and vice versa how something we no longer trust can still bear significance and value in our lives only because of how much we experienced together in the past. The relationship between meaning and utility is in itself peculiar and sometimes isn’t very clear even to us who use these brands. This is why it’s important to follow our hunches and understand what motivates companies to put their best face forward when the reality lags a long way behind.

In my next piece, I will look deeper at this mutual relationship of meaning and utility and explain why hiding behind utility is not the best strategy. Especially if it’s brand meaning, reputation and trustworthiness that are taking the major toll in your company.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Dr. Martina Olbertova, founder and chief executive at Meaning.Global.

The Blake Project Can Help: The Strategic Brand Storytelling Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers