I often get asked the question, “Why the violent angle of your thesis?” The idea for the use of violence in getting my point across came to me early in the process. I’ve long found the loyalty and near fanaticism that certain companies are able to inspire in their customers a source of fascination. In many cases I see this brand loyalty becoming almost religiously fundamentalist in nature. We believe in the brands we love, we have faith in these brands, and to a certain extent define ourselves by our association with them.

Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola, and Google are just a few corporations that wield such power and have an incredible following. Loyalists would rather die than use a PC, be seen in a pair of Reebok, drink Pepsi or use Yahoo. These brands become so much apart of us that their presence in our lives and the daily dialog they have with us is the norm. It all seems innocent enough, but is it?

If certain brands can become so ingrained in our way of life, inspire such fanaticism and direct our desires so effectively, could that power be used to hurt us or those around us? What if the brand we loved slowly starting communicating something to us that wasn’t so innocent. What if our amiable brand relationship became abusive over time and are we already in abusive relationships with our brands? Is our relationship with a brand in some way abusive to others?

In presenting such an extreme situation as a brand that is able to incite violence in its followers – the result of which would have such a negative effect on there lives – I hope to provoke thought about our relationships with the brands that have become apart of us. How are brand relationships violent or abusive to us directly and to others we share the world with? At what point does a company go too far with their message? And where do we draw the line in regards to what is communicated and sold to us by companies?

Comments RSS
Leave a Comment
Trackback from your own site.