Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Pico Iyer: They're more desirable. They're more attractive. Many of us have had the experience of drinking a Coke, or watching MTV, or sampling Starbucks. Very few of us have had the experience of going to Cuba or Iran or Vietnam or Ethiopia. And so brands have a pull on us that governments never will and it's in a nature of brands to try to seduce us. Brands are about reassurance. They’re about giving us some familiarity in a world that's constantly changing. Government’s, of course, about change. And government's woo us for the moment and then change before we know what to do with them. Brands have to keep wooing us and winning our affection daily. At the same time one of the most interesting things at the moment is that perhaps one of the most seductive brands in the world today is America. And that means that whatever happens in America with reality, America the brand remains charismatic to the whole universe. And America has a power that no other nation has partly because it's the power of brand. America is the shorthand of dreams, in people's imaginations, even if not in the real world. And so, countries these days, governments if they want to become more alluring to people, brands themselves turn themselves into commodities and products.

by Pico Iyer

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Rachid ElDaif: I think that things are going together. The governments are partly there because of the brands and the brands are partly there because of the governments, that’s it.

by Rachid ElDaif

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Raymond Federman: If by brand, we mean the corporations that exist all over the world in all the affluent countries, I am not talking just about America, but all the affluent countries, corporations, big businesses are in charge. They control the media, they control the economy, they control the politics; therefore, they control most government, and we must find a way to control these corporations so that they do not exploit us time after time and they are such a corporation, such industries that we cannot do without. It’s inevitable. We cannot do without in anyway, we cannot do pharmaceutical prescriptions, and yet they overcharge us, they abuse us, and we must find a way in the world to control the affluence of brand. So by brand, if by brand, we mean names, products that have a special name, products that are advertised in the newspaper, and sublimate us, then we must control them, and we can only control them if we unite against this corporations.

by Raymond Federman

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Robbie Conal: First, I have a question for [inaudible] when I need them. Certain governments are brands. United States brands the world, but more than that, certain governments beyond representing brands more consciously than they represented their people, but governments are not brands. Nothing is a brand. Brands are made up to advertise commerce. And although commerce is the currency of the world, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with great governance in spite of the way capitalism seems to work around the world or not work. What is up with soccer anyway?

by Robbie Conal

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Rodrigo Baggio: Yes. Brands are more powerful than governments. From the ten biggest brands, from the ten biggest economies in the world, the majority are brands, are companys. And we have to equilibrate this situation. The brands should work more for the construction of a better world, should work more for the creation of a compromise for the transformation of our society. This way we will have the possibility to live in a better world in which people can through a conscient consume buy products from brands which really aggregate value for the public welfare.

by Rodrigo Baggio

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Roland Berger: I think that in free countries and in free elected democracies it is always the governments which set the general conditions. And the economy has to orientate itself to these conditions. In this respect the distribution of power is totally clear. It's the society that determines the values and the economy follows these values and with respect to the general conditions the economy fulfils its task to supply the citizens with services and goods. By doing this the economy can perfectly make a profit and created new jobs. But only in not functioning democracies can it happen that the economy is sometimes more powerful than the governments themselves. Of course it is also our duty to ensure by political means that general conditions exist so that the economy can use and work out its capacities in favor of the citizens because in the end our material well-being heavily depends on the fact if we can find a job, if we can make a life for ourselves and if we are well supplied. It is absolutely clear that the primacy of politics is in force.

by Roland Berger

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Sanar Yurdatapan: I am afraid, yes. As far as I remember, Texaco was able to change the President of the United States in a not proper way and ITT was able to change the whole regime in Chile. Similar things have happened in many many countries, including our neighbor Greece in 1967 and in my country, Turkey, in 1980 which has changed all the constitution. And all the democratic institutions were ruined in Turkey and we still suffer for that. Yes, unfortunately brands are much more powerful than the governments.

by Sanar Yurdatapan

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Santiago Roncagliolo: Very often, yes. Brands are more powerful than governments. They have budgets which many small governments do not have. They are not subject to the same laws because they can chose the national legislation that suits them. They do not have to be popular. Governments have to. But what developed democracies do is precisely to contain private interests while depending on the common good. I think it is not impossible that both things harmonise and work together, supporting one another instead of working against each other. I think this would be a good way for economy to not be harmful for people.

by Santiago Roncagliolo

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Shaobin Yang: Famous brands can surpass ideology indeed. In terms of economy and demand, admiring brands is the basis of enjoyment of contemporaries. People, in no matter what state they are, would not reject brands. Castro likes wearing Addidas, which is inconsistent with his political ideas of resisting the America. From the political point of view, he should object everything of capitalism. So sometimes the power of economy is stronger than that of government, sometimes economy is restricted by politics.

by Shaobin Yang

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Sihem Bensedrine: I think this is unevitable. But it seems that brands are more powerful than some gouvernments. That can be the case for some countries of the southern hemisphere but concerning the northern hemisphere I'm not sure at all. There is rather an international network of complaisance which leads to an international laissez-faire policy. There are the lobbies which defend this status. And in these states of the northern hemisphere the brands seem to be a kind of hostage-takers of the governments. The elected do not try to change the situation but rather to appeal to the lobbies. Thats in fact a kind of vicious circle. More the lobbies are powerful, more they succeed in taking the governments as hostages and these governements rather try to stay in power than to change the situation. But as I said before I do not consider this situation as uninevitable.

by Sihem Bensedrine

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Sima Wali: Governments are much more powerful, but governments are losing power to corporations. If you define the brand as a metaphor, corporations is led by globalization, that’s led by corporations. Corporations do not have the power or restrictions placed upon them and are only responsible to their shareholders. In the West, the governments are losing power to corporations. When governments are elected, they develop laws that support the corporations.

by Sima Wali

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Simon Retallack: For me, brands are represented by the world’s largest corporations and, increasingly, the world’s largest corporations have significant power. Whether they have more power than governments or not depends, I think, on the government of the country in question and the circumstance. I can think of many examples in which big global corporations with the big brands have an influence over governments themselves and over consumers that is unrivaled when it comes to other stakeholders in society; certainly when it comes to the influence of civil society groups, for example, which, of course, in a democratic era is a glaring anomaly if you like. And, of course, the problem with it is that corporations, on the whole, have very narrow interests; they are obliged by the system in which they operate to deliver returns to shareholders on a quarterly basis that requires them to maximize their profits. And that’s fine, but they often do so in a way less constrained by government that does not necessarily promote the best interests or the wider interests and, I should say, the long-term interests of the poorest in the world or the environment. And, of course, that’s a problem. There are examples of the big global corporations having used their influence to block progress on social and environmental policy in different countries; and that’s it, so I have to stop.

by Simon Retallack

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Sohrab Mahdavi: By brands, if we mean corporations that are giving birth to them, brands need governments. They need the state to pool finances and resources so that corporations can benefit from them.

by Sohrab Mahdavi

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Song Kosal: Yes, because it [inaudible] makes more people know their products. For example, Coca-Cola Company has been known all around the world. Their products can cross the political border and are popular among the people.

by Song Kosal

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Stephanie Robinson: I think that a lot has been going on recently regarding culture in America and around the world that speaks to whether or not advertisement and branding; branding of organizations, branding of items, branding of even individuals. There’s been a lot of talk about how you perceive information and how you receive information. I would say that there is a lot of talk about branding. But the talk has become wildly overestimated. The idea and the power of branding has become overestimated. It is, I think, a mistake to think that branding can be more powerful than a sovereign nation, than a government. We still live in a world where governments are powerful. They construct the infrastructures that we live under, they are responsible for the global commerce, they are responsible for the economic markets, they are responsible for the regulations that control our environments and ultimately our lives. While I think that branding and advertisement and everything around that probably has become too power or more powerful than it should be I would argue that it is not more powerful, however, than government. It seems that many people think that other regional and subnational and transorganizations like NGOs and [taracels] or multinational corporations have become very power. I don’t believe, however, that yet the government is obsolete, is in any way passé. So my answer to the question is that governments are still more powerful than branding.

by Stephanie Robinson

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Steve Earle: Governments are brands.

by Steve Earle

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Sulak Sivaraksa: In this day and age, because brands have become more important element, governments go to work behind the scene. But unfortunately a lot of government also having brands advertising their work; advertising now is more prominent than anything else, and unfortunately most of them are not true, most of them are lies.

by Sulak Sivaraksa

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Susan George: I think it depends on which government and which brand and it depends on whether you measure power in money or in other ways with other attributes. Of course on the list of the largest economic entities in the world now, you would find – if you compared national, gross national product to corporate sales, there would be 49 governments and 51 corporations. So, in that sense General Motors or General Electric is larger and therefore more powerful, if you like, than Pakistan for instance or even than Saudi Arabia. Brands are also fragile because if they do something morally wrong, their sales can be immediately affected. So, they are very sensitive to public opinion and this is one way of keeping corporations honest. For instance, an attack against Coca-Cola or the boycott of Outspan oranges was very affective against apartheid. So, brands can vulnerable and this is a good thing for popular protests. But, life isn’t just consuming, life is not just about what we buy, what we – which brands we may or may not be loyal to. And, of course, power can be exerted in many different ways. So, I would never go so far as to say that brands are more powerful than governments, particularly the largest and the most powerful and most aggressive governments, for instance, like the United States. Brands cannot go to war, for example. They can go to war symbolically like Coca-Cola against Pepsi-Cola or things like that, but they cannot – only in exceptional cases, do they ever kill anyone literally. So, the power that is expressed in putting an end to someone’s life this is done by governments, and I would say almost never by brands.

by Susan George

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Swami Pragyapad: Answertext will be available soon.

by Swami Pragyapad