Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Well, it depends on the brand, it depends on the government, for starters. If you are a first world government, you will have more power than if you are a government that is ruling a country that is considered poor and developing. Brands, in the end, are the pretty face behind the corporations. So maybe the question should be, are corporations more powerful than governments? -- And, in some ways, corporations are more powerful than governments. They are less accountable than governments. They are treated as individuals. And they are not individuals. -- When there is no accountability, there is no check on your power.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: It depends on which you define as a brand and what you define as a Government. I mean a brand by itself is a compose [meaning: a composition?] of consumers and producers and the Government is composed of the people in power, but also of the people who give them power. I think brands and Governments are of the same power. It just depends on how much power the people give them.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: For various decades multinational companies have been forming a power-network which is above the governments, it´s like a separate nation. The situation has not changed and in my opinion the brands of the products are currently more powerful than governments. The multinational companies are the ones that control the world and the result is: brands are more powerful than governments.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: It is true that brands are more constitutional than government. Brands such as Coca-Cola, clothing Celine and Toyota have power through their business. I think the material brands are certainly necessary and helping government; however, I also think it is better to spread a brand of sprit, i.e. brand with hope of world and humankinds' peace, all over the world. The entire brand in this world refers to the country's power, because the capital is invested in the business. Therefore, as government thinks, the power of brand does exist. I believe that if people across the world find out about the brand of heart or spirit, the mind of human race's peace and "Make Peace" will be touched by everyone in this world. I think material brand is certainly necessary and it is helping government; however I also believe that a spread of spritual brand, in other word a brand with a hope of world peace or humankinds peace, through the world will be good. Therefore all the brands have the power of contry. And then there will be a cross of the justice. I think that there are power of brand and justice as government is thinking. I am always thinking that it would be wonderful if people from all of the world would know the brand of heart or language. If people in this world know the things such as brand for heart, brand for spirit, hope for hemankinds' peace, and "make peace", then soon or later the brand would rresounded all over the world with the hope of peace of human race.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: My answer is government is more powerful than the brand, but depend, some times, some cases because brands goes so widely, but still government is the most powerful one. But, lot of cases government fail and the brands comes out, but still I think the government should be the more powerful one.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: So, the question is what is a brand? Let’s imagine we have a shoe. The first question, or a thought that comes to mind is what kind of a shoe that will be willing to pay for money for? Because, although, you’re one person making that decision about which shoe to buy or not. There’re lots of few making that decision. And if their decision is based on the quality of shoe, then brands are not more powerful than the governments. But if on the other hand, the decision is made by the name of the company, then the brands are more powerful than the shoe themselves. And collectively, they are influencing the behavior of a large of number of people, perhaps across the whole planet, as it happens today. So, in that sense which is what the ladies are going on, brands are more powerful than the product itself. So then the questions then becomes, is it more powerful than the government? And then we have to ask the question what is the government itself? And what’s the difference between government and brand and the product itself? In the heart of the problem lies, in looking at what is the material itself, rather than the abstraction. So, if we look at government as an abstraction versus you look at individual decisions made by governments, it’s a different story. And I think the same thing applies with brands too, if look at the product and say, “I want this product or I don’t want this product”, in dependent of who has made it or rather slightly dependent on who has made it because you are somewhat aware of the past history, that is fine. In which case, neither the brand nor the government will have arbitrary power. So the real issue is not whether the brand is more powerful than the government or vise versa, or which way should it be. The real issue is, power should not be focused based on abstractions.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Yes, I'm afraid so. Yes, I fear so. A brand is after all a [corporatization], that is to say a corporate form that seeks to round up and own intellectual property and a property and a set of ideas that [coalize] around the brand. The owners of brands spend vast quantities of money to put their brand forward into the world. And in that way, brands have surpassed the ability of many governments to control them and their operations. A brand, take for example a brand of a pharmaceutical that is necessary to alleviate some problem of disease in some part of the world. The owner of the brand, that is to say the intellectual property that surrounds it, jealousy guards that accumulation of knowledge and prevents it from being released into the world, except upon payment of some oftentimes confiscatory sum of money. I think that we must as consumers exercise our right as consumers to minimize the effect of brands, but also as thinkers about the future, recognize that the world of ideas, often represented in brands and what is behind them, is the common treasury of all. A major theme of this conference is the way that we can take ideas and innovation and make them available to all people on a free and a fair basis. You might do some research to follow this up with the Center for the Public Domain at Duke Law School and the work of Professor James Boyle under the title “The New Enclosure Movement”.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: Of course business is more powerful than governments. After all, business creates money, and money can buy anything. As we know, humanity develops from the physical pleasures to money, honor, power and knowledge. And thus, money can buy all the others pleasures of humanity. For this reason, obviously in the end business encompasses all power, and precisely it determines what governments do. Besides this, governments need business and they address it. They need to establish good connections with business, because it helps them achieve power and honor. Nothing is greater for the government than power, and in our time power (which relies on means of mass media and social opinion) can be bought only by someone who has money. In the end, business encompasses everything. It is only in our days, at the end of humanity’s development, that business is also beginning to come down and to demonstrate that it is finite and does not give man satisfaction in the end. This is why universal despair is increasing in humanity. Nevertheless, precisely business now determines, and until the end of days will determine politics and the entire activity of governments.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: They are not more powerful than governments. They certainly are more well known than government leaders, for example. I think, particularly among the young children, there is a tendency by advertisers to spend over 500 billion dollars a years to take advantage of the impressionable early ages to establish a consumer pattern among children, that they hope will stay with them as consumers their whole life. In that sense, they are more powerful in indoctrination sense. I think, Julia Shore, professor at Boston University has written eloquently about this adverse impact upon our youth. I, personally, am a bicycling vegetarian. If my buying habits were taken up by most other people within the United States, there probably wouldn’t be many Fortune 500 companies of the kind there are right now. And I think part of the issue for our culture is to be more critically self aware of what brands are trying to establish in our minds when we purchase things. Brands are vulnerable to social criticism, and I think that’s been a positive insight of the last decade, as a number of nonprofit groups have actually mounted campaigns to awaken citizens that their purchasing power can enhance the brand or deflate a brand’s value if that company is not a social, environmental leader. We have seen this with children at sweat shops, producing sports shoes and clothes, or stores that sell paper products based on old growth forests. So, to the degree that we live now in a globally connected world, where the collapse of computer costs now enables getting information about the good and the bad of brands, we can follow this more rapidly.

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: It is difficult to say it like that. It's certain that international companies are becoming more and more powerful. But they are obliged to consider the presence of the states, and most of them do so, because every society needs the state. Governments change, but the state remains. And till now the state [is for its] presence, because it is necessary, and governments may of course differ one from another. It depends on political majorities. So, the relation varies as the governments change, that is, a majority takes over power and takes over political decisions and has got a strategy towards big companies and economics that may vary in course of time. So, we can not just put in equation in an abrupt manner saying that big international companies are more powerful than governments. And I still insist on the difference between state and government. States stay, goverments change, especially in democratic systems functioning normally. Of course in less developed countries, first of all there aren't enough big companies that can impose their power, but there has been an increase of corruptions concerning the management of the economy with less means than in highly developed countries. And so there is a different relation which is being established in underdeveloped and developing nations, and so it is something that is in expansion, and the states can be even more present.

by Mohammed Arkoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Mohau Pheko: I think that when we look at the world today, it is quite obvious that corporate brands in particular becoming much more powerful than governments in the sense that they able to influence our thinking, they able to influence the way that we do things in the world today. And it has become quite clear that in many instances, they are much more influential than our governments have become. The budgets that they control in many instances are bigger than the budgets of entire countries in the south, in fact, entire groups of countries in the south. So, one when looking at this phenomenon of money against a brand for example, and the manner in which it is able to influence culture, it is able to influence the way people think whether it's through the mass media, whether it's through the clothes or whether it's through the food we eat, whether it's the way we dress and as well as the sort of the discourses that develop, the discourses that depoliticize people's thinking, depoliticize the manner in which people actively hold governments accountable. Brands by their nature because they are created by corporate are accountable to absolutely nobody. And because of the tremendous amount of money that goes into advertising to spread the brand and to reinvent them so that they adapt and fit into various cultures and countries is amazing. And governments in and of themselves are unable to influence their own people in this manner. And in the same way that new ideas that actually solve the world's problems are not being well branded perhaps. It's perhaps a counter that we need to build upon and perhaps using the way that ideas are branded in this manner.

by Mohau Pheko

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Monira Rahman: Well, it depends on how the government is obviously for the people and therefore it should be wanting brands for people who are actually serving for people. And should be the brands this promoting the equality, peace, opportunity for everyone and sharing distribution of the resources equally among the people around the world. And if the governments or the brands are not promoting this humanity, equality and peace, then I think nothing is powerful. I think the people who has the power to change the world and when the governments are actually promoting this people's voice and choices and…

by Monira Rahman

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Nadja Halilbegovich: Well, I think if we define brands as logos and labels that we see in everyday life, that we see through ads on television, billboards, radio, television, newspaper, even on the clothes we wear, then they’re extremely powerful because we see them everyday and they stimulate our minds, our hearts, they stimulate our thought process and often they overwhelm us. I myself find that so many signals and signs and flashing billboards and the flashing screens can often very much influence what I'm thinking and what I'm feeling at the time. I think they’re very powerful because obviously they influence us not only in the mind and in the heart but also monetarily. Oftentimes we’re, you know, all of a sudden this desire and surge of wanting arises in us. However, if I think of governments, I think of extreme power and huge power because governments are those that bring us and take our countries to war, that defend our borders, defend our countries, they’re the ones who spend the budget for different things, fund our schools, fund our health services. So I would say that still governments are more powerful but definitely both brands, logos, labels, are powerful as well.

by Nadja Halilbegovich

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Neela Marikkar: On the face of it, brands influence every aspect of our lives. It is something that drives our aspirations. Our lifestyle – they are surrounded by brands. We are influenced by brands. But I think that the reality is that governments decide what we can and can’t do, governments finally have the say on what citizens can do and can’t do. So, I think although brands influence us, although we are surrounded by it, and we live it, we -- it meets our needs and aspirations, the reality is that governments are more powerful. Because, tomorrow, they can prevent brands from operating in markets, they can bring in laws and legislations which can affect brands, and our brand choices. So, in my personal view, I think brands, although they have a great influence on us, the reality is that governments are more powerful.

by Neela Marikkar

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Oliviero Toscani: Well, we do know that behind government there are brands. And brands decide the economy in today’s world that is based on economy is leaded by brands. We live in a world where – we don’t live in a world anymore divided by country America, French, Germany, Italians, Spaniards, no. We live in a world where we belong to Disney World, Nike world, Armani world, Microsoft world, Airbus S.O., and so we do realize that that’s how it is. We are divided by brands. Brands are burning logo in our mind that we can’t take away anymore. Brands are more powerful than governments. Actually I’ve been a collaborationist to one of those brands, that’s why I say what I say.

by Oliviero Toscani

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Oscar Olivera: Yes, brands are more powerful than governments, because brands actually correspond to international business companies, the ones that have decided to govern the world. And the governments simply have transformed into the protectors of those brands, at the same time supervising the commercial operations of these international business companies and so our governments have become their public relaters and their spokesmen. Fortunately, I think that the governments powered by their citizens are retrieving the spaces that these brands and these international business companies have captured on our territories, and surely it will be the nations themselves which will push their own citizens, so that they can be more powerful than their own governments.

by Oscar Olivera

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Paul Knight: This is an interesting question. I think the reality in this world today brands are in so many ways more powerful than governments. However, the big thing is that we place governments here and we put business here. We’re controlled by the capitalist market which says that they need to expand these markets. Governments rely on them for economic prosperity and economic growth of the country. So the reality is that the brand or the corporation has more power to be able to drive their growth and the growth of the wider economy. The reality is we won’t get change in this unless we as a people decide that we don’t want the corporations to have this power. We need to, as a society and as a collective, come together to drive social change and the views of everybody to accept the social interaction and the good for all rather than the development of a few and individual prosperity that will create the benefits in this world. So in that respect the corporations or the brands do have the power of this stage. We really need to be focusing on this. It’s something that’s not going to change. And we hope that we can get this right by really discussing the issues and thinking about the opportunities looking forward for us as human beings.

by Paul Knight

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Pauline Tangiora: When somebody sees what is being advertised, the mind observes. And when the mind observes what is being advertised that becomes the consumers’ needs. It’s not necessarily that the government is the powerful one at that stage; it is the multinational company, the transnational company that has observed that when one person sees a brand it’s a natural desire to wish to have.

by Pauline Tangiora

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