Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: What is the brand basically? A brand is basically people. A brand is created by people. A brand often sells things. Sometimes a brand doesn't sell things but is a brand like the Red Cross. What is a government? Basically, a government is representatives of people. So, basically this question is: are people more powerful than people? I think it would be wrong to think as a brand as something mean, something ugly. A brand is basically people working for something. But as the question is put, the idea is: are brands, the big companies, more powerful than governments? Sometimes they are because they own a lot of money, a lot of energy, and a lot of visions, and they possess a lot of knowledge. So, sometimes yes they are. Even single people in our world are more powerful than governments. On the other hand, people are more powerful than governments as well, due to our more modern or contemporary networks. So, my answer would basically be brands are people, governments are people, and people are not more powerful than people.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: The answer to that question is both yes and no. There are small countries that have a budget, which is smaller than the budget for advertising of big companies. In that case the companies are more powerful but there are also companies that are nothing compared to big countries. For example, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg or Slovakia are nothing compared to Coca-Cola. In comparison to these countries Coca-Cola is a world power. On the other hand brands like Persil or Nivea or Kukident are nothing compared to the US or China or other big countries. So both is possible: that countries are more powerful and that brands are more powerful. Countries should be more powerful but not too powerful.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Coca-Cola is more powerful than any government in the entire world. McDonald’s is in a position to contribute to the decimation of millions of people of the world, but it’s also possible indeed to think about government by branding. A man called Nelson Mandela stands today as one of the world’s most powerful brands in the -- his is a face that gets used to sell wildlife, that gets used to promote indeed certain liberal values, it can also be twisted around to sell reactionary modes of thinking. At the same time you’ve got the face of Che Guevara being used to sell alcoholic beverages and being used to contribute to the distruction of the planet today. The thing is that – and they are the twisting around the idea of government into it being people based, into it being about humanity, into it being about human understanding when the world can't stop looking at the idea of government as being above placing one grouping of human beings over another. Then this question will fall by the wayside and it will all be irrelevant. I just believe that humanity has found a way of commercializing even the most sacred things in life where government is all about desecration. So, are brands more powerful than governments? I think the question is itself rhetorical. When you start having the United States of America as a brand indeed which gets positioned in the world as being about values, as being about being cool.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: In some countries, brands are more powerful than the government; but in some countries, the government is still very much in control and in the case of China, for example, brands are in conflict with government.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: It seemed President Putin is more powerful when it happened last time in Russia. As for in America, I don't know. We can take a look into it....ask Cocacola to have a fight with the Bush government.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Yes, I think that brands are more important than governments because they intend to inform the person in terms of image. What happens is that people are defined by their image, about what they wear, the brand name and if you don’t wear a brand name you are less than, you are not truly human in one sense, you are inferior. So I think that brands in this day of celebrity, the look at me, look at me, the 15 minutes of fame, I’m nothing if I’m not wearing a brand name really informs society. And in a sad and tragic and dangerous way I think. I see young people growing up and being caught up in this image of brands and it’s really sad and it’s really tragic because people are defined by the external as opposed to the internal. So people may not even know who are in government and who the people in their Parliament are but they certainly would have heard of all the really well known and recognized world brands. And they are world brands because people are informed in terms of image. I call it designer label dereliction because it’s about looking terrific on the outside and sometimes being mental on the inside. And I think it’s a very tragic and dangerous path to follow.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: In fact, in my understanding of brands, brand refers to companies and government bodies, the institution which governs the countries. In my understanding, it is not necessary to compare the two because they are really not comparable. They have got different functions in the sense that the companies will focus on the making of profit whereas the government is there to serve the society. And therefore, the government will engage itself with -- in preparing companies to be there so that the government can then function effectively. But then, we realize that sometime, at times, the technology is there to have more influence on how government will run, because they will have resources and in that sense they may sometimes abuse how the governments need to be run. So, in this sense, we have got the issue of the power abuse by brands or companies, which of course may influence negatively how government should run. But, therefore, in my understanding, it is not a matter of power here than true issues needs each other to integrate the functions so that there is good governance for the purpose of developing brands. So, it’s not a matter of power pulling, but it’s a matter of integration of functions. And in this regard, apparently, there should be enough companies, which will be government orientated, government run and monitored, so that the two things may be able to bring good economy to the people and that will alleviate poverty and lead people to prosperity and expand opportunities to the different societies in the world. Globally, companies and governance needs to go together and interject these functions.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: Yes, the question is correct. Brands are more powerful than governments. And that is because we are run on corporate capitalism and which depends on rampant consumerism and the mass media is very active in promoting it. And so we have this situation and I think it is not a very good situation to be in, we have to do quite a lot to overcome it.

by Mae-Wan Ho

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

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