Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Homero Aridjis: I think that brands are more powerful than governments. Brands are not only better known than the presidents of the states, they are the icons of globalization and modern era.

by Homero Aridjis

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Irina Yasina: Business should be stronger than government if we work in a democratic country in terms of business as producing structure or power, and the government as regulating power. With t his in mind industry is stronger, it produces. The government is stronger in the sense that it regulates. If both of them do their corresponding concerns then they are both strong. But we just don’t know what is better, and we cannot choose as it seems. Yet we should understand that if either business or politicts starts to do something it is not competent for, it weakens not one, but both of them. At least I have no examples of business interfering in politics. But if the government starts to interfere in business then it is very harmful and we see it happens Russia all the time. I just can say we cannot compare brnads and government because these are different powers. These are people and institutions that should exercise their own functions. If we are going to measure them and talk about who is stronger and who is weaker then it means that we are on the wrong way. We should change it. Let us try to do this. Business has to produce and it is stronger in this field while the government has to regulate and it is stronger in it. Thank you.

by Irina Yasina

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: I don’t think brands are more powerful than governments because of the fact that brands cannot fight wars and, but then again brands can’t fight wars. They can sponsor governments; they can bribe government officials; and in that way they can fight wars. So not unless it is easy to relate the brand to that fact then I don’t think that brands are more powerful than governments. And then again when I think about it, maybe governments are brands in itself. Religions are brands for themselves, and the religions is a base for many governments in the world, so maybe governments and brands are the same when I think about it.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: So, brands aren't more powerful than governments because governments have armies. But governments are brands. The thing is is that a brand has to respond because there's a bottom line, because you can destroy it easily by defaming it, by exposing it, where governments aren't so easily toppled as brands.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

John Gage: Brands are ideas. Governments are ideas. Ideas vie in the global marketplace for acceptance. If a brand usually representing a product seizes people’s imagination, those that created the brand are successful. But, they are only successful insofar as the brand represents an integrity, a truth, a simple graspable way of summarizing what that product is about. The same for governments, the same for politicians, who become brands. The question, can brands be more powerful than governments really should be, can ideas of justice, ideas of equality, ideas of community be more powerful than any single governmental idea. This is the fundamental issue that confronts all of us, as we try to summarize in one word, one brand, one symbol, one easily graspable identifier, but something neat. And every government must realize their integrity, their reputation, their ability stand for something depends upon the integrity of their actions, which at the end, human action is all that can make up the meaning of an idea of a government, of a brand.

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: There are some brands that are more powerful than governments. Ah, the brands of religion for example, that claim the singular explanation of the great mystery that brings us here, why we're born, why we die. Some of those brands are extremely powerful. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. These are brands in a way that claim a franchise on truth and on mystery. Then there are brands that are really very very superficial, they are doorways to products and services. Those brands are certainly not as powerful as governments. They may have cultural influence but it's only on the surface. Governments create the economic entities that are able to own those brands. But the brands that come from the aspirations of people out of their primal questions, and that brand answers to those primal questions, they are more powerful than governments, because they create a stimulus within people for which people are willing to die. The brand of the nation, the nation-state, is a kind of brand. The United States, Italy, Germany, these are brands that divide the human family. And people are willing to sacrifice their children, sacrifice their wealth, sacrifice their lives, and limbs, and everything, for those brands. So, to say are brands more powerful than governments, governments to some extent are themselves, brands. Religions are brands. To only talk about the superficiality of consumer culture as branding really misses the dynamic of social identification. So, the question, are brands more powerful than governments? Some brands are, and some brands are governments.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: I am the most unpretentious person and I don't know anything. I don't know what a brand is, nor what power is, nor what a government is. That's why this question is too complex for me to answer. Let government be government, let power be power, let a brand be a brand. The things should arrange in a way they want to. Everything is a game, everything is connected and that is just fine. We should not interfere with the game.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: I guess it depends on the brands and the governments. But, there are governments that are more powerful. But, I guess the question is, is it worse that a brand being powerful than a government? Maybe the brand is the future. We just have to come out with better brands, like government is a brand, the United States is a brand, America is definitely a brand, or maybe we need to transcend national brands and start thinking kind of in conceptual brands like hope or love. And so, I see that it's not -- it's going to be that way; we are going to end up letting go of national boundaries and embrace more transcended ideas like brands. Now, at the same time it is that it could be surely seen on the negative. But, I am looking on the positive here.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: I think that some brands have achieved great power to a high degree, but I don’t believe that the point has been reached, where those brands have become more powerful than the governments. Nevertheless the power of those brands and its impact, not only on global economy but on the design of political and economic agendas, is noticeable. But honestly I don’t believe that a level has been reached, where the brands have become more powerful than the governments. In any case, it’s a necessity for the people, for society to control and to keep an eye on them, so that those brands know that they have puplic responsability and know their limits. And also in the case that their power is certain, they should understand that they could use this enormous power to carry out campaigns and help the entire society. This is what I think about this question.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 10:00:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, on the home security front, military front and the public service fronts, governments are powerful. But, when it comes on market front and economy front, unfortunately, brands are becoming more and more powerful. They are the one who influence the people sitting in the governments, they influence the governments as whole. And, finally, they become much more influential. Take the case of global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, the governments have been unwilling to sign because of tremendous influence and pressure from the aeroplane companies like Boeing and others, from the car companies, from the petroleum companies. One can see the situation in Myanmar, Burma where the Shell and big companies have been able to influence the internal policies as well, as well as the market policies which has resulted in perpetuation of slavery and whole slaver in that country. So, there are many examples where the brands are influencing the governments on the marketing front. Especially, the process of globalization and privatization is very much driven by the brands, not by the governments. Similarly, we can see the tobacco companies or the soft drink companies are the one who are influencing the policies in many countries.

by Kailash Satyarthi

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