Are Brand Relationships Like Human Relationships?

Nigel HollisMay 7, 20123 min

Are Brand Relationships Like Human Relationships?

I am hearing a lot these days about brand relationships being like human relationships. Maybe it is just me, but I don’t feel that my relationship with brands is the same as the one I have with my fellow humans. I might feel genuine affection for one or two brands, but most are simply familiar solutions to a specific need. Here are some of my thoughts on the topic but I would love to hear yours.

Initially, I thought my concern about anthropomorphizing brands was to do with the intermittent nature of our relationship with many brands. In reality, there are few brands that we think about or interact with on a regular basis, the mobile phone being the most frequent for many of us. Most of the time brands are out of sight and out of (conscious) mind. But then a human relationship can range from fleeting to enduring. And once a relationship is established, we often seem to be able to pick it up again where it left off, even if years have intervened.

Then I read this in the Wikipedia entry on Interpersonal Relationships:

Interpersonal relationships usually involve some level of interdependence. People in a relationship tend to influence each other, share their thoughts and feelings, and engage in activities together.

Now this seems to address my concerns more closely. To what degree are we interdependent on the brands we use? Are there any brands that you use for which there really is no acceptable substitute? And just how dependent is that brand on you? Would Apple really miss you if you decided another mobile phone better met your needs or desires than the iPhone?

If brand relationships are like human relationships then they are pretty one-sided. A brand owner might love to have an intimate, one-to-one relationship with every one of their brand users, but that is just not practical right now. Kraft’s Likeapella tribute to the 4,632 fans who liked a post on the brand’s fan page on April 24th is a nice idea, but hardly sustainable on a daily basis. And many people would not want that degree of intimacy. Ultimately, we enlist all brands to solve problems for us, but I suspect we are willing to engage with and share thoughts with very few.

I think the essential thing that is worrying me about the anthropomorphizing of brand relationships, is that a brand is not going to do something nice for you just because it likes you. There is no real emotional interdependence. The brand owner wants you to pay to use their brand. And, as of today, they don’t really know who you are as an individual (even if that day is getting closer). So if we must think of brands in human terms, maybe we should think of them in terms of professions: plumber or paramedic, professor or painter, or any one of the myriad services that we conduct for each other.

I know that at least one of my colleagues would suggest that “humanizing” brands gives marketers a useful model for crafting a more meaningful brand, and for communicating what they are trying to do within their own company. That may be true. But I do think that we are deluding ourselves if we think the relationships between people and brands, really is the same as that between people. If it is a relationship, then in most cases it is a very weak and one-sided one.

But what do you think? Do we have relationships with brands? And are they the same as the ones we have with our fellow humans? Please share your thoughts.

The Blake Project Can Help: The Brand Positioning Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Nigel Hollis

10 comments

  • Mark Earls

    May 8, 2012 at 8:04 am

    Completely agree with your thrust here

    For what it’s worth have written about this a number of times over the last decade

    http://amzn.to/Jb3x9l
    http://amzn.to/AYxFQ
    http://amzn.to/CHsBO

    Bottom line is this: a. what kind of relationship could be so one-sided and selfish (brands only want loyalty, obedience and money)? b. given the primary importance of social influence in shaping behaviour, the relationship that really matters is the one between people and people (not that between companies and people).

    Good stuff!

  • A Facebook User

    May 8, 2012 at 8:42 am

    I see your point, but I think you are defining human relationship far too narrowly.

    Many or most human relationships are impersonal and instrumental. This is not a bad thing. It would be exhausting to try to acknowledge every single person we encountered as an individual. And many human relationships are asymmetrical, weak and one-sided. One party wants more intimacy, the other much less (often in proportion to how much the other strives for more intimacy). And the world is full of awkward people who cross ethical lines, trying to be too businesslike and transactional in friendship or marriage, or who inappropriately exploit friendship for business (think MLM). Finally, some people are narcissistic and constantly overestimate their own importance. They have no idea how little entitlement they have to occupy the center point of everyone else’s universe.

    If you include all these awkward, painful, failed, undesirable and ridiculous relationships in the realm of human relationships, it seems clear that brand relationships are very much a species of human relationship, judged by exactly the same standards. That’s the key: we judge brand relationships just like we judge human relationships. We want a brand to read us and to respond in a socially intelligent way, choosing the right balance of intimacy and impersonality, of self-interest and liberality, of humor and seriousness, inconspicuousness and flair, etc. When we pick the wrong balance, in any direction, it doesn’t leave the realm of the human, it just becomes a worse human relationship.

  • Ursula Saqui

    May 8, 2012 at 10:41 am

    My take: We have relationships with other people that occur within the context of brands. The brand is just the medium; it can never be the substitute for authentic human relationships. However, if the brand is not at all reflective of human relationships, then it will be challenging for people to connect and engage with it.

  • Robert Gibralter

    May 8, 2012 at 11:31 am

    It is helpful to think of relationships with brands – for positioning, branding, communications, … the whole marketing mix. Brands have been characterized many way, as you know – a promise, a community of users, above and below the line, internal and external, … In almost all cases, there is some sort of exchange – expectations and experiences. And, with these exchanges there are emotional interdependencies.

    I like to think of brands like people, in approaching, engaging, and exchanging (money, time, emotions, ….) over time – think attributes, benefits, values, personality – the gradual, evolving exchanges and experiences that lead to deeper relationships. Sure, a toothpaste brand is different from a hospital brand. But, in all cases, there are people involved with creating and sustaining brands. So, while it may not be a one to one relationship, humanizing brands really can be helpful.

    Ok, any relationship (e.g., thinking of brands as people) can be distorted beyond meaning. However, thinking of brands in emotional, spiritual, and intangible terms – this tends to be what distinguishes one brand from another in a more lasting and meaningful way.

  • CloudNineMedia

    May 8, 2012 at 11:37 am

    I do think that you can have relationships with brands, but never would I compare them to the ones we have with our fellow humans. I would also argue, that the relationship with the actual products we purchased, e.g. a car or laptop is closer than the relationship to the brand the products belong to. My macbook air is much closer and more important to me than apple, but my relationship to apple has led to the purchase. Another interesting question would be if our ability to forgive brands is equal to, greater than or less than our ability to forgive our personal contacts.

  • Thomson Dawson

    May 8, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    In my latest Branding Strategy Insider post, I suggested:

    “Brands aren’t human, they have no consciousness, brands are not things, nor do they do anything. Brands are nothing more than a shared idea of value– mirrors of our interactions and transactions with each other.”

    I think it’s a useful exercise to “think” of brands in human terms of relationships and reputation… brands have to be excellent at building relationships (engagement) and reputation (trust)…

    I suppose one could argue that it’s a stretch for people to have “people-like” relationships with brands they trust… but at the end of the day…if you trust a brand or a person, you probably have a relationship of some sort.

  • Nigel

    May 8, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Interesting comments.

    Mark, thanks for the endorsement. Nice to know you agree with the thrust of the argument.

    Robert, just to clarify, I do think it is useful to think of brand relationships in the same way as human ones if only as a guide to what is acceptable behavior. But I suspect far too many marketers delude themselves that the relationship is reciprocal.

  • CarolAnnB

    May 11, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Your piece raises some insightful questions in regard to having “personal” relationships with brands. I tend to think that there is an opportunity for major brands to spark some form of idolatry for their products and/or services if proven to be a valuable source of quality customer service.

    Take for example NFL teams, similar to NBA teams (among other fan-based “franchises”), consumers flock to relative products based on the franchise and not at all, in the most part, by individual team members. Nor do consumers have a personal stake or relationship with any of these teams. It is the “namesake” and an evolving fanship and love that keeps them coming back for more.

    When branded companies offer products and services that become as comfortable and tasty as apple pie, individuals are empowered to “grow up” with the brand, trust the brand, and place an attached value to the brand, the relationship does become more personalized in the sense that brands have the power to attract lifetime fans – just like major leage teams. Just two cents worth…

    CarolAnn Bailey-Lloyd

  • Lisa Jordan

    May 15, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Everything in perspective. Brand recognition is a process to sell a product. Big brands work on conscious and unconscious levels. Branding within the service sector is more to do with the reputation you wish to ‘put out there.’

    I love the Wikipedia quote. Where brand fits into relationship is way at the beginning and hovering in the background over time. In work relationships, it’s equivalent to how you dress for the networking event or the job interview. Does how you put your ‘best’ self forward to draw someone else into a relationship match what they get to know when they become better acquainted with you or your business? Or is there a conflict that will break it off at some point down the line?

    If the brand is a good match, it informs potential clients and reconfirms current clients. If it does not match, the relationship ends.

  • Charmaine

    May 17, 2012 at 4:56 am

    Interesting discussion.

    Our view of this issue is that the comparison of brand relationships and human relationships should simply be treated as metaphorical. From this angle, the two relationships are not treated as identical to one another but similar in certain aspects. The brand relationship as human relationship metaphor illustrates the interaction between the consumer and the brand, the attachment that the consumer feels towards the brand and the emotional benefits derived from the relationship.

    Indeed, this relationship is extremely one-sided. However, the brand-consumer relationship can be viewed as an entirely differently type of relationship that is relevant in the context of brands only, and therefore not necessarily a weak version of an interpersonal human relationship. Perhaps the likening of consumer-brand relationships with human relationships has been stretched too far.

    It would be helpful to define in detail the brand-consumer relationship to better understand the fundamental differences that exist. Ideas?

Comments are closed.

Connect With Us