Bumper stickers, tattoos, and branding.

First off, I’d like to lodge a complaint with management.  I won’t since I’m here rent free, but I’d like to.  I proposed this be named, “And now for something completely different..” as a shameless rip-off of Monty Python, and because I do believe it will apply.  Alas, it didn’t comply with house rules, and it is Tuesday.

I’ve never cared  for bumper stickers, but never thought to consider why.  Likewise, I never much cared for tattoos or the corporate trend of branding.    

The problem with any of the above is not that there is something wrong or improper about making a public statement by any of these means, but it does something that I think is unintentional.  It limits the announcer.  It by definition reduces the announcer.  I came across this by Chesterton.  It was one of those cases where, as he often does, he makes an offhand comment that is indisputably true in order to make some point or other about a specific issue, which you realize is a universal truth that can be applied anywhere as needed.  In this case I think he was making some rebuttal to some at the time recent claim by his perpetual antagonist, Mr. Bernard Shaw, in regards to free will.  Anyhow, the comment went along the lines of the fact that to choose any action is, by definition, limiting or excluding.  By choosing one act, you are simultaneously choosing not to act in every other way.  As one may imagine, dwelling on this idea can easily lead one to paralysis. 

There is a point here.  By choosing to place on your truck a bumper sticker showing a character with the likeness of Calvin letting loose on a Ford emblem tells the world that, above all else, you dislike an American corporation that makes automobiles a lot less than a different American corporation that makes automobiles.  The full scope of this individual’s concerns in the world, so far as I can tell, is who owns the plant in Mexico that made their truck.  Viva Saltillo!  It also shows that you’ve got no respect for Bill Watterson, which is unforgivable.  

At the other end of the spectrum,  take the “COEXIST” bumper sticker, invariably attached to the bumper of either a Volvo or Prius driven by a middle-aged woman fancying herself morally superior to the commoners she must believe to only care about truck manufacturers and killing foreigners.  Rodney King, that most clairvoyant of philosophers, said the same thing more intelligibly.

I think this also applies to the others, branding and tattoos.  It’s common for corporations to take on “branding” initiatives.  This again is by its nature limiting.  Branding boils down to creating some visual and/or aural stamp (tattoo) that sums up the corporation’s philosophy.  See for example, tattoos and bumper stickers.  I understand it has a monetary payback, if it didn’t, corporations wouldn’t do it.  But I believe the “uneasiness” I have with it is that the idea even exists.  I don’t think this idea of corporate branding could ever exist in an environment where there were REAL, clear differences between companies or products.  Think a local brewery…  The good ones don’t need slogans.  The beer at a typical microbrewery should be unique, and its identity is upheld in what IT IS, not what their sign says.  Likewise, I believe that the individuals slapping these stickers on their cars are unique, and are not so self limiting as their announcements suggest.

I’ve more to say on this, but I’ve been told my allotted time is up, so I’ll leave it here.