Brand Utility vs Branded Utility
Bram De Maesschalck left an interesting comment the other day when we were discussing Branded Utility:
I think it could be usefull to consider ‘brand utility’ as something different than ‘branded utility’. ‘Brand utility’ consists of giving your cultural relevancy a place to call home. It’s providing the consumer with a cause (just like ‘in the good old days’) , it’s translating your intangible propositions into the result of something more basic and usefull for society, it’s making a difference instead of just meaning something. It makes meaning the result of something else than our search for meaning. Susanne Piët wrote about consumers living in the penthouse of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Brand utility is providing windows to those penthouses, so the consumer gets a room with a view instead of just living in a luxury box, walking circles and not getting out. ‘Branded utility’ on the other hand is just advertising through a medium the individual can use to make it less interrupting. (Red) ‘brand utility’ meets P&G Charmin public toilets ‘branded utility’ in the Ikea public housing project ‘brand(ed) utility’, where the idea really gets its swing.