It feels fadish and sorta silly.

However, I was slightly impressed by the quiz. I'm wondering if it could be used in schools to help kidz separate reality from hype in their favorite brands. Go ahead, take the quiz and enter in your favorite restaurant, store, car, etc.

I think the effort Roberts has taken is silly, and you're completely right that it is mostly a circus act for the CEO as he roams the globe giving talks and presentations. He's taken a particular topic within brand strategy and attempted to brand it as his own flavour...

I think that it is too much of a gimmick though, and the unfortunate use of Love in the whole premise continues to make the definition of brand elusive and abscured to many. Because brand, like love is a very personal thing and is difficult to articulate for everyone.

Though this has been around for quite some time, I think we're going to see a bunch of new activity in people trying to bring out some new flavours to the topic of brand, including trying to articulate some standardization for the assets of a brand. But there certainly will still be a lot of noise around the 'emotions of brand'.

I did put Speak Up through the quiz - but got distracted before I could finish.

It's nothing more than branding in some new fancy clothes. Really, achieving "lovemark" status is the true goal of branding, isn't it? To move your product/service beyond being a commodity to something that consumers actively desire and want in their lives. The fact that most of the lovemark examples — Absolute, iPod — are great brands proves this point.

I would love to discover what comes after branding. Branding, when done right, has great potential and can achieve spectacular results — culturally and commercially. Unfortunately, most companies simply sprinkle the word "brand" into their press releases and think that they've conquered the brand challenge. I like Kevin Robert's line that the cycle of product to trademark to brand is over. What's next? Maybe the next step is really just going from branding to branding well.

Cynical me says that "Lovemarks" is simply Saatchi trying to differentiate its own brand from the competition.

I would love to discover what comes after branding.

Well, you have to remember that branding is different from brand. Branding is sort of what we do as graphic designers, by marking products, services or packaging to be different from others. Sometimes branding is intrinsic within the product itself, much like an Apple Powerbook or car. Brand is what sits in our heads and is ranked or positioned comparatively to others.

So yes - having a brand in our heads that we love is an ideal situation for a business to have... but really it is going to be limited to consumer brands as I imagine few people will end up loving GE Financial, SAP or B2B stuff like that.

I think that more and more consumer brands will realise that brands are living things and can be changed and evolved with customer experiences, and so we might see more activity in that area. While branding needs to be flawless, the brand needs to be more relevant to the individual than just the group. Additionally, we'll see more brands clubbing together, to build more holistic-lifestyle groups of brands. This isn't new, but is often left to companies that take the risk or are specialty brands. This might mean that branding as we know it will have to change or evolve to allow this to happen. My 2c.

What I found hilarious was part of their main description of a lovemark: Lovemark is the answer to everything that’s wrong with marketing and advertising. I find it the opposite, this Lovemark deal is exactly what is wrong with marketing, advertising and branding. I don't find it that offensive or that wrong really. It's just opportunistic, redundant and superficial.

And it sounds like lovehandles.

I think the all-or-nothing approach is a bit farfetched. Even for Apple, which I love unconditionally, can do things that I don't necessarily agree with. Two words: Font and Book. So according to Saatchi's quiz, Apple doesn't meet their definition of a Lovemark for me.

It all just smacks of more trademarkable agency processes that they can market. At least they didn't call it Lovebrand.

Armin, I agree with you.

If Saatchi & Saatchi complains that the answer to everything that’s wrong with marketing and advertising is their Lovemark then does that mean that Saatchi & Saatchi—by being a advertising agency—has something to apologize for?

Is Saatchi & Saatchi part of the "problem" as well as part of the solution? And, what is the problem of advertising? Has the advertising industry committed a great sin that Lovemark alone can atone for? I doubt it.

This is a real lovemark. Anything else is horsepuckey.

The ultimate brand transcends the love/hate duality. You buy it because you always have, always will.

The Mark of the Drug.

Armin is right on, obnoxiously hypocritical.

Look for my traveling circus in your town soon, pontificating on the greatness of my new concept called "hatemarks".

Some of my personal "hatemarks" include bic ball point pens, Von Dutch trucker hats, and those Peeps marshmallow easter candies.

Great - another thing for me to be cynical about. Thanks Armin.

Here we have a highly respected CEO of a highly respected brand/marketing/advertising behemoth espousing on what is purported to be a future beyond brands - Lovemarks. Do you think if I had coined the term Lovemarks and even went as far as to trademark it and blast the media with press releases about this "discovery" that anyone would take notice - other than chuckle at the notion?

This is not about envy of notoriety nor the classic "Why didn't I think of that?" reaction. I read the article in the most recent Fast Company, the article on B&T and I read the Lovemarks web site; this is about the lack of "eureka!" in his statements and the penchant for the need for "new" in brand management in general. Roberts defines Lovemarks as those brands that "have deep, constant emotional connections with people, and are 'owned' by their customers, who love these products and are loyal customers of them." To use the term brand to describe something that is beyond brands shows the weakness in the argument for such a term as "Lovemarks" and is akin to saying a square is a triangle with an extra side. He also says that between brands and Lovemarks are Trustmarks - yet another unnecessary term to add to the lexicon. Trustmarks are "a distinctive name or symbol that emotionally binds a company with the desires and aspirations of its customers."

What Mr. Roberts is saying is true, but it is not new. Branding, as we knew it, is dead but it has been long dead. We already know that we cannot rely on a clever media campaign, a shiny package, or a dynamic trademark to create compelling brands. Trustmarks and Lovemarks, are these not what brands are supposed to be? We already know that great brands are those we 'love'.

He uses Mercedes as an example therefore I will use that as well...

Someone says, "I 'love' my Mercedes."

You ask, "What do you 'love' about it?"

"I 'love' the way it looks," they reply, "the way it drives, the service department, the way they treated me at the dealer, and the way the company follows up on my experience with all of these things."

What was once a statement about a product becomes a statement about experience. Why? You simply cannot 'love' anything without experiencing it first.

He also says, "I'm also bloody sure that you can only have one lovemark in any category." Tell that to BMW, Porsche, or even Lexus, all of which are "lovemarks" to a lot of people.

Further, he states, "Lovemark is the answer to everything that's wrong with marketing and advertising." Which contradicts his statement, "If a brand was well-marketed, it became a trustmark. If brands are exceptionally well-marketed, they may graduate to becoming a Lovemark." Whoa, wait a second; I thought all this went beyond brands and marketing and everything wrong with it? Marketing does nothing to ensure excellent customer service. Marketing does nothing to ensure a well designed and manufactured product. Marketing does nothing to ensure experience; it can only communicate the idea of the experience and if the experience is not authentic then you either have a problem with your marketing or problem with our "product".

Why do we find the need to try to generate some new term to describe some "discovery" that is already there? While "branding" as seen its inevitable end via overuse, "brands" are and always will be brands. How they connect with their audience may change but there is no need to create some name for it that our clients, our consumers and we professionals will ultimately grow tired of. Instead of spending time and energy on coming up with something that ultimately adds to the existing noise to make ourselves seem better than the other guy, why don't we work on actually being better? Seems as if we need to focus on making ourselves "Lovemarks" - without actually using the term.

On another note, I'm not personally offended, but what CEO would write an article where he overuses - or even uses - the word "fuck"? Further, why would a respected business publication like Fast Company allow it to be published? Is this the way a corporate visionary convinces billon-dollar companies to buy into his opinions? If so, I'll throw a few expletives on our site to drum up some business.

Here's what's funny--

Name five Saatchi & Saatchi clients. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one, and that's Toyota--the king of "who cares" branding, despite their production of solid and reliable cars. But does anyone love their Toyota like they love their MINI, or in my case, the BMW Z4 that I don't even own? There are other clients too that they have, most of them large, but I can't find any of them on that lovemark list. So I wonder what Roberts's agency is doing to change that.

In the FastCompany article from 2000 on this subject (damn, I remember reading this as hardcopy...yikes), Roberts, enthusiastic zealous New Zealander that he is, says "I'm bloody sure that you can charge a premium for brands that people love. And I'm also bloody sure that you can only have one lovemark in any category." Yet on the list, and maybe this is just nominees, you see both Audi and BMW, both Budweiser and Miller.

The whole concept behind this is somewhat interesting--the "official" ranking is something like trademark, up to trustmark, and then lovemark at the top. While some of this stuff might be totally off-base, Roberts is absolutely correct when he attacks the military language and war metaphors that so many marketing schmucks use on a daily basis ("penetration!", "insertion!", "resistence!"). Ultimately he's trying to get people to inject a more human mentality into the work they do for the brands they service--which I applaud. It's an effort, and yes perhaps its misguided, to address people as individuals and not as psychographics, demographics, keywords, and attributes. None of this is bad; in fact, I'd argue that its really the only way to do it.

The biggest problem I have is that "lovemark" is yet another example of people trying to put into words that which cannot be explained. This is what happens when you analyze the living shit out of something--you eventually start to buy into your own bullshit. And most of this is bullshit, but on the other hand a lot of people are gobbling it up. There's way too much emphasis put on the stuff that goes on behind the closed doors and that finds itself dashed into the briefs and the hyping of how "on-strategy" things are. This lovemark thing is yet another element.

THE WORK IS ALL THAT MATTERS. The work is king. Great branding exists purely in the finished work, the pieces we see in print or on the net or while channel surfing, great branding doesn't stop with smart strategies or bizarro terms that we invent to "change the rules." After all the flowcharts, research, conference calls, meetings, briefings, discussions and musings, all we have to show for any of it is the work. That's it. Everything else is gravy.

Brady--

Funny, apparently we were writing at the same time...portions of my post look redundant now.

CORRECTION:

The Mr. Roberts' article was in the September 2000 issue of Fast Company - not the most recent as I stated. That description was to be taken out but slipped past me until I posted.

Bradley--

> Funny, apparently we were writing at the same time...portions of my post look redundant now.

It's all in the timing I guess. As it was, Mr. Roberts beat us to "Lovemarks", right?

Seriously though, the fact that our posts are so similar sums up - and maybe points to - a general distaste for this sort of thing in the design/brand/creative community. "Thing" meaning not only the ascription of a name to something that cannot be named but the manner in which conflicting, obvious and redundant rumminations are derived, broadcast and believed to be emergent ideas.

Does it seem to anyone else that Saatchi & Saatchi is trying to turn product loyalty into MARCOM brand loyalty? From my perspective, it seems that the whole concept of satisfaction in an product is being hijacked by the advertising powers-that-be. For instance: Say I were to walk into any farmer's market and taste three apples: one red, one pinkish-red and one green. I decide after taste testing that I like the pinkish-red one the best because of taste or texture... After that day I continue to buy the pinkish-red apples the rest of my life. So, does that mean Fuji apples one of my "Lovemarks"? I haven't been buying Macs since '86 because I like the brand or the advertising or the hype or the whatever. I buy them because they are a technology that makes my life easier. I drive a Honda because over and over again the car has proven its worth yet if I knew for a fact that Chevrolet made a car that would be at its prime whilst pushing 200k miles... I would consider buying one.

I think that Saatchi & Saatchi should watch itself. Branding from a corporate perspective can be borderline propagandistic but this Lovemark nonsense goes much further into a individuals personal emotional reaction and that is scary. Reality Television has already trail blazed this type of thinking but it seriously troubles me to see firms like S&S begin taking advantage of it.

I don't know why people love certainty items. Maybe their Dad drove a Toyota or their Mom wore Chanel No.5. Their IMac might remind them of a past loves eye color or The Cheesecake Factory was the first place they kissed. Those are private decisions and private moments. As a designer I do have a want and commitment to enhance the product or service that I represent, but to try and tap into the users personal emotional experience and almost subconsciously force them into a mindset, to me, is seriously out of bounds.

*c

"Thing" meaning not only the ascription of a name to something that cannot be named but the manner in which conflicting, obvious and redundant rumminations are derived, broadcast and believed to be emergent ideas.

I agree--"labeling" things, like emotions, totally negates them, and the very act itself obliterates creativity. Creativity I've discovered is something that nearly everyone desires, wishes to be, wants to be a part of, but few individuals are willing to subject themselves to the often brutal process it usually is.

For all the talk talk talking we do, how many designers and writers really when they sit down to make something, contemplate "will this make it a lovemark?" Probably not. Comes down to what you do, what you produce.

As a guideline, its not bad. It isn't. The whole idea of create a good product, ensure total satisfaction, be honest, all that is good. But to assume that there's a formula for that is stupider than designing a diagram that instructs you how to fall in love with someone.

What does interest me in all this, however, is the possibility for that trite "responsibility of the designer" rant that pops up now and again. At the outset, the Lovemark Formula� appears to have little if anything to do with design--at least not graphic design, certainly not in the traditional sense. But that's the beauty of it, because as I'm sure we're all aware of by now, almost no client comes to you because you're a designer, they come to you because you can produce the results they want. They come to you for advice, essentially. Any good designer will have a difficult time lying or dressing up the truth, and I think its high time that when someone approaches you who's full of shit and wants to shove that shit into a megaphone and broadcast it, in your role as "consultant" (shudder....I hate that term), its not the worst thing to say "from a branding perspective, this isn't going to work, and putting a Mercedes hood ornament on a Pinto won't change the fact that it's a Pinto. In order to make your messaging work, YOU have to work well first. Here's how:" A Lovemark as we're seeing it now might be kinda lame, but as a business idea, its not terrible--but, the thing is, the good, functional piece lodged in there is nothing new, we've been over all of this a thousand times before. The only thing "new" that can happen is when both creatives and clients commit to it.

Hooey.

As a designer I do have a want and commitment to enhance the product or service that I represent, but to try and tap into the users personal emotional experience and almost subconsciously force them into a mindset, to me, is seriously out of bounds.

This amuses me, simply because it is exactly what we are supposed to be doing. Successful design (and branding) communicates because it does tap into emotion to generate a reaction. What strikes me about Lovemarks is that it really is just stripping some of the veneer off branding. At its simplest level, branding is the attempt to form emotional (and hence irrational) connections to products or services so price is not the sole criteria. When that is done successfully, it can be called a Lovemark, or a strong brand, or a pile of goo, really. Saatchi's just trying to market a fancy new term, talking about the same thing, to grow their own business.

> THE WORK IS ALL THAT MATTERS. The work is king. Everything else is gravy.

...well, actually, don't forget about the product behind what the work is trying to sell. That ain't gravy.

And when it comes to products, it's becoming apparent that brand association is the only thing nowadays that's differentiable. Let's face it, there's not a huge difference between a Mercedes, an Audi, or a Lexus -- or a Toyota vs a Chevy. A car is a car. Just like cereals, chocolate bars, blue jeans, running shoes, or televisions. If you were blind, could you differentiate your "love" brands from a generic? Betcha can't.

The truth is that branding is a fabricated invention. It exists to sell products by infusing a sense of culture and identity into a bunch of products that otherwise wouldn't really be any different from its competitors. S&S is just taking it one step further by connotating an emotion with this fabrication, and calling it "lovemarks".

Manufacturing and marketing for the masses is a tricky thing. You want to sell your products to millions, yet you want to set yourself apart as an individualist for individualists. And manufacturing these days is all related anyways. A BMW is a MINI, a Ford is a Jaguar, Sony makes Apex electronics, and so on. Product quality differences are becoming obsolete too. Cereals and colas all taste the same, running shoes and jeans fit and perform equally, and all cars will last to 200K miles. So what's left -- how do you enhance a product, when there's nothing left to do that anyone would notice? You can't. So you start fabricating things beyond the actual product or service. You start shining up the brand.

At the end of the day, it's all marketing bullshit -- but it's a necessary reality of our consumer world. And our profession. We protest while at the same time, we cling to our brand loyalty just as fervent and strong as the next consumer. And we start to covet fabricated "experiences" associated and created by brands. Like that ridiculous video of the Apple store opening in Tokyo. Fucking idiots -- their city lives are so empty and devoid of real experiences that they will wait in line for 18 hours to experience a fabricated one. It may be an extreme example, but we all live a little of it in our everyday lives.

I love my Sony, my Gap jeans, my Ken Cole shoes, my Nokia....

I think this whole "Lovemark" thing is happening so Saatchi & Saatchi can sell some books. I won't be adding a copy to my library.

We don't need another buzzword; we need good, effective design and marketing that communicates its intended message to customers. I think we've known for a long time why some brands succeed while others fade away. Let's stick to the basics.

This amuses me, simply because it is exactly what we are supposed to be doing. Successful design (and branding) communicates because it does tap into emotion to generate a reaction.

Jonsel,

I don't agree that you have to be emotionally invasive to develop a strong brand through design. To design with emotional intent (which is what I think you are hinting at) is one thing, but branding on this [Saatchi & Saatchi] level is far beyond the basic levels of sucessful design. My Sister and Brother-in-Law live in Columbus, OH which is the "test market" capital of Middle America. To me (and this might just be me) I feel almost violated just walking through any of their more premiere shopping centers. So many over the top brands selling so many over the top lifestyles . It leaves me, (the average consumer) in want for a healthy dose of personal reality and in most cases drives me out the door as fast as I came in. Sure, most companies are searching for that deep and personal connectivity that comes through an emotional reaction but my beef is with the groups willing to use any motive they deem necessary to force themselves into the hearts and minds of the consumer. That is what I have a problem with. Call me an idealist but I think that you can develop a solid brand based on other factors then corporate emotional fabrication.

I think Tan just put it well:

And we start to covet fabricated "experiences" associated and created by brands. Like that ridiculous video of the Apple store opening in Tokyo. Fucking idiots -- their city lives are so empty and devoid of real experiences that they will wait in line for 18 hours to experience a fabricated one.

*c

Call me an idealist but I think that you can develop a solid brand based on other factors then corporate emotional fabrication.

You...you...idealist.

Seriously, I agree with you. There's definitely a split between brands that are formed on the basis of real connection — i.e. a quality product that people grow to love — versus an invented history and service that nobody seems to need but is touted as a lifestyle cure-all — i.e. most dot-com offerings. Those brands that attempt to cheat their way in often don't last. Most consumers can tell the difference between real and fake.

> Most consumers can tell the difference between real and fake.

Fossil. Banana Republic. Restoration Hardware.

They can't in many instances...or they don't care.

Do you think people care that Fossil is a created brand? I love my Fossil watch. I love the retro graphics and the contemporary watch designs. I'm under no illusion that it ever existed in the 40s or 50s. Does this just make me a sucker for cool?

Banana Republic originally had the fake authentic brand, but it didn't work, which is why they eventually became what they are now.

I don't get Restoration Hardware. I like some of their stuff, but it is all overpriced for what it is.

> Do you think people care that Fossil is a created brand?

I love my Fossil watch too, Jon. We're not suckers -- just victims of cool branding. And no, I don't think people care. But I bet ya that if told, most of their customers (probably mostly teenagers) will not believe that the company was founded in 1984. It's a combination of gullibility and apathy.

> I don't get Restoration Hardware. I like some of their stuff, but it is all overpriced for what it is.

Restoration Hardware was built off the success of Pottery Barn -- whose brand is based on the "urban antique" look and brand lifestyle.

How are these brands fake? Fact is, you can spend a weekend hopping garage sales and antique malls, and I guarantee that you'd find a dozen old watches that are identical to a model Fossil makes. Same with the antique record players, flashlights, and furniture that's sold at RH and PB. Or maybe some of you have an old watch or chair that was handed down to you by your dad or grandfather. Those things, those experiences and associations are real. Shopping for them at a store in the mall is not.

But hey, I'm not criticizing. Hell, half our house is from the Barn.

*sigh*...

haha! Sorry Jonsel, I seem to take the furthest route to my point that I possibly can.

Most consumers can tell the difference between real and fake.

I know that most people are yet to be hoodwinked in this way. I just get a little nervous when evidence is shown that corporations have that much control over their consumer base.

*c

> In order to make your messaging work, YOU have to work well first. Here's how:"

I'm sure we have all been in situations where this is exactly the message we'd like to deliver, but when you are being hired to produce what amounts to a very small part of brand's identity (a brochure, an ad campaign, whatever) it is naive to think you will get anywhere with this strategy.

Still, I agree with you Bradley when you say it's what we are being hired to do: provide results. I just think that one's abilitly to effectively do this is based on pretty complex collections of factors, not simply upon having the balls to point out inconsistency. A serious business acumen beyond design and a very respectful client are both pretty high on the list of must-haves in order to pull that one off.

Griff:

Love the hatemarks. But keep in mind, the branding of my beloved Peeps have gone out of the confines of Easter. They now are available for many holidays, including halloween, christmas and others. I looked for them in hopes of finding them this past 4th of July, but I'll hold out for another year on that....

Just another term for BRAND.

...well, actually, don't forget about the product behind what the work is trying to sell. That ain't gravy.

Oh, no, I'm aware--when I say the work is all that matters, I just mean in terms of arbitrary terms like "lovemarks." Stuff like THAT doesn't matter, the work that represents the brand, product, whatever DOES. But you know what I mean.

As to the rest of the discussion...

Yes, everything is pretty much Velveeta these days--over-processed and only a few "natural" ingredients. Overall, I don't mind. Don't get me wrong, hipster-in-denial that I am, I'm always looking for ways to circumvent popular culture and find that new cool trend that I can ditch as soon as someone else starts liking it too, but I get it at the same time. I get that things evolve, life changes, and the forces of the market aren't entirely unnatural or contrived; because fundamentally, at the end of the day, I give as much credit to human beings as possible. I don't believe people are stupid, and I believe that they ultimately control their own destiny. No one pulls the strings, as much as they might like to.

In this discussion, some of us seem to equate AUTHENTIC with TRUE, or at least the corrolary, INAUTHENTIC = FALSE. I'm not sure this is, ahem, true. True in my understanding being an accurate representation of life or human nature. For instance, retro designs, in some cases though technically "inauthentic", are able to speak more truthfully about their sources than the sources themselves because of the passage of time. How many of us were taken back to our childhood by CSA's Target work? For some of us, the inauthenticity was a stumbling block, but for the majority (and the majority of consumers, I'd guess) the inauthentic was, in fact, a truthful distillation of our childhood.

Cynical me says that "Lovemarks" is simply Saatchi trying to differentiate its own brand from the competition.

And analytical me says you're right on.

This smacks of seeing Philip Morris run ads with great headlines like "Tobacco is Whacko if you're a teen."

As in, the sourse of the problem just finally figured out that it's made a fine trade of peddling problems for decades and all of a sudden sprouted a conscience from thin air.

Props to Saatchi Squared for trotting this trick out without the impetus of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit, a la PM.

"The Ad Agency with Heart?" Is Tim Sanders on the board @ Saatchi now?

People all over the world,

Join in,

Come ride,

Join the Lovemark, Lovemark!

(Sorry. Just had to.)

Ya know, Lovemarks are a bit like the guitar amps in Spinal Tap that went to 11.

This lovemark is "brand babble." It exemplifies a lot of what I don't like in the branding practice. The Lovemark concept just adds complexity and obfuscation to the subject of branding, without really adding any tangiable, bottom-line value to a client. And pragmatically, the lovemark is really only applicable to a certain segment of consumer products. Besides, it's just kind of silly and out of touch with the current general consumer sentiment. People are spending money, but in a cautious manner. Maybe this over-the-top concept of "mysterious, sensual, intimate, inspirational, transformational" products worked back in 2000 when he first started his self-indulgent world tour, but it seems a little out of touch now. It's just too glib, perky, and frivolous.

Honestly, I would have trouble even keeping a straight face when saying the word "lovemark" to any serious business executive.

Branding that solely stresses emotive qualities will inevitably become boring because life and people are more than just swirling masses of emotions. We're complex. We have perspectives based on personal history, culture, and pragmatic interests. The interactions within our social and economic infrastructure are equally complex. Moreover, companies, organizations, and other amalgamations of people have history, culture, and pragmatic common interests. They too are complex entities. Therefore, brands inherently need to be complex, and not necessarily "mysterious, sensual, intimate, inspirational, transformational" and all of the rest of that hooey.

I took the lovemark quiz and it turns out that a stick is a lovemark, so I nominated it.

Incidentally, a steaming pile of poo is not a lovemark (it fails on only one question), but it's a good laugh if you want put it to the test.

Look out Christopher's stick… Speak Up has been nominated…

The devotion to a "Lovemark" is not true. It can, does and will change.

What about "True Love"-the kind of love you feel towards causes as apposed to brands. Humanitariano Organizations and foundations-even independent artists and designers that you support because you believe in what they are doing.

I'm perplexed, there are businesses and services that I love and support but once they go mainstream they lose their authenticity or the feel of authenticity. Did I feel special before and now feel like a conformist. I loved Starbucks 10 years ago but will select an independent over them any day now...

And what about Target-everyone is crazy for Target. I too get giddy sometimes when I shop there-all this color and happiness, fun and affordability. But I often leave almost angry and ready to boycot. I see the abundance of knock-offs and the introduction of new plastic picnicware and beach toys every stinkin' season-what happens to your old picnicware and beach toys? The fashion is really poor in quality and doesn't last but back to the initial fun of all this novelty, when I am there, I want and want and want! Unlike most, because I am so aware of branding, marketing, and design, I can get myself through the store without filling the cart, however most I know don't even stop to think, they just desire it then buy it.

What will the world be like 30 years from now?

Back to my original reason to respond, maybe this concept of a lovemark isn't even a worthwhile goal, I would rather people devote themselves to my "brand" because they believe in what it stands for, what it aspires to, what it does not what it says it means.