The Dialogic Brand – an experiment with Contagious

I’ve spent most of this year wrestling with a notion that challenges a lot of what is considered accepted wisdom in the heart of marketing.

It’s about The Dialogic Brand, a way of thinking about brands that doesn’t demand certainty, compression and repetition, but instead looks to use the internet for what it’s good at, rather than forcing it to do what it’s bad at.

After using the idea often over the last eight months as an interesting thrust for talks, and evolving it as the discussions afterwards drew out new angles, I’ve finally arrived to a place where I can present a written version.

But here’s where things get a little more interesting, hopefully.

The very notion of the dialogic theme is that it is an interplay, not a transmission.  The difference between dialectic and dialogic conversation, as outlined in Richard Sennett’s Together, is that whilst dialectic conversation seeks precise resolution in consensus, dialogic conversation seeks understanding through discussion.

Which is why I’ve been working with Emily Hare, editor at Contagious, on a way to present the idea in discussion, rather than isolation.

What we’re doing is putting the original idea up first, which you can find here, and then bringing in a wealth of brilliant minds who’ve been asked to respond.

The first two pieces afterwards will be from Mark Earls and Martin Weigel, and we’ll release more regularly after that from more brilliant minds.

And, if you read it and feel compelled to respond in some way, we’ll collect up all posts and the like we can, and link to them.

What we’re trying to do is form a map of the territory around what brand might be today; we’re not interested in finding a consensus, but in exploring the diversity, and learning more about our own views through understanding others.

Without further ado, then, head over to Contagious to read about The Dialogic Brand

Screen Shot 2013-10-13 at 23.17.13

 

 

 


Comments

3 responses to “The Dialogic Brand – an experiment with Contagious”

  1. […] messy. They’re personal. They’re arbitrary.  As John Willshire suggests, brands are dialogic. In other words, they can be more than one thing and a piece of communication can evoke more than […]

  2. […] are messy. They’re personal. They’re arbitrary. As John Willshire suggests, brands aredialogic. In other words, they can be more than one thing and a piece of communication can evoke more than […]

  3. […] are messy. They’re personal. They’re arbitrary. As John Willshire suggests, brands aredialogic. In other words, they can be more than one thing and a piece of communication can evoke more than […]