Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Joshua A.C. Newman, December 01, 2005, 11:12:21 AM
Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen on December 01, 2005, 02:10:35 PMJohn (Wick) and I talked to Paul Tevis at GenCon about this very idea. It's on the Have Games Will Travel GenCon special #7.http://havegameswilltravel.libsyn.com/[/quote"What's next in store? What do you have now? Because I have everything else you did.""It's a lot harder to get angrier at a person than it is at a screen name."Now, aligning yourself with a brand, team, or what-have-you... that's built in. The "us vs. them" thing is part of human neurology. We can profit by, or fail because of, that. I don't think we can get around having identity, but we can make them up. That's what branding's about.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 01, 2005, 02:01:14 PMIf we're talking about the effect, then I don't see how it can be made to occurr. You either generate that kind of recognition (possibly encouraging it with the above action) or you don't.
Quote from: GuildofbladesSo a well named brand name can hold advertising value due to its wording or pictures, where there is no such value from a name (assuming equal levels or promotion given to promoting either option).
QuoteA brand is a trademark that can be solely owned by the company and can also be traded, licensed or otherwise have rights transered.
QuoteA name is much harder to hold as a unique resource only the company can capitalize on.
QuoteTher German board game market is a prime example of why a company is better off not promoting authors and designers over its own house brand name. Because an author or designer can write or design games for many companies, thus diluting the power of the name as an asset to any one company.