Should brands mimic religions? Or is it just a disingenuous distraction? Author Subramanian Krishnan examines if brands can be marketed the way religious theologies are promoted.
Branding folklore says that good brands are akin to religions. At least, they feel like one at their utopian best. And, hence, it follows that we can learn good brand practices from how religious theologies are promoted.
On the surface, most religions have gods (or god-like characters), some defining scriptures, a cohort of selected priests and evangelists, unexplainable rituals, graphic symbols. This helps create communities of ardent followers with deeply held (almost irrational) beliefs about the inherent supremacy of their own religion.
With this benchmark, how many labels around us are really brands?
Religions provide a sense of identity to their followers, offering a shared belief system and community.
As an illustration, identifying as a Buddhist connects you to a larger group with an implicit set of unstated commonalities. Yes, some of us identify with a few brands, especially those that reflect our personality, status, or values. For example, a few of us may identify ourselves as ‘Apple people’ or ‘Nike enthusiasts’. Even fewer of us would admit that we are Patagonians or BodyShoppers.
Religions are founded on deep spiritual beliefs and moral values, debated and refined over millennia.
E.g. Broadly, most Hindus believe in non-duality, while the sense of justice drives Islam. These principles guide followers’ actions and everyday decisions. In such a context, brands may be built on a set of core promises (e.g., innovation for Apple, performance for Nike). These values influence consumer behavior and loyalty.
It is in the symbolism that religions hit it out of the park.
Religions have established rituals like prayer, fasting, festivals, and even costumes that integral to the faith experience. Beyond this, they have a rich dictionary of unique symbols and icons. The more universally known ones include the cross in Christianity or the crescent moon in Islam. Closer home, we have the swastika and the om symbol in Hinduism. But, it does not stop there. Churches, mosques and temples are full of religious iconography that instill a sense of awe and wonder while reinforcing the fundamental tenets of the religion.
In such contexts, brands fall woefully short. I may have heard some brand jingles. But never have I heard a chant for a brand. Outside of the ‘logo’, a mascot (which is increasingly becoming rare) and some sonic identity, I am unable to think of any brand specific rituals or symbols. There are only a few subliminal props to remind customers of the brand’s core beliefs.
As a detour, Sahara Parivar was a unique experiment in this space. Its rituals of Sahara Pranam, placing their right hand on their chest while greeting each other, the annual jamboree with its founder etc, were unique in corporate annals. Factoid – in 2004, Sahara group was termed by the Time magazine as ‘the second largest employer in India’ after the Indian Railways. Unfortunately, it dazzled like fireworks for some time before fading away into mental obscurity (at least, for me!).
Religions foster communities through planned congregational activities at daily prayers, weekly events, monthly meetups and annual festivals. These connections deeply influence lifestyles, dietary choices, dress codes, and daily routines. Some brands like Royal Enfield, LEGO and IKEA have seen relative success in creating communities through clubs, online forums, and social media groups. To give the devil his due, in unreligious contexts, brands continue to significantly influence lifestyle choices.
Interestingly, most religions self-propagate through active unpaid volunteerism. While brands have to earmark significant budgets for advertising, social media, and influencers to spread their message and attract followers.
Given all this, if one were to summarise, the scenario for omnipotent brands is bleak.
At its best, the idea of a ‘brand religion’ feels like a distant dream. And, at its worst, it could be seen as a disingenuous distraction.
There can be three arguments that the worst case propagators could make against brands mimicking religions. Firstly, brands exist to promote consumption that results in generating disproportionate return on the capital employed by the shareholder. Secondly, brands are amoralistic. i.e. they do not (should not) have a point of view on spiritual or moral needs of human beings. And, thirdly, brands are fundamentally opportunistic. They continuously adapt to where customers demand them to go, rather than be grounded in a point-of-view that would remain unshakeable in headwinds.
It really boils down to this.
Is a brand an economic entity? Or is it a cultural edifice? What is it more of? Do we believe that brands can have a profound impact on individuals and societies, shaping values, lifestyles, and cultures? Or, is a brand mostly a crucible of commerce?
This directly leads us to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. For all the quizzical looks, the book is a bestseller enquiry into the notions of classical science and romantic science.
Classical science finds its expression in rational expertise. It understands all the technical details that make a machine function, how they all fit together and, importantly, how to find what’s wrong and fix it if the machine malfunctions. Those classically minded tend to classify and divide the world based on individual characteristics, thus creating order out of chaos.
Romantics in contrast tend to admire and exalt the chaos and richness of life’s experiences. Romantic science is driven by the emotional, inspirational, imaginative and intuitive modes of life. They do not understand the detail, but make instinctive sense of the whole. They see the human experience as neither predictable nor controllable; instead, life is full of emotion, meant to be lived, experienced and learnt, not to be questioned.
To bring it back to brands and religion, there are those who (religiously) go to the Cannes Festival of Creativity. And there are others who attend Ehrenberg-Bass programs. Which cohort do you identify with?
If you are the earlier, then brands still have a long way to go before they can become credible alternatives to religion. And if you are the latter, this whole article was a bloody waste of time.
