This is what Steve Jobs understood: Brands are defined not by the best thing on the product but by the worst thing.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
To me, a 'brand' sounds evil.
Brands' products should be the manifestation of a company's values. Those values should be the subject of all sorts of wonderful stories that comprise your company's narrative.
A brand for a company is like a reputation for a person. You earn reputation by trying to do hard things well.
Brand is not a product, that's for sure; it's not one item. It's an idea, it's a theory, it's a meaning, it's how you carry yourself. It's aspirational, it's inspirational.
Any entrepreneur worth their salt knows that their brand is worthless if it doesn't somehow contribute to society or the overall good of the planet.
Brand names aren't important to me at all.
We always talk about how you have to build a brand from the inside out, not the outside in. Brands are not wrappers. Brands are based on the values of the founders, and then they spread to the people who work for the company, and then that psychological contract is spread to the customer.
Brand is just a perception, and perception will match reality over time. Sometimes it will be ahead, other times it will be behind. But brand is simply a collective impression some have about a product.
I'm a massive believer in brands. Silicon Valley has tried to reprogram everybody to think brands aren't valuable. Or theirs are, but yours aren't.
I think there are very few brands with a person's point of view behind them.
No opposing quotes found.