Cooley High Concepts
August 14th, 2008
There’s a concept I learned as a Sociology major at the University of Richmond that has stayed with me…Charles Horton Cooley’s concept of the “looking-glass self”. He came up with this somewhere around 1902, and it essentially boils down to three main components:
1. We determine how we must appear to others.
2. We evaluate the judgment of that appearance.
3. We develop our self, or identity, through the judgments of others.
See, the premise of this is that we view ourselves in the context of a social group, and we in turn, gain our identity from that interaction. In other words, identity is the result of us learning to see ourselves as others see us. This begins at a very early age (but probably not at birth) and continues throughout the entirety of a person’s life until all social interactions are ceased. Our sense of self is altered (albeit in miniscule ways at times) with every interaction we have.
And this process happens over and over and over again. Thousands of times a day. In fact, the word identity actually comes from the Latin word idem, meaning “repeating, again and again.” Crazy, huh?
So what does this mean for us? Well, simply put, your company’s identity is not what YOU think it is…it is not limited to your personal experience with your company, or even a focus group’s interaction with your company. It IS, at its very core, the result of EVERYONE’S interaction with your company, be it vendors, customers, clients, employees or innocent bystanders. And it never stops changing. So if you’re worried about people not “getting you”…take a look in the mirror, and try and see what they see.
Other posts by Steve.
BIG Kahuna says:
Actually by definition brand identity is exactly how YOU want your company to be perceived.This is a basic branding definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Brand_identity
Brand image is HOW you are actually perceived.It’s the sum of all interactions with your company.
You are very much confusing the two.
Sometimes there are gaps between identity and image which cause issues for most companies.
Branding 101.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:05 amSteve says:
Scott,
I fear you have misread this post.
Yes, image is a PART of this concept, but if you read the whole post, you’ll see that the judgment that people make based on that “Image” is how we are defined. For example, if an alcoholic is in denial, but it is obvious to others, he is identified by the world as an alcoholic, no matter what he may think himself.
So, I have not, in fact, confused the two. You have made the assumption that “brand identity” (which is a marketing concept and is easily altered by flashy lights and new logos) is the same as “true identity” (which cannot be altered by any ONE person or company).
I appreciate the link to the wikipedia site. But I believe that this exchange gets to the very heart of the difference between “Branding” and “Identity”. Branding is taking a hot iron and putting a mark on the rear of a cow. You can define what that mark is, and what cows get it. In that instance “Brand Identity” simply refers to how big you want that logo and how many cows you want to put it on, so other people can be impressed. “Identity” in terms of Cooley, Weber, Jung and others is simply who and what we are. If I were to ask people what they think of Microsoft, some would say they are a big, evil corporation…hardly an identity that Microsoft wants to portray…they can do all the brand identity work they want, but until they alter the judgments of others, they will always be that big, evil corporation.
So, in short, I am not, in fact, confusing the two. The article you site has “research” from the early 1990s…Cooley did his research in the early 1900s. Identity is not what WE want it to be, but what defines us. Image is how we want people to see us. Identity is what we show when we’re not paying attention. Image is carefully crafted. Identity is what we do over and over and over again. Image is what we do right now.
Sociology 401.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:40 amBIG Kahuna says:
A logo/mark is not the brand identity. Brand Identity is EVERYTHING that encompasses how a company wants to be perceived. This includes policies, procedures, graphics, messaging….everything. It’s the soul of a company.
Your example of Microsoft is brand image. Hence the gap between brand identity and brand image.
I’m certainly not going to debate you on sociology as I have no desire to get into that field. But I do know something about branding and the definitions of brand identity and brand image, which you are confusing. A lot of people confuse brand identity with “being” a logo or mark, very wrong.
But that’s just my opinion as a branding guy.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:52 amSteve says:
I don’t like getting bogged down in semantics, but I want to understand Scott’s terminology better, because I think we sort of agree.
“Brand Identity” means “how a company WANTS to be perceived?” So Brand Identity is alterable. (I would argue that this is not the “Soul” of a company, but that’s more of a theological argument for later). It is more than a logo, I grant you, but the process for changing said policies and procedures is entirely internal.
SO, “Brand Image” is how a company is ACTUALLY perceived? This, therefore, is not in the complete control of the company, and can only be altered by the company through a long process of redefining their “Brand Identity”.
Okay, so using Branding definitions, a “Brand Image” is akin to a sociological sense of self, or identity. A “Brand Identity” is similar to most definitions of the word “image”, meaning “a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing” Just Cut & Paste my post into your favorite word processing program and do a Find & Replace.
So, we really aren’t disagreeing, and I’m not confusing anything…we’re just tied up by semantics.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:23 amBIG Kahuna says:
Yup, in the business sense that would be correct. Hell if I know when it comes to sociological sense.
Our company is set up to alter/change or create a company’s brand identity. The biggest problem with a lot of companies is that gap between brand identity and brand image.
And as much as I’d like to take credit for the terminolgy, alas, I cannot. Someone smarter than I created all that stuff.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:51 ambilly says:
“Great post, Steve.”
August 14th, 2008 at 10:58 amjeff says:
I don’t know about all the semantics but I think what you shared provides for an AWESOME example of how branding works.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pmChristy says:
I agree. This has been a great discussion. I tend to think of things more in terms of sociology and rhetoric, so Mr. Steve’s analysis and equation of terms is brilliant.
But, I wish billy would elaborate on his comments.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm