Although “Branding ’em big” (May 21) raises a pertinent issue — which had struck me when I had a look at the 2009 Brand Derby winners — I have discomfort with the line of argument that has been presented. The fact that the title 3 Idiots defines a singular, definable product is not an end-all brand argument. Every single place’s name and person’s name fulfil that condition, but that doesn’t mean all of them are, unquestionably, brands.
Also, the concept of serialisation, of something creative, is essentially a creative principle, one which comes with limitations. I buy my favourite brand of rice, tea, butter and bitter chocolate month after month, but I will not buy different vendetta-driven adaptations of Sholay with more or less the same characters ad infinitum. I am sure it will get superlatively boring very soon. And if merchandising clinched the brand argument, every single musician on this planet is a brand. But I am yet to come across that nomenclature or classification as industry practice in one of the most respected music magazines I subscribe to: Rolling Stone.
This attempt to slap the “brand” stamp onto everything around us is a narrow, one-line explanation of our life system. I think the world is more complex than that.
Sumant Bhattacharya, Gurgaon