Have

[@d.nightcliff393]

I knew a guy that had all the logos Adidas has used throughout their history tattooed on his arm. He had Adidas posters in his apartment depicting models wearing their clothes, he had towels, bags, gadgets; he even lived after their slogan "Impossible is nothing". For him, Adidas was something much more than just a brand.

[@SupLuiKir]

7:20 Especially so when the brand becomes a meme. I don't always become a meme, but when I do, I become an interesting story hosted on 4chan as a greentext

[@CreatrixTiara]

The first thing you learn in college marketing class (and I've taken classes in two different countries) is that you're not marketing a product, you're marketing an experience. You don't market hammers, you market holes in the wall to hang your paintings. You don't market mouse traps, you market a pest-free home. Etc etc. So this fits well with the idea of brands as myths, since myths are less about the specific things and more about the experience it's evoking.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

It's interesting that brands are often separated from ownership due to the images associated with those brands. For example, Disney owns Marvel, and Marvel owns The Avengers, but if we were to market a movie called "Disney's Avengers," it would create a completely different expectation than calling it "Marvel's Avengers." Or how saying you're watching a "Hanna-Barbera" cartoon makes you think of something classic, while saying you're watching a "Cartoon Network" cartoon creates an image of a cartoon with more modernity (see what I did there?), even though technically, Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network are the same company.

[@EThack]

I made tweet of the week! MY LIFE IS COMPLETE! I want to thank you so much for not only creating such thoughtful and interesting content, but for making spaces for us to really engage with said content. I feel I can speak for many of us here when I say Idea Channel's "brand" is on point!

[@MDWolfe]

On a related note you should do a video covering the details of the shift in corporate america from a company as an employer to a company as a mindset. Particularly in relation to this incessant desire to enforce an emotional attachment between employees and their employers, and how it out right attempts to shame or shun the employee who wishes to keep their emotional life separate from their work life.

[@triton62674]

+Minngarm Halnhammer Examples of this?

[@MDWolfe]

***** Basically any job you work these days you are required to tell them why you love the company during any "employee engagement" situation, and expected at every turn to be passionate about the work you do regardless of what it is. It is very typical of companies these days to try to force emotional attachment when none should be required at all. The concept of just doing the job without it is frowned upon.

[@MDWolfe]

***** dedication does not require emotional investment at all. This is the very mindset I am referring to. The assumption and top down pressure that every employee must demonstrate an emotional investment in a company is simply absurd. The paycheck is the motivation for the worker at any level, and provides the same level of commitment as any other form of investment in the company when it is adequate. The big problem with this emotional blackmail mind set that companies have these days is that it is used to try to enforce a level of performance and dedication that they simply do not pay for. In short they use it as a method to mask the compensation provided to workers and as a borderline fear tactic for forcing people to keep silent about poor working conditions.

[@chillinchum]

There's a lot more going on with the changing workplace then just an employer wanting the employees to be emotionally invested. In fact, from what I've noticed, and studied, it's actually the other way around, at least in Canada anyway.

[@FrankieSmileShow]

I think saying brands are myths feels like it just reduces the word "myth" to be a synonym of "symbol". Seems like symbol is exactly the term we're looking for here to tie together the resemblances between myth and brands, doesn't feel like there's any subtleties it wouldn't cover. The differences in the connotations of the words "brand" and "myth" seem much more important than their similarities, Myth as something that comes from people trying to understand their experience of the world, vs Brands as something engineered to create a relationship between the public and a product.

[@EtienneDomingue]

+FrankieSmileShow Yes. Absolutely. I am very protective of the word "myth" because I feel that if it's going to be useful in any way, its definition must allow us to tell it apart from other forms of symbolically-rich discourse.

[@elliottmcollins]

+FrankieSmileShow This is more or less what I was going to say. I'm not sure I care as much as +Etienne Domingue to distinguish it from symbolically rich storytelling generally, but myths are definitely irreducibly narrative in a way that a symbol like Coca-Cola isn't. That said, I think there are brands that derive their meaning from stories a lot like myths do. Some examples of brands that derive their power in part from the stories about them, in order from obviously brands to obviously myths: Levi-Strauss in the gold rush, Ford and the Model T factory line The Beatles and the British Invation America and the Founding Fathers The Catholic Church and everything about it

[@josephknapp1413]

Yes. If not the word "symbol," I definitely could get behind the idea that brands and myths are examples of something else that probably also includes many other things. Maybe symbols are the biggest set and there's a subset that includes brands and myths. I would also say that -- similar to what is said above -- brands are put together by people who might be intentionally trying to fill in for either a specific myth or even the general concept of myths. Some brands however -- people certainly -- must largely arise out of stories that people hear, remember, and spread on. There are a lot of points of potential failure there and I wonder what effect someone's existing brand has on that process. What Bill Murray stories are we not hearing because it doesn't fit in with the other stories?

[@SamwiseHasHadEnough]

+FrankieSmileShow I think that brands are myth-like in that they are created not entirely by their owners, but by those who use them. With brands just as with myths the original story or product had a goal to which it is constructed, a feeling that it is designed to make you feel, but they are both changed heavily by the people to whom they are exposed. They grow to mean something more ,and often something different, than they originally ment. I feel like a symbol is simpler than that. Maybe that is the issue, you are treating the term myth with too much reverence or I am treating the word symbol with too little.

[@demoninbed]

+FrankieSmileShow What about the way ads make certain problems impossible, and then solvable only with the product advertised? The product becomes the magic weapon that used to defeat the mythological monster. For example, mothers trying to clean up grass stains use tide or some other detergent that is supposed to be better than the others.

[@SchizoSchematic]

I'm surprised that in this entire video you didn't mention Disney once. If there's any brand that I immediately recognize as having a mythology surrounding it, it would be Disney.

[@sjrnr]

I teach at my university to undergraduate designers the object of my master degree, that is the relation between Design and Fiction. I show them exactly what this video shows, that our objects, designs, mediated experiences, services etc. are made to express ideas by narrative, to convince that something is true and real to our place. I tell them about how design is responsible to that today, now that narrative and create background and intentions to brands, using the knowledge of mythology in the first classes like Joseph Campbell and how our society works inside this concept nowadays Thank you for this video, I'll show it in tomorrow class!

[@Nuitor]

Thank god a topic I can give a well founded opinion. I studied Advertising and once we had to make a little essay about exactly this, Myths in Advertising Narrative. Putting aside the fact that we were doing the dirty work for the lecturer (it was the theme of her doctorate) it was a really mind blowing experience because I notices for the first time the overflowing quantity of them. EVERYWHERE! In first year they already teach you that Advertising is all based in sticking concepts with their own meaning to objects that may not have a meaning at all. That meaning needs to be attractive and needs to be common knowledge since you are communicating to everybody. Therefore, those concepts are all common fields for everyone. That's why advertising is full of topics and stereotypes. But sometimes you need to express some concepts that are too complicated for a stereotype or you need to give them POWER so go go for a myth. You never know how classical myths are internalised in everyday culture until you see how people react to the myths of "Love Potion", "Eternal youth", "Monsters of the subconscious", you name it!

[@drydays3694]

I think it might be important and useful when we look at brands (a product of capitalism and capitalist society) to apply Marx's concept of commodity fetishism. Rosemary Hennessey, paraphrasing Marx, describes commodity fetishism as "the illusion that value resides in objects rather than in the social relations between individuals and objects...[making invisible] the labor that has gone into its production." Thus, a smartphone becomes defined by its consumption (the technology, what it enables you to do, getting the latest version), and not by the labor (specifically, the exploitation and environmental destruction) that went into making it, which we tend to ignore. This then sets the stage for branding as myth -- once a product of labor is disconnected from the labor that made it, it can be made to represent an abstract idea instead -- Apple, Porsche, Coke, etc. I think the idea of branding as myth that you talk about is spot on, but it's important to remember that there is a reason that these are the myths we are telling today, and there is a reason they are less about all-powerful gods and dominant men (though those as well) and more about exploitative multinational corporations. I would also like to point out that there has been much written about the nation and nationalism as myth. Again, the myths that inform our society are not accidents, but instead tend to be products of power relations.

[@drydays3694]

+Dry Days source for the Hennessey quote (unfortunately not free if you're not with a university, it's also available as a chapter in her book Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identity Under Late Capitalism www.jstor.org/stable/1354421

[@Carimbo575]

+Dry Days I was thinking more or less the same thing... I will not pretend to know much about Marx, but my impression is that Mike was describing the Marxist idea of "fetish" when he talked about "myth". Of course I may be wrong and I wanted to know how these 2 concepts differ.

[@ChristianNeihart]

Somehow Transformers embodies this to a T.

[@anthonyyates9003]

I think apply is a better example

[@zerof4lk]

+Christian Neihart Oh, yes, their brand truly signifies more than meets the eye.

[@Crlarl]

+Christian Neihart "Sometimes even the wisest of man or machine can make an error."

[@SamwiseHasHadEnough]

+Zero Falk Hahahaha dis guy right here....

[@lynnhodge8437]

I think it would be interesting for you to touch on the fact that some brands are so largely embedded in our culture that the brand name is used to refer to all products resembling it. Kleenex is not just a brand it IS tissue. Coke, at least where I'm from, refers to ALL soda. A Sharpie is just any permanent marker. The list can go on and on.

[@selfawaremeatpuppet413]

Yeah like the alpha brand. If a company decides to make a similar product they will always be overshadowed by them, maybe even cancelling their consideration for myth status.

[@Kithara1117]

George Saunder's short story* "In Persuasion Nation" is relevant here. It's available online if anyone wants to check it out. *In fact the whole collection of short stories collected under the same name is also relevant.

[@spenchristoph]

In the novel Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, the concept of brands and how they are thrust into our mythos is made clear as he imagines brands replacing (or continuing to replace) vocabulary in our language. For example, currently in the US, Kleenex is often used for tissue, in the UK, hoover is often used for vacuum cleaner. In the imaginary future of Cloud Atlas, gun is replace by Colt, car by Ford, etc. I find it interesting that when a brand imbues a certain level of quality or reliability, that brand become linked so deeply to a given thing that it goes so far to replace the word of which it is merely a type.

[@jellevm]

Oh god, you bring up myths, truth and then modernity? I could write an essay on this single video, and I probably would if I had the time.

[@RandomlyAwesomeFilms]

This episode has spoken to me on a really deep level. This has changed the way I see things.

[@juliafriedland2946]

I wonder if the rejection of brands, the conscious seeking out the non-mainstream or off-brand could be seen as escaping the visible narratives. If brands are going to help us define ourselves by agreeing with or identifying with brand narratives, then there are definitely identities that are excluded, invisible, and unnamed. When thinking about cultural myths I am always on the look out for what norms they create/enforce and the work they're doing in that respect. I also feel like this is probably also relevant for things like backlash toward "politicizing" brands (e.g. Target doesn't gender kids toys anymore, companies feature gay or lesbian couples in advertisement, etc.) or the making brand narratives inclusive of other marginalized, invisible, or unimagined identities/individual narratives.

[@shanegrayson7068]

I love your videos, Mike! Please don't ever run out of ideas :(

[@seancoyle2109]

Also, as a hindsight post, I truely appreciate the unabashedly and unafraid range of language to convey said ideologies. One sets the bar to raise it.

[@mooxim]

Comic book heroes are the missing link here. I identify strongly with the morals and ideas of characters like Batman and Spiderman. Particularly Spiderman message about responsibility. As such I'm happy to see their brands out on the street. For example if I see a child carrying/wearing some Marvel's Avengers merchandise of some kind then I tend to think that that kid has hope and believes in goodness... Even if it is a brand owned by a multibillion dollar company.

[@SuperRat420]

+mooxim I doubt it.

[@vidopoulos]

+mooxim Comic heroes are US mythology.

[@SuperRat420]

No, US mythology is US mythology. (Jersey Devil, etc.)

[@zoeshamowie5525]

Have you ever read watchmen? I identify with the morals and ideas of the comedian. Life is fun.

[@vidopoulos]

StickWarrior You do know mythology is a fluid thing... Greek mythology evolved and then transformed, adding roman and eastern myths and so on..

[@Yosi-Berman]

I found myself struggling with the word "Modern" as well. "Contemporary" is my word of choice.

[@darthelmet1]

I'd like to imagine that once now is no longer contemporary, it will be called something like "The era of cats."

[@Yosi-Berman]

Darthelmet I think we are in "Post-cat" era

[@DocEonChannel]

+Yosi Berman He actually said "modernity", not "modern". But in any case, both mean something other than "contemporary".

[@darthelmet1]

Doc Eon This reminds me of a thought I had about the MoMA: Do they have an upper time limit for art they will put in the museum? As in, are they using "modern" to refer to a specific time periodization that will end at some point, or are they just using it to mean "contemporary?"

[@DocEonChannel]

Darthelmet I don't think so. In history it basically means "post-medieval", but I get the feeling that art people draw the line a lot later. Or sometimes it seems to refer to a style rather than a time period. Art is confusing.

[@___domey]

i always get happy when i see that boards of canals vinyl in the back

[@seancoyle2109]

Thank you very much for presenting ideologies in a coherent and genuine manner. Please continue to produce more videos. If there is a way I can help, please let me know.

[@travissouthard]

This is an interesting idea. I have been studying and creating media for a few years now and I want to work in television. I don't actually like watching TV. But I wanted to find a way to reach young people and help give them more of a voice in the culture they are expected to consume. In the past few years I have come to believe that television is our Mythology, especially for Americans. We quote stories and episodes as life lessons, have greater and lesser Gods (celebrities) that we want to recognize our existence, and we look to it for social cues and norms. Even with the growth of online spaces, television still dominates. TV channels and networks are consistently still so apparent even in online spaces and even hire internet personalities for projects.

[@kaygirl10101]

I trust the Idea Channel brand to provide me interesting, thought-provoking topics.

[@toggle639]

I don't know if Campbell talked about this directly, but myths as popularly understood are often decentralized, in contrast to brand identities which are tightly managed by some individual person or corporate entity. The legend of Paul Bunyan is transmitted verbally, by storytellers or between families and friends; because of this 'grassroots' transmission, it is flexible enough that it tends to change organically with its audience. Mr. Clean has a marketing department and a target demographic, and if the brand resonates with the target demographic, then his company will make more money and the marketing department will be more effective at spreading the brand. Whereas, in the case of Paul Bunyan, the audience and the resonance of the story are in direct feedback- people who like the story will retell it, and to some extent make it their own, all without any kind of marketing department or much in the way of conscious 'design' for some purpose. (Organized religion is the interesting grey area- the Catholic church maintained centralized control over their myth, but did accommodate local audiences to some extent via the ordination of saints and whatnot.) So, to the extent that brands do have a role in ordering our society and directing it, then the difference between most traditional Campbellian myths and most corporate brands(/centralized religions?) is that the branded society is one whose 'myths' are oriented towards a particular purpose, usually financial gain for a specific person or group of people. Whereas, if Paul Bunyan is a way for people to orient themselves in the cosmos, then that process is much more distributed, you might even say democratic.

[@seanrea550]

+Jonathan Sneed Religions will strive to maintain the content of their message, this does not mean that those on the fringes will not branch of, this is actually rather common to happen. Just with Christianity, even before the rise of the protestant denominations there were those that were splitting off the main branch, how ever most were not able to maintain their message and dropped off. This is a diffrent area than the socio-constructive aspect of myth and legend. small local legends and folk lore can survive in some degree in conjunction with a religion and inevitably will be changed by the same cultural group as they change to the thinking of the religion they follow. the classic myths survive unchanged because their associated religions/cultures have moved passed them or have died out. with folk lore certian aspects of cultures history/ legends can become iconized and a similar thing seems to be happening with personal and corporate brand

[@Meefer]

+Jonathan Sneed And yet so many brands are attending, especially nowadays, to pull that sort of grassroots effort (or at least a facsimile of it) into their brand. Thus the rise in "Take your picture with our product and hashtag! You could win!" that generates pictures of people with product, and makes them feel a part of the brand, and part of the storytelling experience. While there's corporate control over brands, and it's certainly more centralized, sometimes the public belief in the companies/brands can exert a control and build up a myth- positive or negative. In-N-Out's secret menu, public negativity about Enron, the (snopes-debunked) Snapple's bottle showing a slave ship, Snakes On A Plane.. brands eventually develope a public story, a public myth, beyond their exact control. They can shape how they hope it's viewed, but not the complete reaction. So I agree, but I think there's more public control of the identity of a brand than the brand managers intend.

[@jezzarisky]

This is something I had been thinking about recently listening to several KZbin shows and podcasts from KZbin person's in that the thing that seems the most noted by all of them is essentially marketing their "brand". It took me a while to figure out the language they were using as I, like most I think, think of brands in that of something like Tide, Coke, or Apple, and not in the outward persona of a person or channel itself being a brand. However the expression by both these people and brands in expressing an idea or a focus that draws people towards them, and what said people believe it says about themselves for being associated with these brands does foster a culture that examines and often inflates the mythological standing of these brands. It's just that the brands facilitate their 'image' in hopes that the branding continues in a positive direction(which can backfire, often leading to a 're-branding') in that the view is positive for the brand, and for the people who value it to help heighten it's mythology. This I think is what makes someone like Kanye West such a divisive person. In a lot of ways he is his own brand, and yet his eccentric actions and egotistical nature often go against his musical genius. It's a complex subject I can't do justice to, but Film Crit Hulk has a thought provoking piece on the man and his music: birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/29/film-crit-hulk-smash-bad-enough-to-be-true-the-art-of-kanye-west Additionally, this seems like a great companion piece to your earlier video on "Are There TWO Nikola Teslas?". Now obviously this is more focused on brands as mythology than that of examining the mythological semblance of a person or brand versus their historical counterpart.

[@timdiggerm]

Whoever made that Corvette-as-myth doucheformer at 6:37 is brilliant and very good at their job.

[@zzbullan]

when i am constructing the brand identity for new brands, i will often write a mythology about the brand; it helps build a deep 3d character that allows the brand to permeate all medias and create meaningful connections with the target audience. so you are absolutely right that the modern brands are myths. If you go further, it should be noted that brands will often be described with humanising terms to help facilitate the aforementioned connection to the target audience (it is natural to make friends with people &/or aspire to be like othet people of accomplishment, but making friends with a drink or aspiring to be a car doesnt make any sense). So if you people to connect with the brand you generate a character that is an exemplar of the traits your target audience wants. This is exactly like myths of old, they contain larger then life characters who tell a moral story to the reader; and the reader clings to the story because they lack the attributes described in the story and so want it to be a part of their lifes

[@ir0nheademusic426]

I do hope I put this the correct way and understand the message you're trying to send when I add: It could be said that Comic book characters (though the finite definition of a myth) also relate to persons/ brands being a myth. Take the joker for instance, what he brings is more than just a fictional character, he brings ideas and thoughts bigger than he is. This can be said about any famous character, how they are changed and developed to fit the modern culture. Hence why there have been a thousand remakes and altered depending on what is popular at the present time. I hope it makes sense what I'm trying to add, and maybe you can elaborate this idea better than I can. Also big fan of the show!

[@feruspriest]

When you find the time, you should read William Covino's "Magic, rhetoric and Literacy." Covino also has a great article about the implications of the Jewish Golem and Donna Haraway's "Cyborg Manifesto" as ways to "read" mediated (digital) life which works equally well for the conversation of brands-as-mediators for living and experiencing life. I also recommend reading Espen Aarseth's "Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature"

[@PierrotofTwilight]

It may be a bit cynical but it seems a bit misguided to have this conversation without discussing the legal and commercial ramifications of branding. Branding has become inextricably tied to trademark law which has been expanding rapidly in the last century. A brand being a trademark requires that that brand possesses what IP law refers to as Goodwill, a word meeting the almost exact meaning of the jokey "persupation". A trademark must have these expanded meanings, stories, reputations within the mind of the consumer in order to obtain legal protection and to exclude others from using that mark. Im not saying that Brands may not be myth, but pointing that if they are companies are the mythmakers and are creating these myths on purpose to cultivate legal protection.

[@Dylandude89]

So happy to see some Supermarket Sweep clips. I miss that show.

[@salamander7125]

I love the background music, but I can't just listen to it by itself, it has to have his voice overlaying it

[@GalrieXII]

The only real problem I have with this idea is that Brands aren't generally larger than life so to speak. Brands are pretty big I suppose, but one of the integral parts of myths is that they are of 'mythological proportions.' Myths inherently need to be so big that they transcend normal life. With Brands they are often trying to imitate normal life with their story, trying to blend in. I realize that there was a lot that was a bit of a stretch, but for me at least this is the most glaring issue with brands as myths. Great episode though! I hardly comment on these things, but you were spot on with an interesting idea today!

[@SH4M4N_YT]

Dream Theater records!!! Yeahhhhhhhh

[@sasugayhill9672]

+dued27 DIY

[@Anty7]

+dued27 And Mastodon! (Blood Mountain)

[@LeonardMeltsner]

I feel like your description of brands as they relate to myths aligns quite a lot with the concept of memes. That is, we have these symbols (textual, visual, audio, or some combination thereof) that have become more than they are. By definition, a meme is a simple representation that becomes ubiquitous enough in a society that the more esoteric, underlying tones are understood by all. I can post a crying face shaped like a mutant potato, and people know it means "Forever alone", or append a video with John Cena's theme, and it will gain more meaning than it objectively should have. I feel like there may be a lot of overlap here with the description of the connotations and reputations of certain brands.

[@JohnOhno]

There's actually a long history of deep analysis of brands from the perspective of chaos magic. Generally speaking, people tend to classify brands as a kind of egregore -- which is sort of like a collective tulpa: an entity with a personality that is intentionally constructed by and experienced by a large group of people. Every brand has a summoning sigil -- its logo -- and there is a legal framework (which is to say, curses that are occasionally enforced by the government) in trademarking these sigils so that they can't be associated with other brands and thus lose their potency. If you have an interest in the mythological angle of branding, it's probably a better idea to read what Grant Morrison, Wes Unruh, Ed Wilson, and Peter Carroll have to say about it than what Roland Barthes and Marshall McLuhan do -- in part because people from the chaos magic community have gone on to be *very successful* in marketing.

[@PedroAngelini]

There's a slang right now in Brazil where people will say "Mitou", meaning "became a mith" (made the word into a verb)... so if someone does something cool or memorable, you would say something like: "this guy just mithed"

[@zoeshamowie5525]

Brazil sounds cool.

[@foxy31892]

I'd love to see this extended through to Simulacra and Hyperreality, insofar as brands, personal or otherwise, are simulacra of the person or product they reflect but exist independent of them. brought through to both consumerism and celebrity hero worship as supplanting the myths of old a la Daniel J. Boorstin.

[@russelholland849]

This episode was exactly long enough for me to cook 2 eggs.

[@MatsTijmes]

Somehow this reminds me of how we all try to mythtify(?) and exaggerate our lives (on social media, in real life, when you are alone, or around others). What part are you mythifying, and why? If you wouldn't mystify, what would the results be? When do you think you'll cross the line between truth and exaggeration? Are you always working on your personal brand? Could you see yourself as someone with multiple identities(brands) If so, shouldn't we think that about brands too?

[@Hebleo]

This is a notion also discussed and further developed in Yuval Harari's book "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind". There he argues that these "myths" also include concepts well beyond brands, things we take for granted such as religion, money, state and law. The reason you believe in the effectiveness of money, the brand of coca-cola, the enforcement of law and so on and so forth is because your neighbor believes it, your family believes it and everyone else you know believes it and thus - the fiction of that"myth" becomes reality (also relates to the Tinkerbell effect). The most interesting (and perhaps most provocative) argument in the book is that this capability for us as humans to imagine and unite under cultivated "myths" was the key to our evolutionary triumph over all other species despite being individually weaker. if left alone on an island, one person vs one chimp, the chimp will most surely be able to overpower the man and live to survive and reproduce, but, if 500 people were faced against 500 chimps, the people would be able to organize effectively and efficiently when they all believe in the same "myths" and therefore beat (quite easily) the army of chimps. I would highly recommand for anyone interested to check the book out, it is definitely a great read. here is Yuval Harari's Ted talk for further details -www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_what_explains_the_rise_of_humans?language=en (see this as an intro to his book)

[@gilbertcamposmedina4921]

I think he is the philosopher of the internet always providing a fruit for thought just amazing

[@knofear8859]

Finally, something I can speak to in an educated manner! I would definitely say that while Brands themselves may not become mythological (after all, they're not living things), I would argue that a mythos has developed around many brands. This is why people have come to understood that there is some fundamental difference between, say, Mac and PC users. The very essence of the name establishes certain ideas and connections to the person with whom it is attached. The signifier, as Derrida would argue here, has an infinitely long string of signifieds as a result of the inescapable environment in which it exists. Critics like Althusser would argue that, in addition, these mythoi are developed intentionally and subtly by the state/society in order to better control and direct the culture in which these brands participate.

[@NerdSyncProductions]

I think comic book superheroes are definitely mythological. I'm absolutely not the first person to point this out, but I think it's worth mentioning again since comics are kinda my thing. Haha

[@WednesdaysSerial]

+NerdSync no question about that.

[@11informer11]

+NerdSync And have become a world renown brand in and of itself.

[@NerdSyncProductions]

Very true.

[@ChristyAbbey]

+NerdSync Comics seem to also be the myths about the myths: Stan Lee creating his own identity comes to mind. Part of the Superman mythos was in the utterly false story of how he was created. Image Comics "almost killed comics" (though they were not without fault).

[@litcrit1624]

IDEA CHANNEL creates video about its own favored rhetorical process: Empty X of "Literal" Meaning; Fill X with "Mythological" Meaning; Stroke Beard while saying, "You Know, X is Not Just X -- it's also Not-Just-X!" Now do the above with "Myth." Universe swallows own tail -- an "arguable stretch."

[@swankfiber5278]

very provocative video I enjoyed it and I agree with the points I personally try to avoid the trap of consumerism and try to keep my daughter from seen too many advertisements. but still somehow when I take a shower I don't feel really clean unless I'm Zeast fully clean

[@Tartw]

You are spot on.. it is the artist that needs to change this culture loop you speak of...

[@Xidnaf]

If any brand has become mythologized, I would say that My Little Pony has. My Little Pony in addition to being a brand of toys is also a series of narratives, much more like a traditional myth. Also like the traditional myth, the fans continuously retell and elaborate upon the original. - It "celebrates the grand, unknown possibilities of being a living, breathing thing" in so far as becoming a princess, joining the wonderbolts and opening a boutique in Canterlot are such "grand, unknown possibilities." - In a couple different ways it describes "how our world and its context came into existence." In one way, the backstory of the My Little Pony universe explains how the MLP universe as we know it came to be, thereby explaining our world to the extent that My Little Pony is itself part of our world. In another way, the older generations of My Little Pony explain the ultimate creative origins of these characters. But also, there is one episode in particular titled "Read It and Weep" which essentially all bronies have interpreted as a metaphor for the origin story of bronies: the character Rainbow Dash thinks she's too cool for books until pressure from her friends combines with boredom to tempt her to try reading a book which she immediately loves, followed by her attempts to keep it a secret from her friends before finally being forced to admit her love for reading and accept who she truly is. - It "organizes and supports the function of the culture" and "gives its audience a place within that culture, a way to understand and interact with it" in comparatively obvious ways. Not only do the episodes always have very obvious morals which fans of MLP take very seriously (even if we don't always agree with them), but they also have the obvious purpose of selling toys: a way for audience members to interact with their culture.

[@teleportal9]

Ooh, ooh, Joseph Campbell! I actually know stuff about Campbell, since I did my BA on his "Hero with a Thousand Faces". Unfortunately, for me at least, I actually tend to agree with your assessment that brands may not be filling all of the needs that myths fulfill, they are fulfilling some of them. The other needs can likely be filled with works of art, fiction, religion, or even history/nationalism/humanism to a degree, or perhaps something like "the internet" and the global community it's helping build, but I think that culture, and more specifically the people that live within culture, will find a way to fill those needs, even if they don't get it all from one source or put it all under one name like "myth" or "brand". I think this conclusion can only bring us to one other, which is that if we are using "brands" to fill a cultural need, then the wrong can't be done by brands, or at least not by the concept of "brands", but more by what is behind those brands, what they are conveying. As you cleverly point out in the end, do we trust the brand of Kanye when he speaks on brands? It's not necessarily the concept of brands that is at fault here, it's just that maybe the brands we are currently using aren't giving us the values and identity we think they should be giving us. You can arguably say the same thing happened/happens with myth. Plato relatively famously didn't like the Iliad and the Odyssey (if I'm remembering my first year of college well). He admitted that they were beautifully written and a cultural touchstone for the Greeks, but he worried about what they were teaching "the youth", about war and love and governance. I think we can be wary of what today's brands are teaching "the youth", and arguably that we should.

[@JokerCrowe]

Something I really like is when Movies or TV-series that take place in the future change their language to reflect How the language might evolve. I bring this up because in Mad Max: Fury Road, a character states "you will be McFeasting in halls of Valhalla" (or something similar). That, if anything, is a Brand becoming Myth, and I honestly thought the evolution of language in that movie was relatively believable. And I also think it serves as a comment on out society today, we say "google something" instead of saying "search for it on the internet" because the word and Brand Google has become synonymous with "search for it on the internet". I find it very interesting to imagine how a future society might see and build myths from Our society, and imagining how language evolves to bring those myths along with them. I definitely agree with the statement that Brand have become "mythologized" in some examples.

[@YouLostTheGame97]

Does anyone know the name of that blue album on the wall behind him?

[@lancelobato]

I think there are some other side to this. (and pardon any english mistakes. I'm brazilian) ;) I have graduated in publicity and work with brand design for some years now and one discussion that always come back, specialy in times of mass media, globalization and conectivity, is the one concerning outdated hipodermic needle theory: that says the media has the power to create, from nothing, desires and mind sets on the public. I personally tend to think there is a dialectic relation between this theory versus the almost natural market oportunism . For instance: a car brand would never sell if people wouldn't accept that cars are, besides being transports, an accesory, almost as clothes (and by the way, the transformer montage with the corvete was.... awesome!!). For me it is like the chicken and egg dilemma: the brands made us see cars as ornamental accesories? Or the use and evolution of the car market would almost naturally comes to that? Or else: for a brand strategy to succeed, it has to be placed at the right time. Where I conclude that there must be the works of the two sides of this relation for the brand to work. And maybe that also relates to the myth. Would a greek myth about sexual liberty for women be accepted by the population of ancient greece? Or even.... would a story about that become a myth? Probably not, right? Or even, thinking about the other side, wouldn't be useful for a group in a position of power (religious, for example) to select a handful of folklore stories that match there intentions for maintaining the status quo, and make it bigger, incorporating them in the "hall of respected stories for the culture"? As I said: I think is dialectic. Therefore, a story becoming mythologized must be a social proccess, that happens between the cultural common sense and the will of some group with power, right? And with that said, I must totally agree that brands and myths have a lot in commom. :D

[@mastring1966]

Like when you build this mental construct around what you perceive to be somebody or something that may or may not have anything at all to do with the actual person or object. Which also leads to feeling betrayed if reality stomps on your toes at any point, even though the whole construct was entirely an internal construct.

[@IronicCliche]

The question of whether brands are good or bad is tricky. If brands don't add anything to the product itself, than all they do is both skew market information, as they are more about creating belief than establishing fact, and also skew market power, because only one company can make that brand. If brands create some value, however, such as ascribing the positive feelings one has with the product to one's self, than they have some value that may negate these issues. This doesn't mean that a brand can't both add value and skew beliefs. If someone is eating food with a"health food" brand that's unhealthy in some way, than feeling better about themselves may not be worth the brand price.

[@janinabnm]

This makes me think of how in the Disney Hercules movie they made a bunch of action figures of him and he had fans. Disney is kind of the ultimate example of Michael's point overall.

[@glukolover]

Do you have the link to the "Cultivation theory as it relates to violence in video games?"

[@ShariaTwain]

Love that Boards of Canada album cover. Speaking of a band that has grown a mythological status about it...

[@Jebbtube]

I've agreed with Kanye twice this week. I think I'm gonna be ill.

[@byldoy]

I feel that this idea of a 'myth' created purposely around a brand historically ties in with the growth of psychoanalysis in the US and its influence on propaganda and marketing, particularly spread by Freud's own nephew Edward Bernays. One of my favourite examples is the story behind why Betty Crocker products always require one fresh egg to be added to the mix instead of just having powdered egg in the mix already. In the early 1950s the company reached out to the marketing world to investigate why this new miracle product just wasn't selling, and Bernays came to the conclusion that the sheer lack of effort required to make a Betty Crocker cake made women feel inadequate in their role as housewives and the problem could be solved with just one egg: it "took away the guilt of convenient baking and affirmed the woman’s role as provider" (this is quoted from the Betty Crocker website, just so you know I'm not chatting breeze haha). Sure enough, after they took his advice and changed the recipe the sales went through the roof, and as far as I know, an egg is still required in the recipe to this day. This can also link to what you were getting at towards the end of the video with the danger of having these myth-like brands being mistaken for truth - Bernays' ideas were repeatedly used in the 50s and 60s by the CIA (surprise surprise) in experiments for mass-control of the US population. Pretty sinister stuff, if you ask me. Anyway, I thought I'd share the Betty Crocker story since I think it relates to the video and I've always found it quite amusing and revealing of post-War attitudes towards women, if nothing else.

[@TheMasonX23]

Holy crap, my hometown with a population of only ~13k was featured in the graphic at 2:58

[@alex_4868]

I've often heard of brands being "religions" but this actually makes much more sense

[@NamesEvad]

Much of these brands are basically archetypes. A transparent performance that provides the audience with a simple and easy to understand formula. Think of Commedia Dell Art'e, the second any of the characters came on stage, even if people had not seen this story before or the company before, the audience know the characters and what to expect. To this extent much of the brands, people and performers that are famous are expected to follow their brand as to not do so would be to break what it means for them to be part of the popular consciousness.

[@davidkimlive]

The title reminded me of Motel of the Mysteries by David Macaulay where the restaurant signs and billboards are interpreted as mythical symbols, waiting to inspire and instill sense of direction to the people of Usa. It's a good satire.

[@LelouchVee]

Hello from 2018, where Tide quite literally turned itself into an underlying myth of the whole consumerism culture, turning every piece of advertisement into an ad about itself.

[@summercloudl]

This is a pretty antiquated reference, but I've always referred to this phenomenon as the "the Chuck Norris principle", when people become no longer themselves, but a larger than life version of themselves, i.e. the Chuck Norris memes back in the day. I find that this also happens often in fandom culture, where characters are transformed from their own personality to what we believe their essence is, making the fandom version of the character vastly different than the original.

[@TheSH1N1GAM1]

I am never disappointed by the amazing quality of gifs in your videos. Is part of the brand of Idea Channel high-quality gif usage? I'd say so.

[@MysticMindAnalysis]

I think advertisement could be, in some way, considered legends. They represent a world where their brand is top dog in their niche part of the market, with characters who express joy and surprise at the quality of this brand. They have to contain some levels of truth to them, otherwise they would be called out as completely dishonest and do harm to the sales of the product. However their intended purpose is not so much to be deceitful, but rather embellish the truth in a way that makes their messages seem more appealing. Just as myths and legends may have morals to their story (Homer's Odyssey being an amazing example of this), advertisement for brands represent parts of our culture that are exaggerated or highlighted in some way in order to gather this reputation of quality. We can look into the way these brands advertise and study them in a similar way to how we would study myths and legends in classical literature, deriving similar conclusions on what the meaning of these expressions are, and how they illustrate the ideals of any given time period.

[@SecretPurpleQ]

Why does consumerism have to be a depressing thought? but I'm not depressed about consumerism! I'm excited about it! I AM A CONSUMER! I love drinking in information and propaganda. I was born in it, molded by it. Consumerism is why this channel exists! You don't have to be a blind sheeple and let every message rule your life to appreciate the benefits of modern living. I make my own choices and decisions about everything, and I choose to consume! Be grateful so many people consume you!

[@Roxor128]

+Secretpurpleq Elipsis I hate the term "consumer". It's dehumanising. It's casting you as a mindless automaton with the sole purpose of consumption.

[@pokegnome2]

One aspect in the way that Brands can certainly resemble - or can be considered - myths is how, especially with the largest and most prominent, 'narratives' start to form, both from the corporations that own them (ie, the rivalry of McDonalds and Burger King being recently used for the whole 'peace' campaign) but also developed externally by popular culture (ie, the Burger King and Ronald McDonald becoming figures of horror on the internet). On the idea of 'modern' things being mythologised, I would say that 'concepts' increasingly are, but AS the concepts themselves, rather than by way of proxy such as a deity as might happen in prior eras. Especially in the west, ideas like 'Freedom', 'Democracy', and 'Justice' are heavily mythologised as ideals, with associated themes, places, and events, framed within epic narratives of struggle across centuries - if not millennia - to see them realised, with a common belief that we now live an age of enlightenment where good has largely triumphed over evil, and the world is better for it. And like any good mythology, there's then trouble for many who believe in the mythology that surrounds these concepts, having to reconcile their views with what others object as being reality, and attempting to demonstrate proof of these mythologies being false in some fashion.

[@darkmyro]

2 things 1. People do this all the time, when your a kid, you just kinda look at it as a fun thing and when your an adult you start looking at the deeper meaning of it. You pay attention to it a lot more as an adult or at least are a little more conscious of what it is trying to convey. This isn't to say kids don't pay attention, but I feel kids pay more attention to the feeling of something , but as an adult you focus more on the thinking behind it. This idea basically where things like the recent Pokemon episode comes from. 2. this is every idea channel episode ever, like ever.

[@garyciaramella7696]

Mike, do you have a group that you come up with these topics, or do you do it on your own? If you do it on you own... crazy, I have a lot of respect for your ability to philosophize... :)

[@MrDRSMAX]

The tweet of the week is not in the doobly doo. I want to watch that video, but I can't find a link to it.

[@mooxim]

6:17 I feel like I should get that argument about apples reference. Someone help me please!

[@jamesrevelscomposer]

Love this video. Branding has always been an interesting yet arcane subject

[@fg2hj]

I always feel like you can write a thesis paper off this stuff. PBS is no joke.

[@JakeStephensMrJakeStephens]

Brands have meant nothing to me - it's the product. I prefer Charmin over Northern because it's better for me. I prefer Diet Sprite Cranberry because it's better than Diet Sprite or Sprite itself. Will I drink Sprite or Diet Sprite if Diet Sprite Cran isn't available? Yes! I'd rather have a Bud Light than a Bud, and that follows with Miller. It's about taste and response for me and not "branding". The only thing that I can say about ads that affect me is that if I see an ad I may be prone to "want" it (not necessarily that product, but it's "category.") or it reminds me I need to pick-up that category of product next shopping trip. Outside that it's about what's on sale and best quality for the cash. Branding as a whole is a gimmick and anyone that "thinks" based off a commercial that something is better is too "sucked-in" for their own good. I fear the movie "Idiocracy" may come true. Taste>Value>Availability. Brand means nothing.

[@WastelandRegis]

Neil Gaiman's American Gods deals with this very well I think. Ancient gods losing worshipers to modern concepts and thus losing their "godhood." Brands have definitely taken on a mythology of their own, replacing culture and religion in many countries in the modern world. Good or bad thing? Hard to say. Probably a little of both. Great episode guys. Keep up the awesome work!

[@nekosd43]

In Cloud Atlas, brands eventually transpose the words they represent. Movie becomes Disney, car becomes Ford, television becomes Sony. In that way I think they do have that sort of mythical quality, where no one really understands the truth behind these words but they still believe in them anyway.

[@krabkit]

on the subject of "modernity", i understand completely. some words feel nice to say in the way that they roll off the tongue, but are sufficiently obscure as to sound presumptuous when used aloud.

[@JasperSynth]

This is the kind of content I originally subbed for.

[@animegirl535]

From what you've stated, you could also say that brands are synechdoches! They are part of a symbol or phrase that represents/refers to a bigger (or multiple) meanings. At least that's my take on it.

[@fo-sho]

The important distinction is that Brands are owned and purchased. Myths are open source and belong to societies as a collective. The effect of brands is limiting, defined, controlling. Myth is liberating and transformative. Many of the individuals you highlighted are more than just brands, they cultural icons and memes. The Band leverages that status in a framework of capitalism to drive profit. Negative aspects of the icon are either ignored or celebrated, while a myth is free to be tradgic. When a brand becomes truly tradgic it loses its value and relevance. A brand can never be 100% honest about itself. A myth is honesty in its purest form.

[@Trianghoul]

Modern day wizardry. The way we give and take meaning to things is the real magic of life.

[@toastom]

MIND-BLOWN

[@crts913]

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of brands being myths, hearing you talk about the move of brands into experiences really resonated with me. I think this can really be seen with the way Red Bull positions themselves - their product is an energy drink, but recently I've stopped thinking about that. I've started to recognize them more for their sponsorships in extreme sports, and their music related work (Red Bull Academy and the likes). So instead of thinking Red Bull the drink, I think Red Bull the... lifestyle?

[@maxmvalarezo]

This discussion made me think of how we brazilians have recently turned our word for "myth" ("mito") into a verb to express the idea that someone has done something incredible, something worthy to be told as a myth. So yeah, it became fairly common to see around the brazilian internet some people saying that someone "mitou" ("has mythed"), which is to say that this person did something totally awesome. So would that be a way of conveying this notion of one "becoming hypersignified" as a consequence of one's actions or one's story? I don't know. I just thought it could be interesting to try and make some connection between today's episode and this recent slang in brazilian portuguese.

[@zoeshamowie5525]

That's pretty cool. If you hear about it catching on in america, it's because I'm going to single handedly make it popular starting tomorow

[@jillpigott7959]

My favorite myth is the one about how people in Columbus' time thought the Earth was flat. The ancient Egyptians and the Norse both understood that the Earth was spherical.

[@eliavgutman3570]

Where is the link for the tweet of the week?

[@JonathanDufner]

+1,000 point s for giving attention to Modernity! Philosophy student here that just got really giddy lol

[@Mattteus]

"MYTH??" *Carol Kane pops up* "Yeth?"

[@whatarefears]

(Having spent the last few weeks gradually catching up on idea channel, I have finally reached the point where I can comment on a video that doesn't have a comment response yet!) Oddly enough, one of the first things that came to mind when I was watching this video was Coca-Cola... in post-WWII West Germany. Before the war, the coca-cola franchise had a branch in West Germany that continued to operate until the USA joined the war, at which point they were cut off from the "secret syrup" (coca-cola Germany then invented Fanta- true story). After the war, coca-cola USA made the decision (influenced by their sale of coca-cola to soldiers) not to allow the German franchise to begin buying the syrup again until the country had become significantly more "democratic". This certainly connected coca-cola with the concept of democracy, but it also helped in some way to create a new German /identity/. The return of coca-cola to West Germany wasn't just the return of a product, it was the world acknowledging that West Germany had returned to a respected position among the nations. The concept of coke in post-war West Germany is tied up not only in lifestyle or recognition of logos, but in concepts like freedom, democracy, and international communities. I'd argue that that's a myth.

[@Rheologist]

I don't know why but i just lost it at the "look guys im projecting" pic

[@milifilou]

Now I must think of when I did a 3 week work-experience. When ever I saw an Ad afterwards, I was just “ Oh I stocked that. I also stocked that. That´s so similar to what I stocked.” I just then realised how much meaning falls off of ads if you just think “Soap, different soap, shampoo, babyfood, cleaning material.” Name it by what it is, and you think it´s soooo boring.

[@reallyeasy100]

I think you missed a keyword, 'Icon', in your discussion. There might be a difference between the words 'icon' and 'brand' that separates the two into 'archetype design'' and 'marketing design'. It's possible that, in order to be elevated into some kind of grand narrative mythology, a 'brand' has to evolve into an icon? An icon (or archetype) is a symbol that is created of different parts that can be deconstructed, picked to pieces and then re-assembled to create something new... sometimes just in the perception of the beholder, or sometimes through fandom communities. A brand is a designed, controlled pre-packaged parcel that is much more difficult to pick apart and re-assemble into something new. A brand is a lot less flexible than an icon. I'm not sure where the distinction between the two lies, since it IS possible for a brand to take on the mythological, narrative qualities of an icon, but there IS a difference between creating a fandom about Beyonce (and perhaps Disney? How about Old Spice?) and creating a fandom about Coco-Cola. Basically, I can't imagine a fandom about Coco-Cola having the same kind of excitement, absurdity or re-imagining as the fandoms about Disney do. Perhaps I'm wrong about Coco Cola. Perhaps there IS a fandom based on the Coke vs. Pepsi wars the same way that there seems to be a small but enthused fandom based on the Apple vs. PC battle? Great show. Interesting discussion.

[@koidesipagal]

I think one of the most interesting things about a lot of myths is their ability to take nouns and turn them into adjectives and verbs. We all understand what a "herculean" task is, despite the fact that Hercules was a mythological person - not a type of person or even a group of clearly identifiable people. Similarly these days we're seeing more and more brands become adjectives and verbs. "Google" is probably the biggest example of this which has become so basic that classic sites like jfgi are now barely a thing...

[@nanba009]

"Guilty Free" brands could be a good example that people consumes specific brands so that they can be part of the mythos of "progress"

[@dashboots376]

Been watching Pushing Daisies? Noticed the clips there, good show.