This post is brought to you by...

I just started reading James B. Twitchell's Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld, which I bought the other day at Blackwell's for 10 quid. I'm not even through the first chapter, and I don't think I'll bother finishing it. Never before have I seen a book contribute so very little to the currently existing body of knowledge, and manage to do so in such an uncompelling way.

Here is the opening line to the book:

Branded Nation: If you were looking for two of the most overused title words in the book business, you couldn't do better than this.

That alone made the book lose its appeal to me. It went on to elaborate on how overused these words are, and seemed to end with the idea that it was only a matter of time before someone slapped these two words together for a title. The rest of the book is filled with tired, predictable clichés that made me say, "I was waiting for them to say that." For example, in the chapter on the marketing of churches, there is a line that reads, 

In the beginning Christianity was the Word, and, as I'm sure you've already guessed, the Word was the Brand.

Umm yes, I did already guess it, thanks.

The beginning chapter is about how brands and ads are stories, and gives the standard examples: the J. Peterman catalogue and pretty much anything by David Ogilvy. It wasn't anything I hadn't read a hundred times in a standard introductory advertising or media textbook. The following chapters discuss how marketing now plays such a central role for churches, colleges and museums respectively. I'm still trying to work out his argument, though: that advertising is bad? Colleges shouldn't have stores in them? I'm not really sure what his point is supposed to be.

I think the brands in colleges debate is interesting, and I am in two minds about it. On one hand, I think running a college like a business often sets a bad tone for students. In Oxford, it is clear who gets the priority: conference guests. Students are asked to clean out their rooms entirely during the breaks and shove the entire contents into cupboards, just so conference guests can stay in a "real Oxford room" and get the authentic Oxford experience™ while staying here. Running a college like a business also puts students in the mindset of "the customer is always right" and leads to those fun arguments about how "I pay so much to go here, I deserve an A." Sometimes, with wealthier colleges, I wonder how many people got in based on their CV and how many people got in based on the fact that Daddy built them a library.

On the other hand, I think including stores and brands on the campus landscape can be beneficial in some cases. A lot of underclassmen either can't drive or don't have their car on campus, so I think having stores and restaurants on campus makes it easier for them to be comfortable in their new surroundings. Granted, it doesn't teach them independence in the sense of learning to take public transportation and figuring out how to get places, but I think it does make the whole transition a little less shocking when you don't have to buy your meals from a vending machine.

However, again, it's also problematic because companies can take advantage of their monopolies on campus and jack up their prices tremendously. And availability doesn't equal choice. I'll never forget the campus grocery store at my old uni - nothing but snacks and frozen dinners. It's convenient, it's profitable, but it's certainly not healthy. I guess it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Colleges want money for buildings, etc., but they need to think about the image they project by aligning themselves with these sponsors.

God, I got bored writing this post. These are such old, tired debates. And Twitchell does nothing to liven them up. You're better off reading an advertising textbook.

Happy weekend, everyone!