Brands and toys

So as I'm sure is expected of me at this point, I was intrigued by John Seabrook's chapter about Star Wars and the way that brand has played a role particularly related to the licensing of products. The article, for me, largely recalled something I read a while ago by Jonathon Gray that is all about the role toys played in that franchise, and I think it's an interesting point to bring up in the context of brands and brand identity.

Not only does Star Wars have toys, but those toys have been an essential part of constructing the entirety of the Star Wars universe and (as many people know) are a large part of what helped make George Lucas a very, very rich man/makes the franchise so incredibly rich. The toys are part of what helped sustain the franchise during the decades between trilogies, and even between the films by providing a space for play for fans, who could take up action figures and vehicles and the like and create their own stories (some even thinking this is part of why there are temporal gaps between the films).

Yet at the same time, the merchandise helped construct the brand in a number of ways. Not only did the huge amount of merchandise/some people's extensive collecting of it set up Star Wars as a clear phenomenon (as if the box office sales hadn't already), but they also are clearly part of the idea of looping. Sales of particular figures were tracked, and fan reactions to particular characters were used in continuing the brand (Fett is a really good and easy example from the series - but it happened all the time, as there are tons of figures/vehicles released that are either of background characters without lines [hammerhead], or vehicles that never appear in the films) and making it expand far beyond just the films.

The sort of personal, emotional value that certain brands can take on is really interesting, as well; some people make incredibly strong connections to a product/brand. The example of a car does give a clear understanding of what it is to continually buy the experience of driving (leasing a Ford), but I think that it understates the role that emotions may play in the experience. I wish I could find it somewhere online, but the short film "The Robot Fixer" is about this convergence - (Bernice Chin (Wai Ching Ho) has never really known her estranged son Wilson. Now a car accident has put Wilson into a coma. And the only clue he's left behind is a box of twenty-year-old toy robots. As her daughter Grace (Cindy Cheung) presses her to deal with Wilson's deteriorating condition, Bernice becomes obsessed with Wilson's toys, as if repairing the robots will help her connect with her unreachable son.). She is trying to complete a collection, but the toys are essentially never ending - she is buying to constantly be trying to get an emotion that ultimately is unable to come from the purchasing. And it comes from a brand of toy, a particular line that. Talk about the power a brand can have over emotion.

The other brand identity that has always intrigued me is the Air Jordan line by Nike, particularly in reference to the Spike Lee commercials - Nike being willing to pay the fine so that Jordan would wear the shoes and attract attention, while making the very stylized commercials...

Update:

In walking to class from the CTCS office, I noticed the poster for Gallipoli and that made me think about The Truman Show - talk about the creation of a total brand identity, with a singular star representing all the products. Jordan could only aspire to have that kind of all encompassing reach (though I'd imagine he'd want to be informed about it all). That unawareness, though, relates nicely to Seabrook's other chapter, and the unrecognition of many people of the role their clothing plays in being advertising.