The anti-Lovemarks argument just found its voice (or at least one I can readily comprehend), thanks to Rob at Bad Marketing.
He writes: “Lovemarks isn’t complete bunk. The vitriolic response comes because this ad agency has created and hyped the idea, and pretends they can recreate, even manufacture it. Most of us probably have some brand that we have an irrational attachment to, and see the same behavior in people we know. The thing is, these brand relationships weren’t developed overnight, they weren’t manufactured by an ad agency, and it’s insulting to the brands we do love and respect to suggest that some ‘creative team’ can cook up a Lovemark in a matter of weeks and months.”
In other words, Lovemarks exist, but can only be respected when created via non-manipulative means. I’m cool with that.
