When it comes to creating a meaningful brand, getting the brand permission correct is key. If permissions of the target audience are overstepped by a brand, however great, it will result in an ineffective campaign. It is in discussing the perplexity of permissions that I mention the example of “privacy”.
Privacy has always been a strong example regarding permissions due to the varying degree of scope in which the aspect of “privacy” is applied and the assorted permissions those manifestations can be assigned. Take body scanners in airport terminals, an example of rejection due to lack of permission. An interesting dichotomy to that rejection would be in knowing what percentage of the travelers upset about scanners are members of Facebook, or better yet, tweeted about the injustice so that the world could subscribe and read their thoughts.
Members of Facebook create detailed profiles of themselves that include addresses, phone numbers and birthdays. They tag photos of themselves and others on vacation, at school, at work, and when inebriated. They update their status to let you know when they just saw a movie or just ate a candy bar.
Yet, it was just 10 years ago we were all in an uproar over wire tapping as part of the Patriot Act.
My point is not that the airport body scanners or the Patriot Act are either good nor bad, but rather the immense effect existing permissions can have on acceptance. Permissions have the power to take the singular idea of “privacy”, and create differing levels of acceptance regardless of how analogous each application of it might appear to be.
The foundation of building a strong brand is based on connecting that brand with the highest emotional intensity of the market. However, if the permissions of the target audience have not been correctly determined, then the highest emotional intensity that will be claimed will be rejection.