The Love-Hate Game: Why Some Brands Own Us and Others Fail. A Study Guide To Emotional Branding Strategy

“What you call love was invented by guys like me… to sell nylons.”
—Don Draper

Brands are intangibles. You can’t touch them, you can’t hold them in your hands. What you can hold, see, or point to is an instance of the brand, not the brand itself. It’s like love—ethereal, elusive—except a brand won’t break your heart (or maybe it will). Even in accounting, we call it “Goodwill,” like it’s some kind of ghost lurking on the balance sheet. It’s there, but untouchable. So, how does something so intangible manage to grab us by the throat—or the wallet?

How can brands control our emotions, if they even do? And more importantly, why do we let them? This is the first in a series of "Symbols and Seduction"that will take a deep dive into the psychology of branding and emotion. But let's be clear —this isn’t some cookie-cutter listicle about how insert trendy brand tapped into your feels, or the "one secret rule" behind why Orange and TedHelix took over the world. And no, I won’t pretend to have found the Holy Grail of branding success.

This will probably leave you a little confused, maybe a little furious, and that’s exactly the point. If branding were as simple as following a single rule, every company out there would be the next Nike or Apple. So buckle up—this ride might get messy.

I’ll say it again—there are almost infinite combinations of human DNA, and you really think some overpriced guru has cracked the code? Please. A single case study of a handful of companies won’t give you the full picture. It’s like trying to understand the universe by looking at a single star. But, what it does do is give you a powerful lens to zoom in on some possible explanations for how brands mess with our emotions.

Branding experts have gone down the rabbit hole, trying to uncover the secret sauce. They’ve cobbled together theories from observation, trial, and error. And while none of them hold all the answers, they each offer a glimpse into the mystery.

Here, I’ll walk you through the most robust theories, down to the “gut feeling” ones that a self-proclaimed guru rambled about on stage in a $5,000 suit. Ready? Good let's cut through the fluff and get into real stuff.

Extended Self: LEGO Theory for Adults

Belk’s concept of the “extended self” ^[1] (yes, branding people really dive this deep into philosophy) argues that our fragile identities stretch their claws into the physical world, grasping at objects to stabilize who we think we are. It’s probably the most robust theory since 1998, cutting through the noise of branding theories like a signal in the chaos. Is it the ultimate truth? Who knows. But it’s something to chew on, and it’s certainly worth exploring further.

Now, here’s the catch: this theory is very Western and materialistic. And you know what? That’s fine. Most of what we consider "branding" in 2024 is a product of Western consumer culture anyway. But wait—what about Japan? Well, that’s another rabbit hole I’m not diving into today. I’ll stick to my original point: the majority of what we know about branding is born from the West, and I stand by that.

So, what does Belk’s theory say? Essentially, humans extend their identity by possessing physical objects or associating with certain groups. These objects become part of who we are. Sounds legit—if God were LEGO Inc. You buy a package, slap on some extra blocks, and voilà—your sense of self is extended. But here’s the kicker: you have to pay for that self-extension.

Self-Transformation: Beyond the Extended Self

In 2005, Aaron C. Ahuvia ^[2]brought a fresh perspective on the extended self with his article "Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers' Identity Narratives." He argues that objects don’t just extend our identity—they symbolise self-transformation. It’s a step beyond Belk’s theory, rooted deeper in human nature and less focused on the materialistic view of branding.

Let me give you an example: Think of Helen Keller's moment at the water pump ^[3]. She didn’t just understand water—she transformed. If not, now’s the perfect time to Google it. That story is the essence of Ahuvia’s theory—self-transformation. The object, or experience, isn’t just a reflection of who we are, but a catalyst for becoming who we are.

This is one of the most universal narratives that truly explains how brands tap into our emotions. It’s personal, it’s tailored to the fabric of our lives, and it becomes an integral part of our identity—not just an extension, but a transformation. It's not about what you own, but what you become.

Self-Expression

Emotional Branding and the Masks We Wear

Overrated. I buy Orange because I want to kick the U.S. government in the head. That’s probably the most honest explanation of emotional branding you’ll hear from anyone in the West. We feel like we have to cling to brands to express ourselves, and the sad truth? It kind of works.

Apparently, you’re not creative unless you’ve got Apple products. You’re not rich—just “tasteful”—if you don’t have Fendi or Louis Vuitton stamped all over your wardrobe. Self-expression, or more accurately, who we wish we were, has been outsourced to brands.

You don’t have to be what you dream of—you can just buy it. And when we slap these labels on, we’re signalling to the world, “Look at me! I’ve made it!” It’s a mask. And here’s an idea: the next Joker movie could be a branding parody. Why bother with the chaos of self-identity when you can just put on a logo and call it a day?

Inspiration Theory: The Key to the Kingdom

If self-expression is the kingdom, inspiration is the key to the gates. Inspire people, and they’ll use your brand as a tool to explore and express themselves. And guess what? There’s no shortage of books and self-proclaimed branding gurus ready to sell you this theory. One famous book says that if you find your company’s raison d'être, you’ll inspire people—and bam, your brand becomes the one.

Let’s cut the poetry—this isn’t about hearts and minds. It’s about creating a cult. Your customers become devotees, loyal to the point of obsession, and they don’t just use your brand—they defend it. All the way to the gates of hell, if necessary. Why? Because your brand represents them.

Here’s the kicker: the brand itself isn’t real—it’s just a symbol. Your customers' emotions are real. That’s where the power lies. But there’s a catch: it’s all about your intentions. If you’re not genuinely aligned with the values you project, this whole cult can turn on you faster than you can say "brand scandal."

The Inspiration Theory is a powerful tool. If you’ve ever been inspired by cartoons, iconic ads, or the rallying cry of a movement, then congratulations—you’ve got a heart. If not, well, you’re probably a piece of stone, destined to never understand the magic of emotional branding.

Emotional Bond Theory: The Science-Fiction of Branding

Science-fiction? You bet. And believe me, both sides are buying into it. Tim Halloran, in his book ^[4], draws some bizarre parallels between romantic relationships and the way we develop affection for brands. Another business book, of course—because why not turn our consumer habits into a Hallmark card?

But then the neuroscientists came in, scalpels in hand, ready to poke around and find the truth ^[5]. I was hoping they’d rule out this ridiculous theory and we could all move on. But no—reality had other plans. Turns out, there’s actual psychological and neurophysiological evidence backing it up. Cut through the fluff—the studies show that emotional branding is real. And not just real, but powerful.

Consumers do form deep, emotional ties with brands over time. Yep, you read that right. Your brain actually creates an emotional bond with your sneakers, your phone, and yes, even your coffee cup. It’s like a love story you didn’t ask for, but your neurons are all-in. For now, the jury’s still out, but if even one study found it, you’ve got to wonder... .

Non-Emotional Theories: When Branding Isn’t About Love

If branding were all about romance, Google would have thrown in the towel ages ago. So let’s acknowledge the obvious: emotional branding has its limits. Some of these are as clear as day, while others are as deep as the Mariana Trench. Let’s flip the script and show you the other side of the coin.

Eastern Philosophy: The Anti-Extended Self

Belk’s theory, in all its complexity, is like driving on the right side of the road—it makes sense, but only in the Western world. There’s a whole other perspective where the rules are reversed. His extended-self theory might hold up if you're viewing the world through the lens of a Western consumer, but in the East? Not so fast.

Eastern philosophy is all about integration—becoming one with the environment. There's no need to extend the self because what you're searching for is already here. The self isn’t something to be expanded through possessions or brands; it’s something to be dissolved, to blend with the world around you.

I’m not about to give you a crash course in Buddhism—there are better gurus out there for that. But let’s just say this: the Eastern view of self is fundamentally different. It emphasizes harmony with nature, the idea that “I” is an illusion. Compare that to Western self-expression, where identity is built brick by brick through what you own. The concept of extended-self? Completely irrelevant in this worldview.

So, Belk’s theory? It might not fly in the East, where the focus isn’t on personal expansion but on integration with the world. If you're trying to sell the idea of self-expression to an Eastern consumer, you might be barking up the wrong tree.

Status Theory: Let Your Belongings Speak for You

These days, you might lose your crown to the wind—or worse, to a phone snatcher. Your safest bet? Let your possessions do the talking. Want to scream "I’m the king"? Flash your status symbols. Seduction is a strange game, and in this world, it's not about words—it’s about the lures you carry. And fashion? That’s the loudest horn of all.

Trust Theory: The Swipe-Left Approach

In a world of endless options, we swipe left on the unknown and stick with what we trust. Simple as that.

Functional Theory: When It’s Not About Emotion

Sex doesn’t sell everything. In the world of industrial equipment, functionality reigns supreme. It’s the single most important factor. You want the job done right, with durability and ease of use coming in at a close second and third. Emotional appeal? Forget it—This stuff doesn’t just ignore your feelings—it runs over them like a truck.

Take lamps, for instance. A single-purpose object that lasts 15 years. How does it tap into your emotions? Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. You know you’re set for the next decade and a half—no subscriptions, no trend cycles, no hidden costs. Just a product that does what it’s supposed to do. And that, oddly enough, is the comfort it provides.

Off-Record: The Real Truth About Branding

Even if you try all the tricks in the book, you’ll still leave some people untouched. "Successful" branding is about knowing your audience and narrowing it down. No cookie-cutter plans, no "sell to everyone" approach—because if you try to please everyone, you end up appealing to no one. The real magic of branding lies in applying the right method at the right time.

Emotional branding needs two things to work:

1. Sharp marketing: A message that cuts through the noise.
2. Firm behavior: Soft marketing, or indirect marketing, where the company’s actions align with its brand promises.

The truth is, successful brands combine both, and that’s what we see in the real world. It’s not one or the other—it’s the marriage of sharp messaging and consistent behavior that makes branding stick.

So, take a look around—do you feel attached to the brands in your life? If yes, then great, this article wasn’t a waste of your time. If not, maybe it’s time to rethink what really makes your heart race—and why.

One Last Thing: I’m Not Here to Sell You Anything

Let me say it again—I'm not here to sell you anything. I’m not an affiliate, I have no sponsor, and if anything, I encourage you to take advantage of as many free resources as you can. You might’ve seen the reference list, but honestly, you don’t need those books right now. Maybe you won’t need them at all. Business books are like a bag of chips—half of them are empty air, and the other half? Junk food.

If you want the single most valuable resource, go for Belk’s theory. You can sign up for a free JSTOR account and access up to 100 articles a month—no cost. Marty Neumeier? He’s a legend, and he publishes a free PDF ^[6] of The Brand Gap on his website. No sign-up, no email grab—just click and download.

As for Eastern philosophy? There are literally hundreds of hours of Alan Watts lectures on YouTube—for free. He’s easy to follow, though he’s not my guru.

References

1. Belk, Russell W. “Possessions and the Extended Self.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 15, no. 2, Sept. 1988, pp. 139–168.
2. Ahuvia, Aaron C. “Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers’ Identity Narratives.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 32, no. 1, June 2005, pp. 171–184, https://doi.org/10.1086/429607.
3. Helen Keller Channel. “Helen Keller - Water Scene - “the Miracle Worker” - Higher Resolution.” YouTube, 17 Mar. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsRVYq9JOQ. Accessed 10 Oct. 2024.
4. Halloran, Tim. Romancing the Brand : How Brands Create Strong, Intimate Relationships with Consumers. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2014.
5. Reimann, Martin, et al. “How We Relate to Brands: Psychological and Neurophysiological Insights into Consumer–Brand Relationships.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 22, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 128–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.003.
6. “THE BRAND GAP.” MARTY NEUMEIER, www.martyneumeier.com/the-brand-gap
7. Neumeier, Marty. The Brand Gap. Berkeley, Calif. New Riders, 2003.
8. Tabary, Zoe. “The Power of Brands.” Economist Impact - Perspectives, impact.economist.com/perspectives/marketing/power-brands.
9. “Branding.” The Economist, 3 Aug. 2009, www.economist.com/news/2009/08/03/branding.