+1 862 207 3288 Question and Requirement：
In this project students are asked to identify an iconic brand from their home country and then relate the materiality of how this brand has been consumed within their family. This project hence requires foundational readings in both theories of Iconic Brands and Materiality. Students must make a case as to why this brand is iconic and then demonstrate the object-subject relationships that emerge. This is a highly personalised project that requires creative thinking.
Advice for Main Project
Note that this is remarkably open-ended. You are basically free to contextualize this project however you wish. Conceptually, however you must address the theoretical issues which are explored during lectures.
The Context
As per the brief, you can pick any context that you prefer. My advice is to pick a topic that you really love, that you are really interested in and then think about it in the terms of the logic of branding. Remember the students who do the best will be those who pick a project of greatest personal interest. Here you have the freedom to be creative in your thinking.
The Concepts
You must draw upon a conceptual framework as presented in lectures. This means trawling through the above reading lists and identifying a theoretical area that you are most interested in and then applying it to your context in the form of analysis. You should begin with a singular conceptual focus and then use your privately directed reading to expand the relevant readings into a comprehensive range of material, as befits a research project. Remember it is imperative that you analyse, not describe, your context and use theory to do so.
A very good book which comes with all sorts of examples of brand contexts being analysed with interesting concepts is the volume Brand Culture by Schroeder and Salzer-Morling.
A recurring issue attends a lack of engagement with theory – as I have repeatedly emphasised, scholarship is all about concentrated and dedicated periods spent reading and contemplating sophisticated ideas. The expectation is that all readings will be read in detail. Far too often there was little to illustrate any sustained effort at understanding the work – it is usually easy to spot the difference between somebody who has read the articles and made an effort to understand, as opposed to somebody who dips into texts and extracts sentences. Very often this lead to people missing the point – in particular the iconic branding argument of Holt was often misrepresented. Chapter one of his book looks at standard theories of branding, he uses these ideas to launch his own ideas off – however it was clear that some people understood the standard theories as being his own. This can only happen to those who don’t read the text through; it just doesn’t do to only read a few pages.
The following are examples which signal a lack of engagement:
1) Un-integrated citations – frequently, there would be a dense and complex quotation which is not analysed or explained or referenced back to the work. When you refer to theory, it is important that it is explained and analysed carefully and in detail.
2) Freely floating quotation: sometimes an entire quotation will be presented without any explanation. The assumption seems to be that the examiner will understand the quotation and know how it links to the work. Do not make this assumption; effectively you are making the examiner do the work for you. You have to explain what you cite, why you are citing it and its significance for the thread of argument that you are making.
3) Descriptiveness: there is a difference between describing something and analysing something. Anybody can describe a context – it is not an impressive skill. However to analyse something is more sophisticated – the question is how can you use theory to analyse a context. In many cases, students were simply describing contexts. Remember, there is no reason why you need to go to university to describe a context – it is not an academic skill, so why should it be awarded any marks?
4) Academic Offences – sadly there were incidents of plagiarism which will be investigated. Do not plagiarise.
5) Not being ambitious – for instance, very few people mentioned the dialectic to describe materiality. Whilst I appreciate there was a low word count, this should prevent people from dealing with theory at the complex level. To take the easy parts of theoretical arguments whilst ignoring the more complicated parts is a statement of lack of engagement and ambition. In many cases, I would comment on people’s levels of insight – very often this would mean that analysis is being conducted without any sense of awareness of some of the key theoretical issues. In other cases I would comment favourably about the level of insight, which suggests that even though the theoretical aspects are not being referred to, it is clear that the student understands the issues at stake and the analysis bears that quality of knowledge, even if not explicitly mentioned.
Irrelevant aspects – some of you did not stick to the project brief and instead seemed to be answering the question that you wished I had asked.
