Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
As for the others there’s limited, anecdotal evidence. There’s the bigot that wrote to the bank to complain about rainbow flags. Now I’m old school, if I didn’t like the way a company was operating I’d be leaving them, I’d not be writing expecting them to stop virtue signalling and wait for them to boot me out
|
I was thinking about this today in the shower where I have my best thoughts…
For us plebs, we decide to go with a certain supplier at least partially due to that suppliers brand. The key question is does that suppliers brand match my values and aspirations? Companies like Apple and Waitrose carefully maintain their brands as the high end option for example even if objective analysis might show other options to be better.
If the brand is strong enough, we can do little to influence it apart from walking away. Of course, if enough customers walk away, a change in the brand might be needed but on an individual level, we either accept what is offered or not. If we don’t walk away, we have endorsed that brand implicitly.
What is different here is Nigel Farages brand is incredibly strong. Like him or not, he has very carefully cultivated his position to appeal to a lot of people. The strength of his brand is such that the customer-supplier relationship has flipped round with Nigel Farage being the senior partner. If Coutts continued their relationship then they implicitly endorse Nigel Farages brand and that’s a direction that they clearly didn’t want to take