"Apple is (as we've proven using neuroscience)...a religion. Not only that--it is a religion based on its communities. Without its core communities, Apple would die--it is already facing strong pressure as the brand simply is becoming too broad (losing) its magic. What's holding it all together is the hundreds if not thousands of communities across the world spreading the passion and creating the myths."
I was glad to see he came back and explored the opposite side of things... as he puts it "If brands have become religions, is the opposite also true? Have religions been reduced to brands?" Skye affirms that he does believe this to be true. I have to admit I was already thinking in this direction as I began his article (but then, that doesn't surprise those of you who know me, right?).
Could it be the same thing that makes humans in general vulnerable to consumerism in the first place is the same thing that contributed to the rise of a religion out of the relationship focus Jesus lived and taught while He walked the earth?
What's really intriguing about this study, and about Apple being dubbed "a religion", is more what it says about religion than it is an indictment on Apple or any other strong brand, right? Does the study show that people are generally pre-disposed to a system of belief about something? And, if so, could it suggest that when Jesus left the disciples without a religion per se, that in the absence of one, the people who by nature are predisposed to systemization rather than relationship, unknowingly began to layer the system, or religion, back onto that which Jesus spent three years striping away?
No comments:
Post a Comment