Holt(2004) defines ‘cultural branding’ as ‘the set of axioms and strategic principles that guide the building of brands into cultural icons’(p.11) Cultural icons, which is accepted as the symbol of the ideas or values of certain society, functions as a myth which is demanded at that time and environment. Thus brand becomes cultural icon when they ‘perform identity myths’(p.8). It means the brand itself acts as a desired identity of the user. However, previous researchers regarded ‘identity value’ simply as a status symbol, lacking specification(p.4). Holt then explains the axioms of cultural branding. I looked though it with the example of Barbie.

First of all, iconic brands address acute contradictions in society.(p.6) Barbie was created by the company Mattel,

-Barbie fits the desire of the girls: aside from the ideal appearance, she has everything she wants(boyfriend Ken, various pets, her own house and beautiful clothes) -> myth

-Many types of Barbies were manufactured(e.g. Tennis player Barbie, Roller skater Barbie, Doctor Barbie, Racing driver Barbie, etc.) which reflects various jobs created as society changes. Mantel also made black barbie, and localized Barbies with the clothes of certain nations.

-> Barbie also shows the transformation of the role of woman in the society.

-Barbie World: Barbie has its own story. The story never ends, and the company keep making new products related to the stories.

-Kidults: Barbie is not confined to children’s toys. There are adults who still loves the fantasy that Barbie provides. Barbie collectors spend much money on buying its diverse versions.

-Collaboration with other Brands such as Chanel, Louis Vuitton(designer brands), or TV shows or comics

-Critics: it influences young girl’s standard of beauty -> can be related to the concern proposed by Klein(1999). It is shaping the culture.

Cultural branding differs from the conventional ones such as mind-share branding, emotional branding, and viral branding. The characteristics of these models are also found from iconic brands –‘they have distinctive and favorable associations, they generate buzz, and they have core consumers with deep emotional attachments’.(p.35) However, these are the consequence of identity myth of the brand, not the cause. Therefore cultural branding needs different strategy, and holt points out its differences from previous models:

-Customers consume the myth that product provides, rather than just a product itself.

-Identity value is created and changed in the historical context, and is not detached from it. Thus the brand’s stakes should be detailed, not to be simplified(p.37)

-Additionally, the myth embedded in the brand has to adjust to social changes to remain iconic(p.38)

Nowadays these iconic brands are ‘no longer simply branding their own products, but branding the outside culture as well’(Klein, 1999, p.48). In terms of cultural branding, many companies give support to cultural events or institutions. This sponsoring seems to benefit both sides at first glance. However, as the intervention of the brands increases, the culture becomes their subordinate –now companies are not satisfied with showing their logos at the sponsored concert hall; they rather launch their own concert that suit their palate. It means to survive without sponsor is getting impossible. Klein also points out that such strong control of brands ‘prevent us from seeing changes in the field’, which means it is hard to realize how sponsorship is expanding and changing over time.(p.51)