Brand and the buying decision

These days I have been quite interested in the branding aspect of marketing. I guess the fact that my job is related to brands and retail does also help.
The other day when I was making a sort of buy-list or rather a wish-list I realised that as I was putting a number in front of my objects of desire, I found out just how branding works, at least for me. Let me explain..
I have always been attracted to watches. I have found that there was a gap between the amount I wanted spend and the maximum cap that I wanted to put on it. This grey area is where brands came into play because as I started naming each brand the cap for each changed and for one particular brand I couldnt even put a number (if only that was possible in buying the watch too!). But then I realised what my professor had taught me about brand valuation in monetary terms. Thus if i was ready to pay x rs. more for brand B over brand A wasnt that what brand power is?
Thus brand power lies in that grey range and it is every individual brand that then turns this into a particular value (hopefully positive) for a particular individual.
I know I am probably not telling anything new however the reason I am writing this is because I actually experienced it in the most exact terms and after having read a lot about commoditisation of products this was a powerful reminder of how much the 'brand tag' still adds to each of our lives.
Thus as someone has said, "Brands announce something about ourselves to the world"

Diminishing utility of Intelligence

The complaint of most of my colleagues, friends and classmates who are at work today is that they seem to be not doing enough 'value-add'. Most of us (including me of course) think that we can contribute much more. The overriding emotion is that if we could probably earn much more if only we were able to really contribute with our intelligence and learning. But then why does it not happen?
Well the answer, boys and girls is Diminishing utility of intelligence. That is as every executive contributes with his intelligence, the utility of that intelligence to the organization is quite high initially and hence the employee is recognized and promoted however as he contributes more and more the utility to the organization of that is isnt quite so much.
Think about it, could there be an explanation for this? A low level employee is usually one among many since they form the majority of the strength of the company. However as he is promoted and he rises above, the number among which he is competing becomes progressively smaller. In fact as he reaches the middle or higher management, he is among the top 1 to 5 % in any company. Now even if he contributes through his knowledge or value-add, it wont have that much impact. Why?
One explanation is that an organization can pursue only so many new ideas or policies. As a result some executives will not really be doing intelligent work but in fact will merely be implementing those ideas decided by others in the top echelons.
Another explanation is that as part of the top brass, their value add though significant is hard to measure and compare against those of their peers just as someone with $200 mill is just marginally better off from someone with $100 mill.
Thus maybe the utility of intelligence and indeed the compensation ;-) associated with it diminishes as it progressively increases per employee. I wonder if that's why they say, 'the meek shall inherit the earth'?
P.S. Special mention of RM, AK, DC and ND-M for having had contributed to this blog through your insightful comments. {This is not simply a means to flatter you but I guess it wouldn't hurt ;-) }

Confident or just too sure?

Confidence and sureness (if that is a word) are two different things. Sureness or cockiness if you will-is being certain or opinionated about everything. It often shows not maturity but rather a certain narrowness of perspective or even just good ol’ bliss blooming out of ignorance.
Specimens that exhibit such characteristics do not acknowledge an alternate perspective for as long as possible and then when confronted by overwhelming evidence simply find themselves completely lost!
Confidence or true self-belief on the other hand is an approach which accepts the ambiguity and risk present in every situation and tries to continuously adjust and modify thoughts and actions.
This is probably quite closely related to cognitive dissonance and I think a truly confident individual is one who is completely cognizant of his cognitive dissonance ( too heavy maybe) and is constantly trying to get a better understanding of his self and his environment.
Thus the quote for today: Confidence is the cognizance of uncertainty and cockiness is the absence of cognizance. (quite good if i say so myself!)
Or to borrow from the quote of a well-known politician: “I wish I was as sure of something as he seems to be of everything”