Like most people, you probably like fine wine. Hardly anyone would choose a glass of cheap plonk over something rare and special. But a few months ago, scientists found that most ordinary people can’t tell the difference if you swap the labels. Not only that, but if you give someone cheap wine, and tell them it’s expensive, they’re likely to enjoy it far more. And it’s not just idle talk. The pleasure centres in the brain actually demonstrate more activity when we believe we’re drinking the best stuff in the cellar – regardless of whether it’s true or not.

Last week, Ben Goldacre investigated placebo medicines on Radio 4. He reported on various studies that showed patients respond to placebo treatments for even the most serious complaints – for example, patients with inactive pace makers reported feeling better. And inexplicably, patients who were given branded placebo medicines seemed to do markedly better than their counterparts with non-branded placebos.

It’s pretty astonishing, but if you take these findings at face value, it sounds like what we believe about the products we consume has a profound effect on the way we experience them. Until now, the goal of good branding has always been to build customer loyalty, and hold quality products and services together with a strong organizing idea. But perhaps there’s no limit to where it can go, for the brands that get it right. If great brands really do make our experiences better, perhaps companies should concentrate just as much of their efforts on branding, as they do on customer service, NPD, and anything else that actively improves the way people experience their products and services.

Greed is good, right? What’s worth doing is worth doing for money, right? Wrong and wrong. New research conducted by Samuel Bowles at the Santa Fe Institute of Technology is beginning to question one of the basic tenets of economics: namely, that we only do for ourselves.

In fact, offering money can sometimes put people off doing things where the reward was merely the satisfaction of helping someone out or displaying good manners. Bowles conducted 41 behavioral economics experiments to see where moral sentiment and self interest conflict.

For instance, 6 daycare centers in Haifa, Israel imposed a fine on parents who were late when collecting their kids. The fine was designed to encourage parents to pick up their kids on time. Instead the opposite happened. Lateness increased as a direct result. Why?

According to Bowles: ‘The fine seems to have undermined the parents” sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase.’

Another experiment revealed women donated blood less frequently when paid. Money, it seems, taints the good feeling of acting out of kindness.

The field of neuro-economics is beginning to support Bowles’s theories. In one experiment conducted by Oregon University, MRIs were used to monitor student brain patterns as they donated money or realised that a recent windfall would be taxed but go to a good cause. In both cases their ‘reward centres lit up.’ Oregon economist William Harbaugh told the New York Times: ‘We”re showing that paying taxes does produce a neural reward. But we”re showing that the neural reward is even higher when you have voluntary giving.’

In the meantime, have a look at some of our new work.

Brands doing interesting things with spaces (indoors or outdoors). Some call it environmental or experiential branding. Whatever you call it, there’s not enough of it. Maybe because on a media plan it’s always the last item on the list. Maybe because the cost per 1,000 is hard to measure. Whatever the reason it’s a shame. Especially when you see brands that have the courage to do something interesting.

Nokia’s decision to do the Regent Street lights this year was a refreshing change. 14 light clusters react to the density and movements of people in Regents Street. In taking something highly visible (and often badly done) and making it better, Nokia have reinforced their reputation for technical innovation in the face of the iphone launch and given the shoppers on Regents street something nice to look at. More please…

That’s Britain in five words, according to one Times reader, in response to Gordon Brown’s endeavour to find a motto for Great Britain. Others range from the earnest (“Pride, passion, history, monarchy, exploration”) to the despondent (“Once mighty empire, slightly used”). It’s an example of Gordon Brown’s “consultative” style of government. Apparently a Citizens’ Summit of 1,000 people will meet to deliberate on the final wording - as short as Liberte. Egalite. Fraternite or as long as 1,000 words.

You might question the utility of crafting anything creative by committee (let alone one with 1,000 members) You might also run from the whole enterprise like Matthew Parris in the Times, who submitted his own: Ne nostra in fundamenta subeamus: “Let us not climb up our own bottoms.” And let us not forget the potential downside, “Four legs good, two legs bad.” springs to mind.

Call it a motto, or call it an essence, why is the UK doing it? Do we really need a common idea of what Britain is? The brand consultant in me would say that defining and refining what brand UK stands for can only be a good thing. At least as long as we pretend that there is a UK rather than separate kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.

My five words for Britain now are: Once, Proud, Celebrity, Binge, Culture.

What are yours?

The mantra of brands has, for so long, been consistency. Consistency of look and feel. Consistency of tone of voice. Global consistency. Consistency to save money. We’ve gotten so good at it too. Look at our high streets. Flick through the pages of magazines. A world of perfectly consistent…and perfectly boring brands. The product of more than two decades of branding has been an awesomely polished blandscape. A place where even the latest trend can be corporatised, repackaged and sold to the masses in months. A place where genuine brand innovation is in short supply. A thousand voices all talking to their customers in the same way, visually and verbally.

In the main, people don’t seem to mind. We’re as wedded to brands as ever. Whether drooling over the latest Sony Bravia or the Iphone. Walking around the O2, the apotheosis of the modern branded environment, you can’t help but marvel at the slickness of it all, but I, for one, felt a bit queasy. We are all consumers, but sometimes it all gets a bit much? Are we even missing a trick? As no less than Groove Armada said, “If everyone looked the same we’d get tired of looking at each other.” The brand world we’ve created, far from empowering consumers with choice, is in danger of turning consumers off brands with its sameness and lack of imagination. At the very least, could we not show a little more imagination and non-conformity in brand creation and renewal?

Some are calling for an anti-design movement. A punk movement to shake up the complacency of 70’s long-haired rock. Certainly, brands (and ultimately people) would benefit from greater brand imagination from us brand owners and agencies).Where are the mavericks? Where are the brands that cut through? The brands that have the confidence of their convictions to stand out and be different. The brands who draw us into their world and make us want to stay. Often these are the smaller more entrepreneurial brands. The little food start-ups, the ethical clothing companies with something new to say.

In an attention deficient world, we need more of those, and we need more brands that have something to say, that give us and surprise us. You only need look at the interest that greeted Cadbury’s “Gorilla” to see the possibilities. And that was just an ad execution. But brands need to do more than create an arresting 40 second spot. They need to be an all-encompassing experience. Like Ben and Jerry’s managed with their music festivals and the Innocent have done with their village fetes. On-brand experiences which truly engage unlike the O2 with the Wireless festivals in Hyde Park and Leeds.

Look at the high street and you wonder why retailers don’t do more to draw their customers in. All of that space and opportunity and a total lack of imagination. Selfridges have been an exception over the last few years with their Brazilian festival and exhibitions by Brian Eno and others. But we need much more of this and soon. Every brand in every area should be able to create engaging brand experiences. All it needs is the courage and conviction and a true desire to think differently. Maybe brands should forbid themselves the possibility of a 40 second ad and posters and see where they end up. We will see whether Cadbury’s lead the charge, or whether they end up like the others.

That was what Radiohead said on their website as they unveiled their seventh album. The groups decision to release their new album “In Rainbows” through their website has sent ripples through the rest of the music industry. Fans can choose to pay what they think the album is worth for a digital download, or choose to pay a fixed £40 for a deluxe version with expanded artwork, vinyl and additional songs. I paid £8 for it last week, the same as I would have done through Itunes. This time almost all of my money goes to the artist, rather than the 20% (£2) of the recommended price to retailers (£8) that bands usually pay. I could have paid £1 in theory but that would have felt like a little too close to theft.

I should admit at this stage that I love Radiohead and have probably spent more of my money on them and their albums than any other band. In a world where less and less value is placed on music by more and more people, it makes sense for bands to find those, like me, who love their music most, give them reasons to stay loyal and reap the (financial) reward. This is basic brand loyalty stuff.

Radiohead’s move led to their old label, EMI’s new owner (Guy Hands, of Terra Firma) calling on his new company to search for digital alternatives to the CD. “The recorded music industry… has for too long been dependent on how many CDs can be sold,” he wrote. “Rather than embracing digitalisation and the opportunities it brings for promotion of product and distribution through multiple channels, the industry has stuck its head in the sand.” And indeed they have. Radiohead deserve to profit from their courage.

At the very least they’ve got people talking, in a way few other bands have. True, they may not be the first to lead the charge - Prince gave away his last album away free with the Mail on Sunday - but they do seem to be the right band, doing it the right way, at the right time. As unpredictable and adventurous in their marketing as they are with their music. Surely it’s only right that bands benefit more directly from their success. “Why should they subsidise their label”’’s new talent roster – or for that matter their record company”’’s excessive expenditures and advances?” as Hands put it.

Is this a move that could only be made by a band who’ve built a career on the back of major label marketing and success, and who haven’t put out an album for four years or is this a model for other bands? Let’s hope so. The traditional way the music business operated made both bands and fans unhappy. Could a similar approach even revitalise brand relationships and be a tool for marketeers? Also this the way to deliver on the promise of consumers having a dialogue with brands? “How much should I pay for you?” is perhaps the most fundamental question a consumer can ask a brand. Certainly, it will take a brave and much loved brand to really start the ball rolling. And while it might not work for toothpaste, this could be an interesting way for entertainment, food and clothing brands (for example) to shake things up.

Apple are a remarkable brand for many reasons. They turned the PC from a black box into a home furnishing. They created the biggest selling mp3 player, and linked it seamlessly with a functioning mp3 download network, before anyone else. With each new product they keep moving the category on and making better, better looking products – witness the iphone.

They are also remarkable in that the amount of brand loyalty they create. They’re a tribe, a cult. What other brand would have it’s customers tuning in to watch a CEO press conference? Steve Jobs’ periodic announcements are more akin to evangelical church love-ins - all mystery and revelation - than panel discussions. Apple lovers even take to designing their own versions of the companies products and advertising, which one can’t imagine happening for Lenovo.

But there are signs that Apple risks losing its edge. Its products aren’t the problem. The iphone, which I tried out last week in New York, exhibits the same brilliance of intuitive design that made the ipod so compelling. Now, high on a string of product successes that have propelled it to being the most valuable computer company at $127bn, the company has developed a disturbing attitude.

iphone users were fuming last week when Apple dropped the cost of the iphone by $200 to capitalise on the all-important holiday season. The company then offered its customers $100 store credit or a $200 refund. The move was a complete 360 welcome turnaround by Jobs who previously and perhaps cold heartedly told USA Today when quizzed on the subject of rebates: “That’’s technology. If they bought it this morning, they should go back to where they bought it and talk to them. If they bought it a month ago, well, that”’’s what happens in technology”.

Apple seems to have fallen victim to the old mistake of spiting existing customers in the rush to win new ones. Banks, insurers and mobile phone companies are the worst offenders. Apple may have the products to keep uses hooked but it should be careful. As alluring as the iphone is, it faces a number of serious competitors, and the finger sensitive keyboard cannot compete with the one on a blackberry, or those on most mobile phones for that matter. As the comparative difference between competitive brands become smaller Apple will rely more on its design, for sure, but it will also rely on consumers feeling happy with Apple. Everyone reads stories about the price hike, not just existing customers. Why would you want to join a brand that treated its customers like this?

Apple also began to lose some of its lustre with the Mac vs. PC ads. The firm did much better when it showed its kit off. Personalising the argument through comparison does the Apple brand no favours. It makes Apple look mean - it has the strongest brands brands on the market, why does it need to compare them to others? Its customers have always been the best brand advertising, and in a competitive market place, Apple needs them as brand ambassadors more than ever, but to keep them sweet, Apple needs to treat them with more respect.

One of the joys of working for a creative company is music at work. We get all sorts from Hot Chip to Amy Winehouse to the latest bunch of gritty lads peddling their take on Oasis. Sometimes we get a little gem like “Here come the Hotstepper” by Ini Kamoze. This morning we had Phil Collins’ “Something in the air tonight.” But before I could applaud the taste of our motion graphics department, it was apparent that this was something else. The new Cadbury’s ad is below if you haven’t seen it.

The camera pulls across to focus on a gorilla as the Phil Collins song plays. By the time the song gets to the bit where the drums crash in, the gorilla is revealed to be sitting at a drum kit in a nondescript music studio. As the song continues the gorilla plays the beat exactly, his face contorting with the emotion and effort of it all. The effect is hilarious.

The ad ends with Cadbury’s telling us that a glass and a half of milk goes into every bar. So far so what? Over to Laurence Green, Planning Director at Fallon. “Chocolate is about joy and pleasure. For years Cadbury has told us that it was generous, through the glass and a half strap line. We thought, don”t tell us how generous you are; show us. Don”t tell us about joy; show us joy.”

Fallon, and a courageous client, believe (and I think they are right) that the interruption model of advertising is failing. We have too much stuff to deal with and too much brand marketing is boring, annoying or annoyingly boring. Simply put, If you are taking up our time you must have something to say. More than that brands will live and die by how much time they make us want to spend with them in a world where people have less and less time and less and less inclination to spend it with brands.

So Cadbury’s just made my morning. and the morning of everyone else who gathered round the computer screen. That’s a fabulous thing to do. And as I send this to ten of my friends, I fully expect it to make their mornings. While lesser brands scrabble around for our attention, it makes sense that the best, most loved brands like Cadbury’s do something different. If they can keep the nation’s attention and make us smile then it will be a great thing. It might make other brands try harder to make better advertising. If it does those things then they deserve to sell even more chocolate.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Television festival, Vint Cerf, one of the small group researchers who helped build the Internet in the 1970’s (and now Google’s Internet evangelist), predicted the end of TV as we know it. Here he is on his first day at Google.

He’s not the first, but despite the rise of the Internet, TV is resolutely still not dead for many. Millions still look at the listings and get back from the pub early to watch Eastenders. Yet, the fact remains that 85% of what we watch is recorded, and there are now few reasons to hang around waiting for something to come on. Many have already escaped to the solace of a Sky+ box and the promise of video on demand. Millions more will follow.

A look at what’s available online reveals that technological improvement alone is not enough. HD and Personal TV recorders are clearly better than what went before but not a revolution, despite what the manufacturers would have you believe. And, as handy as series link is, a world of entertainment means less if you can’t fully explore it. If the internet taught us anything, choice is more of a curse that a benefit. Search is essential if we’re to rebalance this splintered, multi-source, multi channeled world of choice in our favour. Without it, we’ll remain stuck with the few channels we know and fearful of the 50m we don’t. It’s not just search, but recommendation too. Of the “people who liked this also bought this” type pioneered by itunes, Amazon and Last FM.

This is the revolution in waiting. Suddenly 500 channels becomes “my channel” or “my family’s channel” or ”my network’s channel.” Content becomes more about the experience and the joy of sharing. TV becomes interactive, educational and social. You can be connected to anyone in the country, the world on the basis of your shared love of Lost, or the office. It’s social networks. But social networks full of content and creativity. This is not the top down pseudo interactivity of TV today, it’s much more powerful and democratic. Suddenly TV looks so much like the Internet that it’s no longer TV.

The Internet is here to revitalize TV. To bring it kicking and screaming into a new age. Indeed, Vint Cerf predicts a time when you will be able to pause a TV program and use your mouse to find out more about different items on screen. “How much is that shirt Matt Damon’s wearing in The Bourne Infinity? Great, I’ll take two.” Or something like that. Part TV, part Internet, part social network.

Maybe a new experience needs a new name. One that truly signals it’s difference, it’s function, it’s meaning. Something like “ilife” or “Second Life”. If they didn’t already exist. Or does it need one? Maybe until such a time as we enter a “Minority Report” stage of development where we will be online all the time, life will simply be online and offline. We’ll do more online and it will include TV, broadband and phone mashed in ways we can only begin to imagine, but let’s not make too much of it. After all there’s something pleasantly unassuming about “Internet”. It’s what ir is. And maybe what it’s called doesn’t matter so much as what it does. Either way, the sooner we stop talking about the future of TV the better.