Talk:Icon brand

Too much like an essay
Many of the paragraphs lack clarification, and the headings make it more like an essay than an objective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotechniks (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

relationship to cult brand, perhaps merge?
There are separate articles for icon brand and cult brand. The difference seems to be that a cult brand has a narrower following than an icon brand, but that's not easy to gather from the articles. The relationship is unclear in particular because the examples given overlap – Apple and Harley-Davidson are cited in both articles. The icon brand article has two separate sets of examples, one in the introduction and one in the section Characteristics of icon brands. The latter set is badly formatted and doesn't really belong in that section, so it may well be that someone erroneously added examples of cult brands there instead.

The article on symbol-intensive brands treats icon brands and cult brands as two of five separate classes of symbol-intensive brands.

I don't know the first thing about how either term is used, so I can't fix this, but I think one of two things should be done:
 * If the terms really are distinct, the distinction should be described more clearly (in both articles), and the overlap in the examples should be removed (or explained).
 * If the terms are nearly synonymous, the articles should be merged.

Joriki (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)