<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Categorization on The Findings Report</title><link>https://www.findingsreport.com/tags/categorization/</link><description>Recent content in Categorization on The Findings Report</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:18:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.findingsreport.com/tags/categorization/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Typecasting and Brand Architecture</title><link>https://www.findingsreport.com/2012/06/18/typecasting-and-brand-architecture/</link><pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:18:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.findingsreport.com/2012/06/18/typecasting-and-brand-architecture/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Human beings are natural categorizers. We introduced our planet to the Dewey decimal system, the periodic table of elements, and an onerous set of entertainment awards. We can’t help ourselves. We even sort people into types. Conservative or liberal. Lover or fighter. Pisces, Sagittarius, or Virgo. These categorizations do more than create order for us. They create meaning. When we learn someone is a Pisces, we might assume that the person is moody, creative, and quiet, even though the person could just as easily be loud and analytical. Though we are often counseled to avoid stereotypes, stereotyping is an example of our natural human instinct to understand something and attach meaning to it as a result of the category to which we think it belongs. Brand architecture relies on this categorization instinct. It preserves and creates value for brands in a portfolio by suggesting how people should categorize them.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>