You know you're actually contradicting yourself right...
I'm not contradicting myself, we're talking about a complex of factors that go into defining it.
The company defines their brand and how they want to be perceived via marketing etc, then it's up to people to decide if they buy into said marketing, this is made easier by them utilising the brand strategists and the focus groups etc to see which one is most likely to stick.
I'll go back to rolex from my earlier post, rolex artificially restricts their supply of watches via their authorised dealers, they deliberately make it harder to get their watches (they can make a lot more than they do) so they can push the story they want to push. The general consumer who doesn't know much about other brands, because they're not marketed as heavily, thinks that because they're hard to get and high price means that the watch is 'special' and they have to have one. Note the way they're selling the product, it's not about their innovations, it's not about their heritage, it's essentially about them being expensive and 'rare', ie aspirational for the consumer.
I can give you a perfect example of how the branding has worked, I was shopping one day and I was looking in a window with some watches in that were 'consumer' prices and a young boy asks his dad something about watches and the dad replies with something about a rolex but he couldn't afford one (the tone of the reply was 'sad').... rolex have spent years pushing this story and it's clearly working because a lot of people 'want' a rolex, even though the quality isn't really that good (relative price wise) and most of the pricing is really down to the brand name, the truth is every single watch in the window would do the same as a rolex would, well apart from emptying your bank balance lol.
You mention volkswagen dieselgate, and in all honesty not much has happened to their brand, they had a fine but that was from the governments but fact they've actually used the 'negativity' from it to promote theair already planned move over to electric cars.... it sure hasn't impacted on their sales and if anything they've made the negative nature of dieselgate into a positive for the company. A little scandal (which in all honesty wasn't that big a deal to most people) isn't going to erode the emotional connection to a company that brought us 3 (if not more) of the most iconic cars (beetle, camper bus and golf) in the world.
And a little side note, if 'branding' or more accurately brand awareness wasn't important why is there this stupid thing called 'influencers' on instagram who's entire reason for being on instagram is to promote their own personal brand so they can get advertising gigs which are basically them promoting another brand for money....
You're giving people far too much credit about them making their own decisions... just look at how many people jump on buying an iPhone because of the 'brand' when there are phones that will do everything most users use their iPhone for for under half the price. I'm going to be honest NOBODY really NEEDS a £1000 phone. There's a reason the term apple sheep came about....
And once again you're contradicting yourself... that bit in bold is the exact reason why branding has so much money spent on it because it can be used to influence the target market.
Today we base our choices more on symbolic attributes. What does the product look like? Where is it being sold? What kind of people buy it? Which "tribe" will I be joining if I buy it? (as Rolex for the social construct of demonstrating wealth) What does the cost say about its desirability? What are other people saying about it? And finally, who makes it? Because if I can trust the maker, I can buy it now and worry about it later. The degree of trust I feel towards the product, rather than an assessment of its features and benefits, will determine whether I'll buy this product or that product. Trust is the ultimate shortcut to a buying decision and the bedrock of modern branding.
Instead of building a brand on USP (the Unique Buying Selling Proposition of a product), there is more attention to UBS (the Unique Buying State of their customers).
The success of the Nike brand is ample proof of this concept.
As a weekend athlete, my two doubts are that I might be congenitally lazy and that I might have little actual ability. I'm not really worried about my shoes, but when the Nike folks say "Just do it", they're peering into my soul. If they understand me that well, their shoes are probably pretty good. I'm then willing to join the tribe of Nike.
Depending on your Unique Buying State, you can join any number of tribes on any number of days and feel part of something bigger than yourself. You're a part of a select clan (or so you feel) when you buy products from some clearly differentiated companies.
Brands are the little gods of modern life, each ruling a different need, activity, mood, or situation. Yet you're in control. If your latest god falls from Olympus, you can switch to another one.
Brands don't develop in isolation, either. They result from the interaction of thousands of people over a long period of time. Branding requires not only the work of executives and marketing people who manage the brand, but an ever-changing roster of strategy consultants, design firms, advertising agencies, research companies, industrial designers, and so on. It also requires the valuable contributions of employees, suppliers, distributors, partners, and customers: an entire brand community!