Well, Jack, I can appreciate the optimism behind your relating al-Qaeda to brands. But it could also be argued that the group is a pretty unique challenger brand, executing a marketing plan unlike anything in any category.

When a brand elicits negative responses, consumers can effectively eliminate it by ignoring and/or refusing to buy it. Or if a brand proves dangerous, governmental agencies will move in and remove it from the marketplace. With the al-Qaeda brand, consumers dare not ignore it. And governmental agencies are being thwarted because the dangerous brand operates very aggressively, attacking versus submitting. This brand refuses to be regulated by any standards.

Other fear-based brands like Nazis, skinheads, the IRA and the KKK may be on the downside of their lifespan bell curves, but it hardly makes them any less dangerous.

History has seen plenty of brands promoting fear and doubt that have lasted longer than, say, a typical American automotive brand.

That’s the scary part in this case study.  

Thank you, Highjive, for your insight. You are absolutely right about these brands’ longevity and danger. I do feel that the structure of the organization is similar to many virtual companies though, and once we apply that analysis, it may be easier to disrupt it. It is the brand that draws these folks together; once damaged, either through propaganda or other means, it will be harder for al-Qaeda et al to recruit.
   The fact that political groups that endorse terrorism have been so effective against the west and Israel is something we can’t ignore—because these messages can go both ways.