Tourmaline
Crystal Scabbard
Many of the members on this site probably regard Seagal as their “Favorite” action star. The Webster’s definition of “Favorite” is “A competitor judged most likely to win” and/or “one that is treated with special favor or liking.” I think we would agree that both those definitions apply to Seagal, although the former statement may be highly contested with those who instead favor Norris, Van Damme, etc. The psychology is very much akin to why people pick a favorite football team, whether they play poorly or well. Loyalty has much to do with it.
The Encyclopedia Britannica states that “Loyalty, as a general term, signifies a person’s sentiment of attachment to a particular object, which may be another person. It expresses itself in both thought and action and strives for the identification of the interests of the loyal person with those of the object. Loyalty turns into fanaticism when it becomes wild and unreasoning; and into resignation when it displays the characteristics of reluctant acceptance.”
Back to the football analogy, Seagal has dropped the ball a few times on some of his recent less than stellar films, and occasionally made a touchdown. Although even when he is at his worse, his most loyal fans have never had their loyalty turn to resignation and reluctant acceptance. Our acceptance has always been enthusiastic and wholehearted.
Think of Seagal, Norris, Van Damme, etc as brands and then consider the four patterns of behavior in regards to customer’s commitments to brands. There are “Hard core loyals” who buy a certain brand all the time. There are “Soft Core loyals” who are loyal to two or three brands. There are “Shifting Loyals” who move from one brand to another. And lastly there are “Switchers” with no loyalty at all.
I would guess that the majority of members on this site would fall into the “Hard core loyal” category. I suppose I am curious as to what exactly makes you a “Hard core loyal.” I am interested in the opinion of the person who doesn’t particularly care how terrible a film of his is, or how much weight he’s gained (or lost), but has a tendency to disregard these things and instead give him the benefit of the doubt and let the “Shifters” or the “Switchers” do the complaining.
I personally identify with the fact that he has developed a very distinct style as over the decades and has in some ways gotten better with age. He is a survivor and he has earned the title of “Icon,” like a zen version of a martial arts John Wayne, although way more multifaceted than Wayne.
So, why do YOU remain a “Hard core loyal?”
The Encyclopedia Britannica states that “Loyalty, as a general term, signifies a person’s sentiment of attachment to a particular object, which may be another person. It expresses itself in both thought and action and strives for the identification of the interests of the loyal person with those of the object. Loyalty turns into fanaticism when it becomes wild and unreasoning; and into resignation when it displays the characteristics of reluctant acceptance.”
Back to the football analogy, Seagal has dropped the ball a few times on some of his recent less than stellar films, and occasionally made a touchdown. Although even when he is at his worse, his most loyal fans have never had their loyalty turn to resignation and reluctant acceptance. Our acceptance has always been enthusiastic and wholehearted.
Think of Seagal, Norris, Van Damme, etc as brands and then consider the four patterns of behavior in regards to customer’s commitments to brands. There are “Hard core loyals” who buy a certain brand all the time. There are “Soft Core loyals” who are loyal to two or three brands. There are “Shifting Loyals” who move from one brand to another. And lastly there are “Switchers” with no loyalty at all.
I would guess that the majority of members on this site would fall into the “Hard core loyal” category. I suppose I am curious as to what exactly makes you a “Hard core loyal.” I am interested in the opinion of the person who doesn’t particularly care how terrible a film of his is, or how much weight he’s gained (or lost), but has a tendency to disregard these things and instead give him the benefit of the doubt and let the “Shifters” or the “Switchers” do the complaining.
I personally identify with the fact that he has developed a very distinct style as over the decades and has in some ways gotten better with age. He is a survivor and he has earned the title of “Icon,” like a zen version of a martial arts John Wayne, although way more multifaceted than Wayne.
So, why do YOU remain a “Hard core loyal?”