I suppose we're just disagreeing on definition here - but I'd at least try to make the case that if people having a single thing they think of when they hear the word Nike, is necessary for a company to be able to structure itself that way legally.
Otherwise, individual manufacturing companies, don't have the financial incentive to give companies like Nike as big a portion of the profits as they do. Currently that system works, because the brand association of "Nike" gives people some kind of status/quality-assurance/whatever that they are happy to pay for.
Exactly I am just disagreeing with your definition of brand, which I think is what were doing with the original essay as well.
Of course a company can structure itself fully aligned with its brand: I start Philip's Tyre Repair and the brand is 1:1 with the company and the premises. I don't see why being able to do that is important to enforce.
The point is, particularly with somewhere like Nike, that they have all sorts of things they need to do (advertise shoes; design shoes; make shoes; move shoes; sell shoes to retailers) that not all of it needs to be branded as Nike particularly. Only really the advertise shoes is the "brand".
It's like how Red Bull outsource basically everything except advertising. Someone else makes the drinks; someone else moves them; someone else sells them. They just maintain a really good brand with advertising, including innovative stuff like X-games.
I think you have a different understanding of what exactly a brand is than do most people. Every profession has the right to develop its own jargon that subtly redefines common words in its own way so I'm not going to say that you're wrong about what "brand" means in any absolute way, just that you're wrong to say that pg is wrong.
Fair enough - although I'd add in my defense that my take wasn't "Paul Graham is wrong", in fact I really liked the essay and agreed with a lot of it. It was more that I think there's a lot more going on with brands than the essay makes out (although you might disagree with this take too)
Otherwise, individual manufacturing companies, don't have the financial incentive to give companies like Nike as big a portion of the profits as they do. Currently that system works, because the brand association of "Nike" gives people some kind of status/quality-assurance/whatever that they are happy to pay for.