Branding is a tricky thing. My first cell phone was with AT&T.  As a company, their customer service reps reminded me on a weekly basis how similar AT&T's logo looked like the Death Star. They once hounded me for money for which they were not owed until they received payment, which they promptly returned citing no record of a bill. I even once received a check for $0.38 from them with no explanation, for what I can only imagine as a single award for my millionth dropped call, sans balloons.

Their $39-billion purchase of T-Mobile--my current carrier after I fled originally to Sprint from AT&T--genuinely leaves me befuddled. This monstrous corporation remarried me after I'd clearly divorced them. My darling carrier has ripped off its face and I am confronted by my vindictive, petty, ex. I feel duped.

I mulled this over this personal reaction while reading Ian Ritter's blog from last week; Should GGP Have Taken Simon's Offer? And I wonder why it never seems to bother me when Blackstone or the like buys a portfolio of buildings which I may enter or inhabit daily. It's not like AT&T's M&A is a novel thing. Yet, I never find myself riled up when I see CBRE's signs all over the city during my commute. I don't grit my teeth at the C&W symbol by the scorers table at Madison Square Garden. Office properties don't hit me on as personal a level.

I spent many hours in college at Fanuiel Hall, but would I have noticed a difference if Simon ran it now?  I noticed when they took over my neighborhood mall in Rockaway, NJ years ago...but that was a terrible mall. I was pleased to see it cleaned up a bit. Fanuiel Hall, presumably would remain the cobblestone mecca that it is, with perhaps a Simon branding in view.

So the real answer is service. The connection between people's phones and their cell phone carriers is personal and direct. Entering an office property, I could go for years without knowing who owned it, if I didn't work this job. The personal nature of retail or hospitality makes brands more important in that regard. But, my fiancee' doesn't care who Larry Silverstein is. She raises an eyebrow if I mention he owns our building and the World Trade Center, but like most people, unless service is BAD, she wouldn't respond to large office owners the same way she would to Starwood, for example.

So, is the best operation of a building the one I don't notice? Is keeping a low profile more advantageous for these larger companies? I don't know. Maybe my future wife would like to know that Larry Silverstein is much taller in person than he seems in photographs. Maybe not. I can't say for sure. I knew my old apartment owner and he was miserable. I'd never live in another one of his buildings. And I'll leave AT&T when they eventually take over T-Mobile in about a year. Does anonymity have its advantages?