I quoted Douglas Atkin in my post as saying that humans need cults. They're not necessarily bad. As humans, we've always formed tight knit groups.

In business, however, I do think there needs to be a line in how 'cult-like' a company tries to be. I would like to think that people join a cult or group voluntarily. They're interested in whatever that group represents, so they partake in the group philosophy. When it comes to trying to enforce that group philosophy on people who haven't necessarily joined solely for what that group represents (say, employees for example), I think that might be crossing the line between a healthy cult brand and more of a negative one.

I know some one who works for Lululemon. They are required to listen to 'self-help' tapes. It's almost like homework. I'm sure, for some employees, the self-help tapes might be really interesting and inspiring… But for others who started working for Lululemon because a) they needed a job, and b) they wanted to work for a company that is strongly involved in giving back to the community, being required to tie into the Landmark Forum philosophy just to get their next paycheck might be crossing the line.

Despite the high sales that cult brands seem to inspire, I personally think cultivating community around a business is healthier. Cults are quite inward focused, maybe even a little exclusive whereas communities are less so. Cults have a very strong, omnipresent philosophy; Communities share a common belief or goal but it is a goal that is flexible and more open. Community philosophy can more readily change and adapt with the times.

Perhaps cultivating cult can set a community up for immediate success, but is it sustainable over time? Are cult brands ultimately better than forging a community around a product?

I would say no, but again, I leave it the reader to form their own opinion.