This is one of those ideas that if you have them, you should ask yourself why no one else have done this before. Quite a legitimate question in this case. Sounds like an awesome idea, but in fact has nothing to do with what branding is. The brand that these peeps create can be the most interesting thing in the world but it will never ever say anything about its products. Because it hasn't got any. The concept is that people create A brand, and then this brand is auctioned for whichever amount by a company that thinks the [demo]created brand is appropriate for their products. This by default means that people's experience with those yet-non-existent products is not going to be calculated in the brand. This is way too self-referential for my taste. Brand in the abstract world, people and products in reality. I am sadly aware that this is how most brands work, but using the web for the efforts like this looks like a jump in the wrong direction. On the other hand, things like "Name This"or Edopter, that never fail to work and are examples of a *meaningful* crowdsourcing. Shouldn't web be used to solicit interactions between people and [branded] products & services? [great brands are not causes of interactions but their outcomes] You know, like Google, and Netflix, and Amazon, and even Pizza Hut and Nike Plus. Not to create some simulacrum-brand and then call it democratic just because it's created by many and not by a single company. For me, real democracy happens at the point of execution, when we choose or not choose to use brand's products.