Dan Saffer, the UX designer behind the term microinteractions has pointed us to the idea of the Interaction Model or "the overarching framework that ties the functionality together into a unified whole." As Dan says, "If we consider what interaction models really are, we begin to realize that they are nothing less than the designer’s attempt to help the user generate a mental model of the device. Mental models are the cognitive method of understanding a device that may or may not be how the device actually works, but allows the user to interact with it."  

Brands as "Meta Interaction Models"

If you think about it a brand is a kind of meta interaction model because the consumer forms a mental model of the brand and forms expectations around this model. If a brand behaves outside of the consumer's mental model we might say that it has become an incoherent interaction model. (An iPhone has a particular interaction model but the brand itself is a meta interaction model. So we form "meta expectations" around interactions within a particular brand's suite of products and experiences.) 

The TV-industrial complex was particularly poor at forming coherent interaction models as invariably ads set the mental model inaccurately. Brands that take a ux-first approach to interaction modelling end up having a more coherent and enduring brand. Google would be a classic example of this as most of their "branding" efforts are in fact ux efforts. In contrast, Pedigree dog food (much like many other TV-industrial complex brands) might be an example of a faulty brand interaction model as they feature happy dogs in their ads but google searches for 'pedigree dog food' reveal distraught owners of dead dogs (an incoherent interaction model if there ever was one).