Comments

Interesting - brand to me is integrity, optimism - it creates at the "Blink" level a positive feeling at a physical-emotional-mental-spiritual level.

Nike, Nordstrom, Starbucks do it for me for some reason.

Posted by Sean at March 31, 2005 2:37 PM

If "I" am my own brand, then its the world to me. Brands are only a figment of a person's imgination. Cloaked with positive attributes towards that 'brand'.

Posted by /pd at March 31, 2005 4:08 PM

To me branding oneself is about getting benefits from those qualities that are unique on each person; on the last term it's about being yourself, authenticity. I suppose it's also about selling these things nicely, for what you should have bought them first (!)

Posted by Omara at March 31, 2005 5:37 PM

I believe brands are emotional activators, a name, a sign or symbol in the consumer's mind, a kinesthetic alphabet that enables consumer's to drive congruency between their emotions and feelings. Brands are the ability to constantly reinvent yourself, the kinesthetic touchstone to creativity.

A brand cannot be in a relationship - that is between the consumer and the people at the company. A bond cannot form between the brand and the consumer, bonds form between people. A promise and emotional contract is between people, not an inanimate object and a person. And people have experiences with / through their body, emotions and spirit/creativity, not a brand.

Posted by Wendy at March 31, 2005 5:47 PM

first it was a can of tomato soup.

then a pullover.

then a pullover, a watch, a perfume and a coffee-table.

then the ceo.

then not the ceo anymore.

now it is something that changes the way we think about companies as a whole.

tomorrow it is just shoobeedoo.

Posted by jens at March 31, 2005 7:16 PM

For me the brand is a mental concept.

It's the word/image we use to categorize a company's product and services when we have direct knowledge of the products and services.

It's the word/image we use to associate everything else when we don't have direct knowledge/experience with the company's product and services.

And when the brand corresponds in our mind to the product we've used/experienced, the rest no longer applies to that mental picture.

So you may have the largest marketing effort into building a brand, putting an image in the mind, but the instant the mind has an experience with the product, the impression of the product will replace anything that was associated with the brand, good or bad.

Posted by Christopher Mahan at March 31, 2005 7:27 PM

In his effort to be on the cutting edge, Kenton has reverted to the most anachronistic and, more significantly, useless metaphors for a brand. "If the loftiest metaphor they use in their description is a burning scar on the side of a cow, hire them." Ugh. That is exactly the metaphor for a brand we need to leave behind.

Then he says, "If someone says a brand is a relationship, toss them over the side. If they say a brand is an image in the mind of the consumer, give 'em the heave-ho."

Why? Sorry. I just don't agree with him. All I know is that the way I look at branding, which is certainly different than the way he does, works just wonderfully for me and my clients. I'll stay where I am, thank you.

The irony is that he's become the theoritician he rails against.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at March 31, 2005 11:48 PM

One more thing ... Kenton says that consistency is
"one the most fundamental attributes of a strong brand." See our conversation from last week called "More than consistency."
http://tompeters.com/entries.php?note=007590.php

Posted by Steve Yastrow at April 1, 2005 12:07 AM

Branding is about consistency. I agree completely. But then perhaps someone can explain to me what the brand of America Online is nowadays? They've got a multi-million-dollar reinvention of their firm as a source of anti-virus, anti-spyware safety nets along with their usual services, but there are still the regular daily AOL horror stories as related in my recent blog entry

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_do_i_cancel_my_america_online_aol_account.html

and plenty of other places too.

Can brand supersede actual customer experiences? I'm skeptical.

Posted by Dave Taylor at April 1, 2005 1:16 AM

Interesting discussion, though I'm not sure whether a debate about the definition of brand is not somewhat moot. To me, trying to define brand is kind of like trying to define art, everyone's definition is going to be different.

I find that allowing brand to NOT have some universal definition can be very freeing since it allows clients to define their brand without feeling the need to conform to some convention.

The great brands in the world did not set out to be great brands, they set out to be the best company possible at meeting their customers needs. Sure, you can probably find some basic underlying principles that all of them followed, but just about all of them took a very different route to get to where they are today.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at April 1, 2005 11:15 AM

What if we said "imprint" and not branding? What if we said "identity" and no branding? What if we began to recognize that the power is internally generated and not externally generated and entertainment based? See I think this guy is right, he just doesn't realize how right he is. I think .. hold on, there is not branding, that we are heading for a lifecyle in marketing that is based on relationships and that means we don't need "branding" but rather reinventions and reinventions cannot thrive in externally generated environments [i.e., pandering gets old]

Am I saying that products with signs and symbols are going aways? Hell, no. I'm saying design and creativity are going to become more important and that they are going to glow through managing identities not brands, internally generated kinesthetics rather than managing images in consumer's heads. Identities are human based, brands are product based. It's not Brand You..It's I AM.

Posted by Wendy at April 1, 2005 2:49 PM

Brand-biguity?

Posted by Chris Herbert at April 2, 2005 7:46 PM

Mr. Kenton is confusing identity and image. Brand identity is the visual representation of a company including the logo, tagline and graphic presentation. Brand image is all about the perception of the company in the minds of its constituencies — customers, competitors, general public, etc.

The brand identity should be distinctive to stand out in a world of marketing clutter and should be used in a consistent manner in all corporate communications. The idea that this is all you need to know is preposterous.

Take Wal-Mart for example. Their brand name and tagline "Always low prices" are used consistently. How do people respond to this brand? Some think W-M offers a great selection of products at low prices in clean stores staffed with friendly sales associates. Others think they are the Great Satan — exploiting workers and suppliers, destroying competitors and leading our retail economy straight to hell.

If all you care about is getting the name right, you won't get far as a marketing professional. You've got to connect the name with a promise of a product or service experience and then deliver on it.

If it's really just about the name then why do some brands succeed and others fail? Lousy graphic design? Are we mesmerized by Starbuck's logo or do we enjoy a really good cup of coffee in a pleasant environment that provides a respite from our harried lives?

While there is a fair amount of mumbo-jumbo and consultant blather about branding, if you understand the fundamental concepts of identity and image and how to connect them, you are on the right path.

Posted by Kurt Komaromi at April 4, 2005 3:50 PM