Comments

The John Kerry quote is hilarious - "unbranding" - hmm ... maybe he should call Steve for a reality check.

Posted by Sean at April 11, 2005 1:57 PM

I'm not sure whether the term brand has been overused or has become ill-defined due to so many different definitions. In the earlier post on tompeters.com, Halley Suitt asked for comments on Christopher Kenton's article about the definition of "brand" and it seems everyone has their own. Maybe, instead of unbranding brand we should consider undefining it instead.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at April 11, 2005 3:11 PM

A brand is an element of a company's recognition value. The Internet changed the perception of branding by giving even small businesses an opportunity to build brand awareness...and now blogging and wikis have taken the brand one step further-- to the client. Today, instead of building our brand in-house (through marketing and sales) a company builds its brand through connections to its customers. The customer determines the 'brand'. The company may try to nudge the customer-- but, in the end, the customer (or client) influences a company's 'brand' by the way they talk about the company, and the way they feel about it.

Posted by Yvonne DiVita at April 11, 2005 3:53 PM

Errol Saldanha in www.brandingbranding.com is also asking for different definitions of branding. It seems that after years of talking about brands there´s some confussion about the word and what it means.

If there´s some agreement about the distinctive character of brands there´s less agreement about how to get that distinction.

Posted by felix gerena at April 11, 2005 3:54 PM

What fascinates me is the difference between what the general public think when people talk about brands and business thinkers. To many people Brand really is a dirty "no logo" word. I have learned a lot on this board (much from Steve Y) about how much more there is to this. (I am a tech head so I have lots to learn in this area!)

The problem is that the perception is still out there. In some ways it is almost as if Branding has to go underground - not be so in your face. Unlike the Nike etc it should enter the psyche by osmosis rather than loud through the eardrums! How can you get a quiet revolution to happen in a noisy world?

I often think that this requires new terminology (and believe you me I am not a fan of new faddy names) to get away from the tarnished BRAND thing

Posted by PaulH at April 11, 2005 4:55 PM

Ultimately, brand is a question of meaning... what does your product or service or business (or organization) "mean", in a deep sense, to your target audience.

"Brand" is simply a way of smartly encapsulating that meaning. IT's essentially the focal point of the totality of the meaning of an organization.

Sure, we can summarize our meaning to our audience (existing customers, prospects, the universe of potential customers, and those who have some "supporting" role relative to our mission), but meaning has an onion model where you keep peeling off layer after layer or partial meaning as you navigate through all the layers of meaning that have varying relevance to our audience as their own interests vary.

Sure, let's retire "brand", not to replace it with something specific, but to break it down layer by layer so that the focus is not on building some monolithic brand, but on enhancing multi-dimensional meaning to the audience.

-- Jack Krupansky

Posted by Jack Krupansky at April 11, 2005 5:09 PM

What worries me is 'branding' being turned into some complicated academic subject when, in reality, 'branding' is simply a distinctive element that makes an individual or a company stand out - in other words what they are recognised 'for' and 'as'

Keep it simple - don't let academics make 'branding' a complex science.

Branding is not complicated

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 11, 2005 6:13 PM

Wow, excellent discussion. I wonder if branding is like personality. I noticed years ago that people figured out who I was no matter what I said or chose to show them about myself. And they figured it out if I spoke or remained totally silent. Isn't branding that way? Shouting over the airwaves about a product's/service's attributes doesn't convey the message as much as what happens when there's a problem/how their employees are treated/where their factories are located/their attitude towards the environment/the conduct of their highest managers, etc., etc. Right?

Posted by cathy at April 11, 2005 7:45 PM

I think you're right Trevor. Your brand is how you are perceived.

The issue with brand's brand is that creatives have used it as some mystic unknown. It was the snake oil peddled to every executive. It became the vacuous hole into which endless marketing dollars were poured and no return could be assessed. The ultimate in unaccountability.

So brand needs to be defined. It needs to be measurable. It needs to less ethereal and more real.

Posted by Dustin at April 11, 2005 8:05 PM

In keeping with the older idea of a brand-mark, it was a way to know you were getting what you desired. What has happened in later times is that there arose a disjoint between what the brand meant and what the actual delivered experience was. We know there are unbelievable brands out there that don't live up to their own marketing. There is so much of that brand deception taking place that true value propositions are hard to spot (but all the more precious when found).

In William Gibson's most recent novel, Pattern Recognition, one of the characters is a beautiful young woman who is paid to talk up certain products at hip nightclubs. It's very subtle, very deceptive marketing. It's Seth Godin's "sneezer" idea, only prostituted.

Posted by Michael Martine at April 11, 2005 9:29 PM

I think the actual problem with brands is that they are all too similar, all of them offering too similar products or solutions and finally non of them looks really distinctive.

I don't know wheter the problem today is that we suffer from lack of brilliant innovative people able to offer things that are different from what's already in there or what happens is that we are too overflowed by them.

Perhaps, and only perhaps, we have reached a point where is not possible for people to hide behind a brand and it's time to be oneself, if one is able to define who he/she in a satisfactory way...

Posted by Omara at April 11, 2005 10:37 PM

The problem, in my opinion, is that bigger companies are less willing to take risks and be different. That timidity (did I make that up?) has unfortunately even trickled down to local businesses. Case in point - local car dealerships. I'd venture a guess that most of you reading this can think of 1-2 dealerships in the city you live in that actually sound different from the rest.

Let's not even address whether or not they are actually purple cows or a wolf in a purple cow suit.

Is it the agency or the corporations that don't understand what 'branding' is?

The ad agency I own/run does something different. It's our own purpleness. When I was deliberating with how to structure my business, I wanted to do something different to set us apart from my competition. So, we did. The fact that there are other ad agencies around the country was not enough to keep me from jumping into the game. I've seen what works and what doesn't work. I can also see that there are changes coming. I also know that if we work hard enough, we'll be part of the force of change. We're building our own brand. It is going to take a few years, but is worth the wait...and the process.

No matter what, we cannot be afraid of competition. No matter what, we cannot imitate our competition.

Whatever happens, we need to deliver better results with more unique ideas than our competition could. And on that day...we win the battle. And the next day, we wake up and the battle has begun again.

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at April 12, 2005 12:51 AM

Cathy - that is a fabulous comment - 'I wonder if branding is like personality' - I love it!

Wouldn't it be great to remembered as a brand?

An epitaph like this would satisfy me;

"He always listened and never judged"

cheapest canadian viagra

Wonderful concept Cathy - thanks for stimulating my brain once more!

Trevor

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 12, 2005 4:48 AM

Tony... great observation re: "That timidity (did I make that up?) has unfortunately even trickled down to local businesses."

Im no fan of mega-corporations and what they are doing to small businesses and local character. But I am also astounded by the lack of imagination in the small business world.

Im a coffee shop fan, so look at that example. Everyone bemoans Starbucks and their nasty business habits (ie. swamp a locale with stores and put the locals out of business). I agree, I hate the tactic.

But on the other hand, if you were a local coffee shop staring down the barrel of Starbucks-- wouldnt you try to do something interesting? Some do, but many don't. Why not host local art and music? Why not host film festivals? Why not hold writers workshops? Why not offer free internet access and plenty of power strips? Why not create an amazing, funky, cool space... something that blows away Starbucks cookie-cutter approach.

Why not hold art workshops? Why not clear out the attic and create a conference room for rent..... something that might double as a performance space at night?

Maybe they'd still fail, but would at least do so with style (and hopefully have a great time doing so). For an example of what's possible, check out the Coffee Shop of Horrors ( http://www.coffeeshopofhorrors.com/index.php ). Now this is a unique place.... created by the owner's love of horror movies. They have some difficulties (the choice of a conservative small town was probably a mistake) but its a very very interesting place that Starbucks could never imitate in a thousand years.

pfizer viagra 100mg

The local shops that compete effectively with Starbucks do just what you suggest.. they abandon timidity. But why do so many fail to try something even remotely interesting?

I think you are right. I think they take their cue from big business. Corporate timidity has infected business as a whole... at all levels and all scales.

buy viagra online worldwide

Truly sad.

........

Posted by AJ Hoge at April 12, 2005 5:04 AM

Regarding the novel Pattern Recognition. Gibson isn't ahead of the curve on this one. This type of marketing / advertising has been going on for a while. People are paid to not only spot trends, but to create them. We don't see much of it out here in the sticks, but it has been going on for a couple of years (at least) in the "big city."

I have become thoroughly convinced that the number one qualification for a marketer or advertiser is CYNICISM. It's like the old George Burns saying that if you can fake sincerity you've got it made.

Posted by Mike at April 12, 2005 8:14 AM

AJ,

When in Atlanta, visit one of my clients. www.highergroundscoffee.com He has done something different and highly enjoyable with his store. He brings in local musicians almost nightly and national talent on occasion. Thanks for the comments.

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at April 12, 2005 11:45 AM

I have to agree with Safire. While branding is a wonderful tool that has gone a long way to help companies engage in a conversation with their customers I believe the time has come to evolve beyond the word “brand”. Unfortunately, it has become such an overused part of the modern business lexicon that everyone seems to know intuitively what it means yet if you would ask ten people you would get ten slightly different answers. The problem doesn’t lie with the word itself but what it has come to represent.

In my opinion, one of the major factors contributing to the current state of brands and branding is the application of a top-down, controlling philosophy to interact with customers. While top-down tools might work well in finance or manufacturing they loose their effectiveness when they are applied to the humanistic world of marketing and product development. Instead of using top-down, inside-out tools, such as mass media and focus groups, to engage with people outside the company, especially customers, new bottom-up, outside-in tools must be developed to engage the right customers and communities in a dialogue. Bob Garfield’s tale of An Impending Period of Transitional Chaos for Media on NPR's All Things Considered last Friday is a good example of the impending shift beyond the word brand. Likewise, blogs are a perfect example of the need for a more bottom-up approach.

real pfizer viagra online

Companies that connect with people’s imaginations, that inspire, provoke and stimulate, helping them interpret the world that surrounds them, will be successful. Those are able to make the transition to provide honest, original, cultural materials, offering space for co-creation will win. Proactive people will carefully weed out and broadcast those products, and companies, that they do not trust. Many companies have already discovered that being good corporate citizens can be good for themselves.

So, in this new era beyond the word brand, it is the creative citizens of a community – both the customers and employees – that will help companies survive by engaging in a deeper dialogue, beyond the word brand by co-creating from the bottom-up.

Posted by john winsor at April 12, 2005 2:08 PM