Comments

I'd even go one step further. Don't think of your brand in terms of the relationship your company (or product) has with individual customers. Think about how you have a relationship with the customers.

Even if you never meet the customer, you still interact with them through your employees or product. The choices and decisions you make affect them, and your brand. And the customers will notice. And the customers will respond.

Posted by Michael Vanderdonk at December 12, 2005 1:21 AM

Steve,

That was nice. I believe that a brand for a company is like a reputation for a person. It has to be valued with utmost care & everyone working with the company should LIVE & BREATHE the brand (daily & religiously!). Also, the brand should promote a sense of "one-ness" or "belonging" within the organization for it to be widely accepted (first internally & then externally!). It would be extremely important to note that every 'brand-strategy' needn't be a 'grand-strategy' BUT should be designed to differentiate your cow from all the other cattle on the range, even if all cattle look similar!

Posted by K.Sriram at December 12, 2005 1:27 AM

Michael's point of Think about how you have a relationship with the customers is vital - it cuts to the core of what is likely the most misunderstood concept in all of marketing, even among so-called professionals ('successful branding is about awareness' - [er, not quite, that's just the start.])

I'll suggest it needs a little more than that - 'stop thinking of customers'.

Instead, interact genuinely and decently with everyone with whom you come into contact - this is the basis of forming the relationships with those who then become customers... a process which often/usually takes longer than we'd perhaps like, and during which many prospective clients are 'lost' because we simply don't treat them right - either by pressuring them or dismissing them. And, 'some will, others won't' if 'they' don't become clients then 'so what?' - there's far more to life than conversion ratios and market share.

'People don't have relationships with businesses - they have relationships with other people'... I'm in favor of business which is wholly personal - authentic one-on-one interaction which leads to collaboration. And 'collaboration' is at the heart of the great vendor/client relationships. So-long-ago I can't even recall from which book this quote came (I think it was Tom Peters Seminar), I like the line: 'good collaboration is like romance - it can't be routine and predictable'.

I'm suggesting relationships be founded upon a genuine personal connection - at least as best as can be achieved in the confines of one person trying to sell something to another. This is not a 'doorstep deal with the Avon lady' scenario. Why not fewer and deeper commercial associations than the usual weak, mediocre, superficial and compromised dross that so many accept? If that seems unfairly harsh, I urge you to think again... and consider just how many associations end in grief - perhaps not having been that good to begin with.

'Heartstrings pull pursestrings', I want authentic relationships - whether or not they like or buy my stuff. This implication here is 'special'. And I want 'special'. How's about you?

Sure, the brandmark will get you noticed in an age in which 'we're all too busy'. It's an absolute boon to snaring the hassled housewife and those 'super busy perpetua-motion got-a-meeting-at-eleven' types. But it misses many - notably those who 'demand' a more spohisticated process in which they're allowed/ encouraged/enabled/assisted to discover at their own pace by a person with whom they feel they can relate.

Sermon over.

Posted by gulliver at December 12, 2005 2:17 AM

Guys what about business to business relationships. I can understand how this "branding" works for business to consumer relationships, but how does it work for business to business relationships?

Buy definition, a business to business relationship is based on tremendous interaction at every level, so where does branding come into all this?

Arun

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at December 12, 2005 3:34 AM

There's a good article in this month's HBR called "Marketing Malpractice..." - OK, I know a few of you will not believe that "good" and "HBR" can co-exist, but let's pass on that debate! The article suggests that successful brands are ones that at the most basic levels represent products or services that look past simple segmentation and demographic issues and focus on the purpose of the product. It's well worth a read.

Posted by Mark JF at December 12, 2005 7:09 AM

Arun's point >how does it work for business to business relationships...

There are NO 'business to business relationships' - it's all about the interaction between the people.

Posted by gulliver at December 12, 2005 7:49 AM

We talk alot about branding on this Blog - mainly due to Steve Y's great passion for the subject (thank you Steve!)

And yet I am always left feeling a little uneasy. This stuff seems obvious so why doesn't it happen? Note I am not looking for "because companies are dumb" type answers but real insight into this. What are the blocks?

More to the point how do we actually make this happen? Again real answers - to me the "we must get everybody on board" doesn't cut it - it feels more fundamental than that.

I don't know branding but I do know customer service and it always seems that great customer service is going against the flow of the business, it's structure, it's culture etc. Is this the same problem? Can it really be overcome in more than a superficial way? i.e. more than a fad or a great CEO making it happen?

Now normally when I put an entry like this in the response is deafening silence! - It's as if people are afraid of real depth of debate or that the answers are so fundamentally scary!

Thoughts?

Posted by PaulH at December 12, 2005 8:02 AM

Paul - I think part of the problem is that this is a huge question and can't be done justice in a few blog posts. But anyway... to me, the point is that a brand has to be a whole bunch of things, including: a product or service that does something meaningful for me (purpose); that is well designed and great to use (soul); is sold and supported by people who really know and care about the item and its purpose (service). It's a tough trick to pull off because it needs a business to align everything - marketing, HR, fulfilment, the lot - in support of that brand.

Posted by Mark JF at December 12, 2005 8:49 AM

Arun ... ahh ... think about it ... isn't this way of looking at it more appropriate for business to business relationships in many cases?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 12, 2005 10:44 AM

Those are great points you make Paul and the reason for the deafening silence is I suspect because 'academic' branding discussions are myth, smoke and mirrors. We actually all know as customers intuitively what a good brand is and what is crap. The more scientific and academic we make all this the worse the world of branding will become.

Tom Asacker is the best guy I know on branding - look at Tom's site - read and listen to Tom's words - he is the guru of gurus on branding as far as I am concerned. Tom's greatest strength is that he is grounded - a pragmatist and he walks the talk. He also uses understndable language.

My plea as always is please please please do not over complicate something we all know is simple.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 14, 2005 10:45 AM

Amen to all that, Trevor. It's indeed simple, and about the basic distinction between humanity and mechanics. Too many people feel that they can/should put their humanity away when they go to work, and apply some complicated rules-based marketing algorithms when thinking about customers, markets, sectors and the like. When marketing people do complex, most of the time the audience they're really trying to win over is the finance director, not the customer. Simple, personal OK.

Posted by Robin at December 20, 2005 5:22 AM