’

« Kierkegaard on concepts | Main | Unknown on giving advice »

Felix Frankfurter on semantics

"All our work, our whole life is a matter of semantics, because words are the tools with which we work, the material out of which laws are made, out of which the Constitution was written. Everything depends on our understanding of them."

In the comments section of yesterday's post, Chris Kenton argues for semantic clarity with regards to the word "brand":

While I don't disagree with your discussion on the importance of brand building activities, I don't understand your insistence on referring to every product of branding as *brand*. There are other useful terms like brand image, brand equity, brand relationship, etc., that facilitate a much clearer discussion than when ~everything~ under the sun in marketing is lumped under the be-all, do-all, solve-all, ever-holy word *brand*.

I understand Chris's thoughts. Distinctions should provide clarity, but in many cases they have the opposite effect. To define something is not a path to reality. In fact, it carries you away from it. We need the direct experience - the reality of brand - independent of intellectual abstractions. And that reality lies in the hearts and minds of our audience. So . . . we should define it that way.

I do agree when Chris writes that my definition of brand - "the effect in the mind of the consumer" is not "brand." I really didn't say that it was my "definition." I said it is what I mean when I say "brand." I certainly must define the effect for it to be of any use to anyone, which I intend to do in tomorrow's post. But I disagree with this statement:

The "effect in the mind of the consumer" is Brand Image. It is not brand. Such distinctions are important. They help us clarify the difference between tangible things like Symbols that a company creates to differentiate itself from competitors--things which a company can *own*, *buy*, *sell*, *trademark*--and intangible things which a company can only influence. To the extent that marketers ignore such distinctions, and insist on muddying the waters of the language we use to communicate marketing ideas, we confuse each other, we confuse our clients, we confuse our customers--and, surprise!, we lose credibility because no one can get a clear and consistent answer out of any two marketers. That's not good brand building on marketing's part.

I believe the opposite. I believe that all of the "brand" distinctions have muddied the marketing waters. Let's keep brand out of it. A logo is a logo. A trademark is a trademark. Trade dress is trade dress. There is no brand inside vs. brand outside. Brand religion, brand DNA, cult brand, et al are words dreamed up by consultants to differentiate their offerings. Don't let them pollute our waters.

Let's keep it simple people. We've been handed a set of intellectual glasses to interpret marketplace experiences with, and the concepts are built right into these glasses. Take them off! The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. Most marketing "science" is just gossip. Let's get back to the essence of things - brand included.

Posted April 19, 2005
Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00d8345d40bf69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Felix Frankfurter on semantics:

» This is not a rhetorical question from Incite by Design
I've been reading Tom Asacker's great blog for a while now, and am always appreciative of the way he so bravely takes on the concept of Brand. In his latest post, he gets to the meat of what brand is and argues against the semantics and pedantic entr... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 19, 2005 10:14:06 PM

Comments

thanks, tom, for jumping off the brand-definition-wagon again. surely this thing leads nowhere…
but i have to say i like chris’s role of playing advocatus diaboli. say it loud and say it clear: there is no consistence in marketing speak. full stop. it does not work. we cannot grasp the brand! that’s it!

“50th marketing” – as you said, tom – was dreaming this wonderful dream of mass-manipulation. and there is nothing wrong about that. it definetly works in the case of fmcg-s. classical conditioning – be there with your product in this very special moment when your target is out on the first romantic date – or on the first open-air concert, what ever… be there and it is going to be PEPSI forever – not COKE! – until PEPSI fails to distribute to the local gas-station…

creating consumer preferences outside off the rational spheres – hey, that’s marketing, that’s entertainment… selling dreams: i am a better housewife and a more responsible mother because i buy XYZ !!! – ok we all have learnt since those days.
and - with every lesson the consumers learn - the strategies expand and the definition of marketing is being stretched.
what started out with a happy baby in an innocent newspaper advertisement now comes in the shape of highly diversified communication campaigns that fire their messages through a multitude of channels: buy me, buy me, buy me…
…
so, how does the story continue...?

on the one hand-side one has to say that the old model of marketing still works. it will always work – because no one really cares if it’s coke or pepsi – come on! – manipulate me, condition me, that is ok – both shit, in this case, has the same color… (and because it will always work, it will always determine a good part of marketing-thinking)

on the other hand-side there has been this rapid evolution of the little word “brand” in the last few years. and this little friend has been mighty hungry, it seems.
starting as a word that humbly signified consistent product quality in the post war years, it took a giant jump in growth in the 80th and 90th by consuming all kinds of symbolic spheres (“please help: which caviar brand goes with my star sign?”).
and today… brand is EVERYTHING, from the hairstyle of the ceo to the code of conduct for flushing the corporate toilet…
:)

so, how does this story continue…?

not at all!
because the story is simply told in the wrong way.
…

blurry, muddy … that is what it is. and that is how it will stay.

because - through the eyes of marketing - “brand” cannot be seen clearly.

zooming-out helps and telling the story of marketing by starting a little bit before marketing started helps too…

….
(sorry folks for this slightly chaotic comment, work in progress)

Posted by: jens | April 19, 2005 at 09:57 AM

Great to see you back Tom and thank you for your kind wishes re Grandpa!!

I like this discussion about branding. I posted the following on Tom Peters discussion pages a couple of weeks ago. Simplicity is my mantra of course.

"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 | April 19, 2005 at 09:57 AM

Hah, thanks for the follow up, Trevor. You took the words right outta my mouth. It's selling, people :-). We are not saving lives with modern medicine or the planet with ecological improvements. We solve problems, as my partner says, that help companies sell. End of story.

Posted by: Aleah | April 19, 2005 at 11:20 AM

Scratch that - my last sentence should read, "We solve the identity/image problems that prevent companies from selling."

That's better. :-)

Posted by: Aleah | April 19, 2005 at 01:34 PM

Okay Jens. I'll bite (get the metaphor?). You wrote that "surely this thing leads no where." Well, I obviously don't think so. Otherwise why would I spend a year of my life trying to make a difference in this particular regard?

As I see it, the ONLY way we'll see change is if someone can act as a catalyst and help shift the current mindset/paradigm. And I'm going to give it my best damn shot!

Like JFK, I'm an idealist without illusions. I know that, when all is said and done, it's still about making a buck. Such is the nature of Capitalism. So what? Until someone discovers a better weltanschauung, I'll work with what I've got. My goal is to help *us* make a buck WHILE making a difference. Is that so far fetched? Am I naive?

And Aleah? As Churchill once said, "Never give up. Never, ever give up!"

And Trevor . . . get off the computer and go cuddle your grandchild. ;-)

Posted by: Tom Asacker | April 19, 2005 at 07:35 PM

Wonderful Tom - thanks - great advice as always!

Posted by: Trevor Gay | April 21, 2005 at 02:52 AM

Post a comment