"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.
