"Concepts, like individuals, have their histories and are just as incapable of withstanding the ravages of times as are individuals."
Brand. Why does the use of that one word in a business blog generate more comments than any other? Why does a Google search of the word "branding" return close to 14 million results? Why is there a web site dedicated to "developing a common definition of the term 'branding?'" Simple. The concept has not survived the ravages of time.
In last week's excellent On Language article, NY Times columnist William Safire jumped onto the brandwagon. He referred to the word "brand" as "the hot word in the field of sales - indeed, pervading the world of perfect pitching." He also wrote:
David Ogilvy, the advertising executive, was dubbed by the author Martin Mayer in 1958 as an "apostle of the 'brand image"' who sought to persuade the consumer that brand A, technically identical with brand B, is somehow a better product.
And there you have it. The 1950's concept of branding, which most people are still stuck on - and stuck in - today. Branding = Manipulating minds through modern marketing. Right?
In my new book I refer to branding as "today's most powerful business concept." Why? Because I believe that the proliferation of products and services requires more and better mind control? Hardly. Rather it's because said glut of options and information requires a new way of looking at how and why people make marketplace decisions. After all, for a brand to exist in any practical way it must eventually be chosen.
In The Practice of Management, Peter Drucker wrote, "Because it is its purpose to create a customer, any business enterprise has two - and only these two - basic functions: marketing and innovation." The execution of those two functions is what I'll be referring to as "branding." The effect - in the mind of the customer - is what I'll mean by "brand."
Now, I'm certainly expecting some blowback on this post. Especially from folks like Christopher Kenton, who claims that: "a brand is just a name, a sign, or a symbol that distinguishes the products and services of one company from all others." Yeah Chris. I've owned a few businesses. And I still own some trademarks. I get it. But the key to understanding the concept "brand," is to understand its value. How it shapes and encapsulates organizational ideas and initiatives, how the marketplace understands and values it (note Harley's brand "value" dropping $3 billion last Wednesday), and how we wish to represent our attitudes about it (manipulative marketing technique or organizing business principle).
I look forward to your thoughts.
Posted April 18, 2005
Email this post
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00d83481a42b69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kierkegaard on concepts:
The comments to this entry are closed.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
When Tom Asacker writes, I read. Opportunity Screams is the right message for the right time.
Tom Peters
What if we played with the language a little and subsituted the word "mojo" for "brand".
Thus, an individual or group's mission is to "develop their mojo".
What the hell does that mean? Im not sure you can nail it down and quantify it (in fact, I think that kills it) but you can get a feel for it.
What, for example, makes certain bands special? They've got mojo. Its not just their individual songs, but the entire way they go about making their music, presenting it, and performing it. Its the songs, its the way the guitarist struts as he plays, its the attitude, its the style, its the clothing, its the meaning of the lyrics..... its what they stand for, its their politics,.....
Led Zeppelin had a certain kind of mojo and it couldn't be matched. So too the Beatles. And Radiohead.... (substitute your favorite band here).
You see this with truly unique Directors too. Think of Woody Allen. Love him or hate him, he's got his own special mojo.
This hit home for me last year. I was in a theater watching previews. Suddenly one pops up: a giddy trumpet solo kicks in, while an airplane comes into view over a crowded city. The film has an old 70s style grainy quality. It took me three seconds before I said, "Quentin Tarantino".
No dialogue. No human beings on the screen. No title. Just a plane over a city. But in three seconds I knew it was him.
That's mojo.
........
Posted by: AJ Hoge | April 18, 2005 at 08:29 AM
Great insight, AJ. In fact, attitude is what fuels all great brands - and bands - today. Mojo should rule over all activities and execution. In my mind, it's time to stop re-engineering businesses and start re-energizing them!
Posted by: Tom Asacker | April 18, 2005 at 09:16 AM
While I don't disagree with your discussion on the importance of brand building activities, I don't understand your insistance on referring to every product of branding as *brand*. There are other useful terms like brand image, brand equity, brand relationship, etc., that facillitate 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*.
You quote a number of prominent thinkers and philosophers on your blog--many of whom were exceedingly sensitive to semantic distinction. Why don't you insist on the same clarity? 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 credibilty 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.
All of the ideas you're discussing are important. I'm simply arguing strenuously for semantic clarity. It is *essential* for re-establishing the credibility of the marketing profession.
Posted by: Chris Kenton | April 18, 2005 at 01:21 PM