A Clear Eye.

I used Google way back in 1998. Was Google a better search engine than its competition?

Hell, yes!

Google won by being the best. People who have come onto the Web post-Google, or have forgotten what it was like pre-Google, have a hard time appreciating how difficult Web searches were back then.

Is Windows a better operating system? Judged purely on its technical and usability values, no. But the central value proposition of Windows is software compatibility. (Microsoft spends an amazing amount of time testing new versions of Windows for compatibility with existing software.)

Windows beat OS/2 because of market share and compatibility. Does that mean it's "better"? Quite possibly, assuming you can define "better" beyond the technical minutae. Windows did what people wanted it to do, and it was compatible with tons of software that people wanted to run. OS/2 wasn't (on both counts). How does that *not* make Windows better?

Tom, I think you're right on the money. If branding is about storytelling, then you FIRST need a product that's worth telling stories about.

Why do business execs in India "respect and admire" Laura and Al while US execs won't invite them in? Perhaps the same reasons why has-been US basketball players make good money in Europe, "The A Team" is huge in Portugal and David Hasselhoff is the Clay Aikens of Germany. Because we've been there and done that and....moved on. Moved forward. Progressed. We've realized that, while successful branding communicates simply, it is not simple. While the processes may be straightforward, the answers are usually not. And it certainly does not all boil down to PR.

Which leads to the question: If you are a supposed master of marketing/branding and you can't effectively sell yourself in the US, is it possible that the problem is....you guessed it....the product?

I´ve been trying to make sense on Laura´s words. In my opinion, when she talks about Brands as opposed to good products, she means your efforts , your energy and your work need to have some kind of form or shape that guides them. Among the many options of doing great products you should focus in one or two of those forms and that could be your brand, according to my interpretation of Laura´s statements.

Otherwise, I cannot find any reasonable explanation to her speech. When I say reasonable I refer to being justifiable at business. A brand is nothing separated from work and products. All that speech on the effect of brands on the minds of customers is unacceptable for me.

About the other question, I cannot help him much in his effort for I don´t live in the US. But I think he is absolutely right asking you for help. There´s no more wonderful experience than feeling others help you when you need it.

Tom, I think you're both right... in a way.

It's not necessarily that you are first to market (sorry Al & Laura). Rather I think you can enter the category and change it at the same time. Google did this. They didn't just come up with a 'better' search engine (i.e. more accurate results). They also created an entirely different business model. They didn't play the game on Yahoo!'s terms.

So basically, you can have a better product and better people, but if you're entering occupied territory and play by the occupants rules... you're screwed.

But this doesn't mean good product/people are irrelevent. It just means they can be subverted.

Laura, you seem to have a very distorted view of the history of Google.

Google was not by any means the first "pure" search engine. (What is a "pure" search engine anyway?) Altavista, Lycos, Yahoo, Infoseek, Excite, and more had been on the scene for a long time before Google came along.

Google got effectively no PR. They went under-the-radar, spreading through word of mouth based on product quality. Google *still* doesn't advertise.

I do agree with you that companies need to "get the marketing right" to succeed. But Google is a *terrible* example if you're looking to advocate the "traditional" approach to marketing.

I'm trying to come up with something both insightful and brilliant. But, I'm still stuck back at trying to reconcile how one can separate the "Brand" "Marketing" and the business - talking about as if they're distinctly different things. A "brand" is everything one does. Marketing is inherent (or should be) to the business. And so on. Further, a company's brand means different things to different people.

As for companies for the grad student, I'd recommend he look around his hometown at the "Mom and Pops" who have successfully competed against much bigger companies (there are always some!)

And, I'd add - even when strong, they can become victims of their own success - over-extending product lines, over-expanding, overlicensing and ultimately devaluing.

When you're everywhere, you're nowhere. Starbucks is facing this challenge now - how do they maintain their lifestyle "third place" difference while being on every street corner in America? I've now got three within three miles of my house, one of which is in a Target and another is a drive-through.

Krispy Kreme and "name that fashion designer" comes to mind as two examples of good brands gone bad - including to some extent two Olivier mentioned, Chanel and St. Laurent.

The brand model embedded in Laura’s statement is at least 50 years old, and was pointing backwards even then. It can only work when companies blithely crank out commodities. (Hence her insistence that all search engines are the same.) Once companies differentiate themselves and their products on customer value, her concept of “brand” falls apart. Brands create value at the core of business. They’re not post-product add-ons

Google have the best algorythm for indexation. I definitely think it's the best search engines. I have studied it for 1 year now, and still do not completely understand how it work.