Shakespeare on brand names

"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

I just signed up for an email management service.  The list had simply become too much for me to handle. That's why you may have received an email from Aweber - on my behalf - asking you to confirm your email address.  If there was some confusion, I apologize.  But please do opt-in, so you'll continue to receive my articles.  Thanks!

Aweber? Hmm, that's not a very good brand name for an email list management system, is it?  So, why did I choose it?  I'll tell you why: it came highly recommended. Does that make sense to you?  That someone would purchase a product or service based on a recommendation that extolled its performance, ease of use, friendly people, and other tangible virtues?  Well, it doesn't seem to make sense to Laura Ries.  Here's something she just posted on her blog:

"Having a better brand is not about actual differences in people, products or services. Having a better brand is about having a better brand perception in the mind."

Do you think she really believes what she wrote?  Especially in this emerging age of the consumer-controlled marketplace?  You can read her entire post here.

Posted April 28, 2007
Email this post   Bookmark and Share   

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00d834c0f87053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shakespeare on brand names:

Comments

Johnnie Moore

Hi Tom. I think Laura's from the "simplify, dramatise, exaggerate" school of marketing.

It's the mindset of the "big idea" and it doesn't really bother with the granular detail.

I'll side with Shakespeare, I think.

Posted by: Johnnie Moore | April 29, 2007 at 03:25 AM

Tom Asacker

Thanks for the input Johnnie. As always, you're spot on. I do agee with simplify and dramatize, although that only gets people curious. And curiosity is a far cry from loyalty.

Posted by: Tom Asacker | April 29, 2007 at 06:57 AM

Mike

I have to agree with Laura. Remembering is a huge part of successfully marketing any product. Some brand names are easier to remember. While on a micro scale this might not have the appearance of importance ... on the level of individual transactions for example ... on the macro level I think it matters a lot ... as good branding from the top down has the ability to influence large groups of transactions.

I think her post also has context. It's just about naming. Everyone knows that a great name probably won't help a brand that doesn't deliver or a brand that is behind the times.

Out of all the branding and marketing books and blogs I've ever read ... your work, especially the article on clarity you wrote a while back, and Laura's work has been more helpful and insightful than all the rest combined.

Posted by: Mike | April 29, 2007 at 04:35 PM

Chris G

I think Laura's comments have validity but it doesn't help the consumer at all. Because we live in such a brand name recognized state of world, lesser known, better products don't get the time of day.

Because of this, we are stuck with a market driven by companies that know that "big name" companies can produce second rate products at first rate prices and people will pay for them simply on recognition, rather than go against the grain and try something new and probably better.

There is no fault at this, smaller companies rely more on word of mouth than huge advertising budgets and while this may gain them customer loyalty in the end, it's not helping them gain the trust of those who have never heard of them.

Posted by: Chris G | April 29, 2007 at 07:14 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.