Brands have meaning, TAC. Really. From my experience, charged with creating the continuum between a conglomerate and its well known acquiree brands, mostly household names in their respective (technology) fields, the process involved a slow transition from the original brand name "XXX" to "XXX, a division of YYY" to "XXX/YYY" to "YYY, formlery XXX" to just "YYY."
(That's an oversimplification but it did the job).
Datsun had the same struggle with 'Nissan.' Whine all you want about how branding doesn't matter, but in the real world people buy names they know. Think of some best-sellers of flash-trash books bought just because of the 'name/brand' on the cover, regardless of quality.
Of course brands have meaning.
The issue isn't whether brands are valuable, the issue is how you build them.
I say the best way to build a brand is to sell someone something.
I hope anyone who reads this dialog between TAC and me will contribute. The marketing process is a system, not a mere stand-alone activity, going all the way from product/ service creation to advertising, sales, service and replacement (the customer returning for the next 'new, improved') and using brand in all its forms as an integral and consistent element, end to end. All the players must understand the process, from the CEO to the shipping dock, involving all the key suppliers that include the agency. Trying to separate 'brand' from all the other activities in like Shylock demanding a pound of flesh (but not a drop of blood).
I am happy to comment on the commentary. What's so difficult to understand here? TAC says that people need to buy the product in order to like the brand. That doesn't seem so oblique to me. Rather, it sounds like common sense.
That "people buy names they know" also makes sense. But a brand that people know becomes known through selling products.
I would translate the TAC credo to mean "stop spending money on making people feel warm and fuzzy about your brand." As an MBA student, I dropped my marketing class this semester, after the first meeting, because the entire 165 minutes was spent looking at Coca-Cola commercials that made you feel good about Coke. I will buy Coke because
a) I expect it will be free of rat poison,
b) I expect it will taste the same it did last time,
c) it tastes good, and
d) it is accepted in my world to drink Coke.
All of these might be considered branding, but nowhere is "I liked their award winning commercial so much that I know Coca-Cola will take care of me." Or something like that. A-D also can apply to Pepsi, so it is understandable that a company would want to go further with their brand. But wait, Pepsi already has!
e) Pepsi Challenge (branding by sampling)
f) Pepsi Generation (Choice of Pepsi implies youth)
Of these, F wouldn't work without E, because no one is going to buy into the "Prune Eating Generation" just because the TV says so.
As a (simple, pesky) consumer, I find I buy brands for two reasons: I grew up on them; OR I found them on my own and find they fit my needs (costs aside.)
But I also admire and recall ads for products I haven't tried or used regularly, and that's when, if "my" brand isn't on the shelf, 50% of the time I purchase the next "first to mind." It's not changing my choice, just my decision. (And I often must go elsewhere for the particular stuff I want -- like Downey Free, few carry this must-have.)
At my advanced age, there're few products I haven't already tried/used/discarded or bonded with (if the brand matters for that item, about 50% of my purchases), so "brand awareness" won't woo me until I use it as a 2nd choice and maybe prefer it, making the big switch.
So for me, both JJ and TAC's points are true, as are Susan and Steven's comments.
PS: LOVED your book. And that paper! Magnificent! Content goes w/o saying, but I grokked all of it, thanks.
(But for the longest time I thought the cover photo, like your header here, was of two interns in over-sized suits in an elevator with an athletic girl in a short green skirt and poor color matching skills... I got the "against the grain" message but only after I finished reading it did I see it as an Exec with no pants... I could finally love it. Thanks for writing it.)
I think how you brand depends on the product, and yes, it should be all about the product and reinforcing "you made a good decision when you bought, tried our product" or branding why a product is superior. I think branding works best when it reinforces that a consumer made the best decision.
My favorite case of branding is Fox News' "FAIR AND BALANCED". As one who works in news we know that they are neither fair, nor balanced. But the people believe they are, the promote they are, they say they are in the news casts, and they have created millions of viewers who will simply not listen to reason because they want to see the world a certain way and FOX tells them they are right.
Commenting by HaloScan
