Re: Branding and marketing

From: Larry Raubach <larryraubach_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Wed 17 Jan 2001 21:28:12 -0500

My mom always told me that if I have nothing nice to
say, I shouldn't say anything at all. Sorry mom.

In response to Geri Stunz Konstantin's recent post I am
afraid I have nothing nice to say - depending upon
your perspective I suppose. But to say nothing at all
would not be in the best interest of those who are
following this particular thread and have an interest
in branding.

I don't even know where to begin with this one, so with
that, here we go...

NICK WREDEN <netbrand_at_bellsouth.net> WROTE:
> Let's first define a brand as a shared emotional
> commitment to an offering (either product or service)
> based on trust and loyalty.

TO WHICH GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> REPLIED:
> Sorry Nick, I respectfully disagree with your
> definition and your comments. A brand is a particular
> make of goods- check the dictionary.

Well Geri, you would respectfully be wrong. Completely.
Totally. Abolutely. Stop reading Webster's and start
reading books by the likes of David Aaker and Chris
Macrae. A brand is not simply "a particular make of
goods." As I said previously, a brand transcends the
product. Let me repeat that in case it was missed the
first two times: a brand transcends the product. Write
it down if you have to.

Geri then defies PATRICK CARLSON by writing that FedEx,
AT&T and Yahoo! are in fact not brands and continues
to again tell us that one does not brand a service,
only products. Puhleez. FedEx - a service - is easily
one of the most powerful brands in the world. Easily.
To dispute this is total ignorance.

To follow up on Geri's example of Tide owning the word
"clean". It does not own the word "clean." Clean is a
functional benefit of the detergent which is Tide. All
detergents clean. That is like American Airlines trying
to own "air travel" and Ford trying to own "automotive
transportation."

Geri then goes on to say:

> Consumers will not necessarily pay more for a brand.
> A Hyundai is a brand. And I don't know a soul who will
> pay more for a Hyundai than they have to..

Consumers WILL pay more for a brand. That is a
fundamental tenet behind a brand and branding. And by
the way, Hyundai is not a brand. Well, arguably
anyways. It's just the name of a company that makes
cars. If it is a brand so to speak, it isn't much of
one. The fact that Geri has admitted she doesn't "know
a soul who will pay more for a Hyundai than they have
to" proves this fact. They don't because it is has no
brand worth paying for. It only has funtional
attributes worth paying for (it will take me from point
a to point b and gets x number of miles to the gallon
etc). In fact, regardless of their actual quality
(which are probably pretty good), Korean cars in
general are perceived as being of an inferior quality
and this fact contributes greatly to their having weak
brands. Remember, perception is indeed reality.

Geri also said:

> Brand loyalty is not branding either. Brand loyalty
> is built up through favorable price points, superior
> products and tangible consumer benefits. This can be
> accomplished more quickly thanbranding."

Actually no, not even close. Or as Rob Frankel already
so eloquently stated, "wrongoritos, mon ami." Brands
are built upon emotional benefits - intangible
benefits. They are, however, often destroyed by a lack
of tangible benefits. Brand loyalty is the end result
of effective branding.

Geri was right about one thing, however - many members
of this group certainly do have to "go back to
basics." Unfortunately for some though, you obviously
can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Brand on!

Larry Raubach
Product Manager (yup, a new job for those of you who noticed)
Corel Corporation
Ottawa, Canada





Received on Wed Jan 17 2001 - 20:28:12 CST