Re: Branding and marketing

From: Geri Stunz Konstantin <geri_at_virtualadv.com>
Date: Thu 18 Jan 2001 15:04:49 -0500

ROB FRANKEL <rob_at_robfrankel.com> WROTE:
> What's the big deal about 30 years? Lots of people do
> things for longer than that but it doesn't make them
> right. Brand value really counts on the bottom line.
> If you can turn users into evangelists, your customer
> acquisition costs go lower, your retention is higher
> and amount per transaction is higher. All of which
> makes a well-branded client more profitable.

I do not have to defend my track record. Just go back
and read Adweek, Art Direction and Backstage and you'll
find out who I am.

You obviously do not have much experience or you would
not have made your comment about 30 years in
Advertising & Marketing.

There are certain things only experience brings. And
one of them is a clear understanding of what "branding"
is. You throw the word around, using it as an
adjective, and as an all-encompassing catch-all for
whatever advertising techniques you employ. That's
probably because of your unexplained but well-expressed
hatred for all advertising people. You are a very angry
person:

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:
> Your definition of Advertising is an insult to all
> Advertising pros out there.

ROB FRANKEL <rob_at_robfrankel.com> WROTE:
> No, the way advertising hacks like to pass themselves
> off as branding experts is what's insulting.

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:
> Advertising is much more
> than you claim - maybe bad advertising merely raises
> awareness of a brand, but without good advertising any
> brand will cease to exist. A brand can exist without
> branding. You, my friend, are way off on this one.
 
ROB FRANKEL <rob_at_robfrankel.com> WROTE:
> Nah. I once hung around ad agencies, too. In fact, it
> was their total lack of business experience and
> branding strategy that convinced me to specialize in
> branding. Which has worked out pretty
> well for both me and my clients. I often get asked to
> conduct agency reviews and to date, not one
> (regardless of size) has ever been able to adequately
> provide any knowledgeable or accountable branding
> strategy.
>
> Honestly, from where I sit, reality has little to do
> with your arguments. Hey, don't get me wrong. You've
> been doing this for 30 years and if that's what floats
> your boat, more power to you. Just don't try to pass
> off three decades as the ultimate gospel. It ain't
> necessarily so. The brands and definitions you cite
> are rooted in decades old practices, much (not all) of
> which has become outdated, primarily due to what I
> call the media Implosion (first chapter of my book).
 
By labeling everything "Branding" you are escaping from
the realization that YOUR concept of "Branding" is
actually the concept of Advertising. But obviously
since you despise Advertising so much that's why you do
it...

You claim that my decade old ideas are outdated. I
chuckle at this ridiculous assertion. The basis of
advertising has not changed and the real definition of
"branding" has not changed.

The only thing that has changed is that there are more
people involved in the ad business, most of us from the
"good old days" have retired, and that a lot of the
"new generation" is apparently very, very confused
about what advertising should do, can do and how to do
it well. This confusion explains all the mispositioning
of products, lack of creative strategy, lack of
image-building and lack of true business-building
techniques so evident in ads today.

Finally, for you to be so arrogant as to claim this
so-called "media implosion" you wrote about in your
book has changed these solid advertising & marketing
principles used throughout the years is laughable. But
at least now you have finally revealed where you are
REALLY coming from......





Received on Thu Jan 18 2001 - 14:04:49 CST