Re: Branding and marketing

From: Jerry Blanton <jerry.blanton_at_marchfirst.com>
Date: Thu 25 Jan 2001 14:03:00 -0500

LARRY RAUBACH <larryraubach_at_hotmail.com> WROTE:
> a brand transcends the product. Write
> it down if you have to.

TO WHICH GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> REPLIED:
> Only based upon the assumption that the brand is a
> "good" thing, could a brand "transcend" a product.
> Look at Firestone.

A brand can connote bad associations just as easily as
it can represent good associations. The Firestone
brand has been damaged by that one tire (read: product)
so in that regard the brand has transcended the
product. Even the most rational of consumers will,
when faced with seemingly identical tires from
Michellin and Firestone, will factor what they know
vs. believe vs. feel about the brands and then make
their choice. How do you think Firestone will do in
that scenario? The answer should be clear as Firestone
has already lost a tremendous amount of business.

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:
> You obviously have not read all my previous posts. I
> expressed my views based upon my experience working
> with many BRAND Managers, not PRODUCT Managers, that
> the word Brand is used too loosely today. You have
> missed my point. Maybe in Canada they call services
> brands. Every foreign country has their own methodology
> for formulating advertising and differences in word
> definitions.

Advertising does not equal branding. Advertising is
only one of the means for communicating a brand's
values/message. A service can be ( and most definitely
is) branded. AT&T is most definitely a brand. FedEx is
a brand. When given a choice between otherwise
identical products or services, a consumer chooses that
which he or she is most comfortable, trusts or
otherwise has an affinity toward.

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:
> In some countries you don't even do Branding. It
> wouldn't work. In some countries you can't even
> sell shampoo because they don't understand the
> product, let alone any brand.

I'm not sure what your point is here; it is a tautology
that you couldn't brand a product in a country wherein
the product category itself is not used or understood.
However, the concept of a brand is universal (even
though the specifics of any given brand or how your
methods for branding a product or service will vary).

A simple definition: a brand is a shortcut to making a
decision. A brand is more than just the sum of
benefits and price performance of a product or service.
A brand includes emotional and other non-rational
associations w/in the consumer's mind. Trust,
aspiration, positive prior experience (or negative)
etc. ALL make up what is commonly referred to as a
"brand" by marketers.

LARRY RAUBACH <larryraubach_at_hotmail.com> WROTE:
> 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.

TO WHICH GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> REPLIED:
> Yeah - Sure.... I get really emotional over my
> toothpaste and deodorant..... And when I wash my
> dishes, you can be sure that's really emotional too..

I think you are taking the word "emotional" too
literally here. It doesn't mean getting misty-eyed
when you think about your shampoo or toothpaste.
Emotional is really that which is non-rational.
Granted, the categories you mentioned above are the
most difficult to brand and position according to their
non-rational (emotional) attributes (hence the
explosion of benefit intensive product extensions in
the last few years; flouride toothpaste with baking
soda, toothpaste for sensitive teeth, flavors, etc.)

In all cases (as someone mentions above), a brand
(again, whether it be a product or a service) MUST
perform well against a consumer's rational set of
expectations. This is a cost of entry. No brand
regardless of how great its advertising, packaging,
price or history will thrive if it doesn't meet minimum
rational expectations. Brand can be (and often is)
the deciding factor between two parity products/
services however. Were Nike shoes rationally any
better than the competition when Nike was at its peak?
Is a Sony television REALLY better than a Pioneer,
Philips or Hitachi?

Jerry Blanton
Partner, Brand Strategy
marchFIRST NY





Received on Thu Jan 25 2001 - 13:03:00 CST