Re: Branding & Marketing

From: Geri Stunz Konstantin <geri_at_virtualadv.com>
Date: Fri 02 Feb 2001 11:05:03 -0600

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> Geri -In looking at your bio on your website,
> it appears that your skills lie on the creative
> side; specifically art direction. Thus, you're
> looking at branding from a pure advertising
> perspective, rather than from a strategic
> marketing perspective.

Sandy- Thanks for pointing out that my company's site
doesn't properly reflect my experience. The fact that
you came away with the sense my experience is no more
than an Art Director, which I haven't done in more than
20 years is troubling. You see I was President & CEO
of my own agency from the early 80s to the mid 90s and
now am Principal of my own agency, a job in which I
regularly develop and write marketing plans to roll out
new products and services. Our specialty is moving
products that don't sell. I do not look at branding (as
you assume) from a creative aspect. I look from an
overall marketing perspective.

After reviewing all my past posts I cannot understand
how you believe my position on branding is that it is
advertising-based. I have clearly made the distinction
that branding is NOT advertising.

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> For example, to me the exchage of emails that you've
> been having with members of this forum is creating a
> Geri Stunz Konstantin "brand" of one who takes an
> advertising branding perspective. Your comments, your
> wording, everything about you within this context is
> creating your brand identity and how others "perceive"
> you.

I respectfully disagree. This is not branding. I am not
a brand nor could I ever be. My posts are a form of PR,
not related to branding in any way. If what you say is
true, then this Online Advertising Digest would become
a "brand". It is a forum. It could never be a brand.

I am from the old school of advertising & marketing:
Specific goals, specific strategies. Specific results.
Not necessarily brand building because we marketed many
products that were not brands. Advertising can increase
brand awareness- but it might not. Yet branding is
different.

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> Even though this forum is not advertising, one might
> decide to choose your "brand" for their next web site
> project, or choose someone else, based on their
> perception of you. Bottom line, all forms of marketing
> communications contributes to that positioning we call
> a brand, not just advertising:

I am baffled by the comment this is not an advertising
forum. It is called Online Advertising Digest
Discussion List. And although I agree that all forms of
marketing contribute to positioning of a product, I
don't call them all brands. About AT&T not doing
branding, you wrote:

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> Sure they do! Look at their advertising, PR, logo,
> etc. When someone says "Ma Bell," who do they think
> of? AT&T, right? Right now, AT&T's brand is a bit
> muddled because it's trying to transition itself from
> the old economy to the new.

AT&T is a company. In 1981 when I worked on the account
the Feds told them to break up. Ma Bell where we are is
Bell South, not AT&T anymore. Their "brand" as you call
it is muddled because they don't have a brand. They
barely have products anymore. You don't see AT&T brand
telephones sold in stores. They offer a "me too"
service for wireless and are headed for hard times
because of lack of foresight, greed and bad marketing.

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:
> A brand is a particular make of goods- check the
> dictionary....

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> No, you're referring to a brand name. The brand is the
> identity that is associated with the product or
> service.

No, a brand is a product. E.G. Bandaid® Brand
Bandages. Not FedEx brand ???? - It doesn't work with a
service. It could be a FedEx brand Letter Envelope
though, yet that's not what they sell. I still maintain
a service is not a brand. A corporation is not a brand
either. That's the way I was trained.

GERI STUNZ KONSTANTIN <geri_at_virtualadv.com> WROTE:
> 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...

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> I think what was meant here is that consumers will
> pay more for one brand over another. Let's face it, a
> car is a mode of transportation. Why would someone pay
> more for a BMW than for a Hyundai, since both provide
> the same basic end benefit of getting one from point A
> to point B? Because the BMW brand connotes quality and
> engineering, while Hyundai comes across economical.
> And to many, the BMW brand is more reassuring than the
> Hyundai brand.

What I meant was exactly what I said. People will not
pay more for a BMW because it connotes quality. Only
when the BMW Brand automobile is established and proven
as giving you the quality it claims will someone pay
more. Thus one major difference between advertising and
branding.

SANDY TAPPER <stapper_at_tappernet.com> WROTE:
> As one who has also spent many years on Madison Avenue
> on the account management side, I know that Advertising
> can seem to be the driver of the brand. Advertising is
> a brand-building tactic, whether it's for image
> advertising or product-specific advertising. When I
> made the transition to the product management/marketing
> side of the desk, I could really understand how the
> brand is made up of more than just advertising.
>
> Again, I think your very narrow creative prism is
> overlooking the broader view of what branding and brand
> identity is all about.

That has been my whole point. I repeat. Advertising is
not Branding. But people's definition about what it is
differs. For example:

JERRY BLANTON <jerry.blanton_at_marchfirst.com> WROTE:
> 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.

Agreed. As one who worked for years on Goodyear, BF
Goodrich & Michelin, Firestone will have a really hard
road ahead to regain market share. If they are smart
Bridgestone will abolish the Firestone Brand and call
them all Bridgestone tires and go from there. Jerry
continued:

JERRY BLANTON <jerry.blanton_at_marchfirst.com> WROTE:
> A service can be ( and most definitely is) branded.
> AT&T is most definitely a brand. FedEx is a brand.

I still don't consider a service business name a brand.

JERRY BLANTON <jerry.blanton_at_marchfirst.com> WROTE:
> 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.

Not in all countries. But yes, generally in the US.
That still doesn't mean Citibank will get a person's
business over Chase.

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.

JERRY BLANTON <jerry.blanton_at_marchfirst.com> WROTE:
> 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).

Try to sell any kind of shampoo to a country that is
just learning what soap is and you'll find out what I
mean. (and there are many out there believe it or not)

JERRY BLANTON <jerry.blanton_at_marchfirst.com> WROTE:
> 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?

What any BRAND conveys is interpreted differently by
many people. But "branding" is a more evasive term. I
think this topic is about exhausted, but it is
interesting to note the difference between
professionals on the subject. Who is right? You have
to decide.

Geri Konstantin
Stunz | Konstantin
Advertising, Website Development, Search Engines
Geri_at_StunzKonstantin.com





Received on Fri Feb 02 2001 - 11:05:03 CST