Re: Branding

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Mon 24 Feb 2003 12:04:35 -0600

At 8:38 AM -0600 2/24/03, Damon Kirschbaum wrote:
>
>
>Lowest price is not a branding strategy? Tell that to Wal-Mart
><http://www.walmart.com/>--"Always Low Prices!"
>
>on 2/21/03 6:00 PM, Rob Frankel at rob_at_robfrankel.com wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Price strategy is no strategy. In fact, when the economy
>> dumps into the toilet, the price cutters are the first to get
>> flushed. Those who have invested in brand strategy take their market
>> share, since their users know there's more to their offering than a
>> low priced commodity.
>>
>> When you build a brand properly, you give users more reasons to
>> purchase your goods, which essentially removes price as the primary
>> purchase decision criteria. The more reasons you give, the less
>> important price becomes.
>
>Price strategy is no strategy? The price cutters are the first to get
>flushed?

Yup. You got it right.

> Tell that to Wal-Mart. You have just glibly dismissed Wal-Mart,
>Dell Computer, and every other company that has built a successful business
>based primarily upon being the lowest cost provider of a product or service,
>and BEING KNOWN as the lowest cost provider of a product or service.
>
>Ron and Rob, you obviously have a strong opinion about what branding is, but
>that does not mean that you are correct and that anyone that uses the term
>differently than you is wrong.

Actually, it does. <G>

>You do not possess the Platonic Ideal of
>Branding. Your marketing ideas may be brilliant, but you are not the
>guardians of the definition of what a brand is.

Yeah, we actually are. <G>

>
>Branding is a concept. It is an idea. It is not definitive. We cannot touch
>it, hold it, measure it, or weigh it.

That's because too many people don't want to be accountable for their
brand. They subscribe to an old school, Trout & Ries definition of
what branding is and what it should do. If you read the first
chapter of my book, you'll see why and how this has all changed
radically.

>It most certainly is not a noun. (I
>assume that Rob L. was being metaphorical when he wrote that it was a noun.)
>It is silly to argue about what branding is or is not without being as
>specific as possible. Words are ambiguous. The words "brand" and "branding"
>can be used in many different correct ways.
>
>Here is a definition of branding that I found with the help of Google at
><http://www.marketingfix.com/archives/the_definition_of_branding.php>:
>
>> Branding allows a company to differentiate themselves from the
>> competition and, in the process, to bond with their customers to
> > create loyalty. So a position is created in the marketplace that
> > is much more difficult for the competition to poach. A satisfied
> > customer may leave. But a loyal one is much less likely to.

So you buy THEIR definition but not ours? A bit arbitrary, there......

>
>Being the lowest cost provider of a product or service is an excellent way
>for a business to differentiate itself from its competition, and to bond
>with its customers and create loyalty.

That is SO wrong. If you've ever been in business yourself, you'd
have a different take on it. In practice (where my brands are
created), branding takes on a much different role, where it is
directly accountable to the bottom line. Price cutting is a tactic.
There is no Wal-Mart brand strategy in this respect. There's high
awareness. There's success. But there's also extreme vulnerability.
They are susceptible, but you just can't see it.

>
>Karen G. Laughlin's strategy of being known as the lowest cost provider of
>whatever it is that she sells is definitely an effective way of
>differentiating her business from her competitors, and bonding with her
>customers and create loyalty, especially if the product or service that she
>is selling is a commodity.

That is so wrong.

>If your definition or understanding of branding
>does not incorporate the strategy of being the lowest cost provider, then
>your definition or understanding of branding is seriously flawed.
>
>How would you define "branding"?
>

The whole point of branding is to be able to sell your commodity at a
PREMIUM because of the brand. My definition is below, in my tag:
--
Rob Frankel

"Branding is not about getting your prospects to choose you over your
competition; it's about getting your prospects to see you as the only
solution to their problem." (TM) -- Rob Frankel, consultant and
author of "The Revenge of Brand X: How to build a Big Time Brand on
the web or anywhere else."
Big Time Branding (SM) http://www.RobFrankel.com
818-990-8623 or 1-888-ROBFRANKEL
AIM: ROBFRANKEL




Received on Mon Feb 24 2003 - 12:04:35 CST