Re: Branding

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Tue 25 Feb 2003 08:02:08 -0600

At 8:04 PM -0600 2/24/03, Damon Kirschbaum wrote:
>on 2/24/03 1:04 PM, Rob Frankel at rob_at_robfrankel.com wrote:
>
>> At 8:38 AM -0600 2/24/03, Damon Kirschbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> Price strategy is no strategy? The price cutters are the first to get
>>> flushed?
>>
>> Yup. You got it right.
>
>A reasonable person can believe that Wal-Mart seems to contradict your
>assertion. Are you willing and able to explain how it actually does not?

Sure. There are lots of successful brands. That doesn't mean
they're good brands. Lots of people think that Coca Cola is a great
brand. Truth it, it's not. What coke has is a killer, slash and
burn sales force that thinks nothing of twisting the arms of
retailers wherever it goes. Wal-Mart is pretty much the same story.
The reason they do well has nothing to do with brand; they're sales
predators. They're good at it, but that doesn't make them a good
brand.

>
>I do not want to read your book. I want you to explain it here.

You should buy the book. There's probably a used copy for sale on
Amazon. In fact, you should try reading a bunch of books. It might
help you broaden your horizons.

>
>
>You have not offered a definition of branding. You have offered ambiguous
>puffery seemingly designed to promote your "brand" and sell your products
>and services.

Ah, youth.

>Acceptance of their definition is not arbitrary. The definition sounds right
>to me.

That's as arbitrary as it gets.

>It seems to describe what people seem to mean when they speak or
>write about branding. Can you explain exactly how their definition is
>inaccurate?

Just did.

> >> 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.
>
>This reads like sales puffery to me. How is branding directly accountable to
>the bottom line? How is price cutting a mere tactic? Can't it be both a
>strategy and a tactic?

No.

>How do you differentiate between a marketing strategy
>and a marketing tactic?

That's marketing 101. Strategy is the plan. Tactics are the actions.

>
>>> 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.
>
>Why? Are you denying that Ms. Laughlin's strategy even meets the definition
>of branding that you rejected?
>
> >> 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
>
>This is not a definition. It is more sales puffery. A cynic would believe
>that ambiguity is a crucial aspect of your sales process.

Good thing you're not a cynic.

>
>You say: "The whole point of branding is to be able to sell your commodity
>at a PREMIUM because of the brand." Wal-Mart sells thousands of commodities
>at premiums. Because of their size and buying power, they are able to
>profitably sell commodities at prices below the price that other retailers
>are able to.

Um, do you know what "premium" is? This would vital to your
understanding. Wal-Mart sells nothing at a premium. Not that it
would be the litmus test.

>
>Your opinion seems to be that a high volume/low margin business model is
>incompatible with "branding," and that "branding" means high margin. Is this
>correct?

No.

>
>Rob, I have a problem--I have no idea what you are talking about, and I have
>no idea what you mean by "branding." You are the only solution to my
>problem, Rob. Please help me!
>

I would, but you're too busy fighting it. I humbly submit (for free)
http://www.RobFrankel.com archives and http://www.revengeofbrandx.com
which is also free and contains an excerpt of the book.

--
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 Tue Feb 25 2003 - 08:02:08 CST