Nick,
I haven't read your book but if it's based on what
you have just described below then I'll save my
money. First, your statement on brand definition
requirements is contradictory. Second, it's
completely flawed.
On the one hand you claim customers define brands
(which I agree). Yet on the other you state it
must contain profitability. Why? What the heck
does a customer care about profitability? they
care about what problem your going to solve or
what benefit you'll provide. BMW = The Ultimate
Driving Machine ; Downey = Advanced fabric care
conditioning that keeps clothes feeling soft and
smelling fresh. ; Head and Shoulders = Shampoo
designed to prevent recurrence of flaking/itching
associated with dandruff.
Creating and maintaining a brand IS about
positioning. It IS about owning that place in the
consumers mind. But does it alone mean it will be
successful? No. What positioning gives the brand
is basically the "first look". The brand has to
deliver on the promise it makes. Whether that
promise is physical (better components on my Nikon
camera) or perceived (psychographic association
with a brand e.g. Polo, Nike). The measurement
comes at the cash register.
There's no reason to require the words 'customers'
or 'profitability' in a brand name. Maybe you're
confusing a brand with a company's mission
statement. And isn't the mission of pretty much
any company about offering products to customers
and make a profit? Brands are brands. Companies
are companies. There is a difference.
-Rob
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rob Lewis
rob_at_marketingphysics.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Received on Wed Feb 26 2003 - 16:53:04 CST
