Re: Branding

From: Damon Kirschbaum <damon_at_damonkirschbaum.com>
Date: Wed 26 Feb 2003 16:56:21 -0600

on 2/25/03 9:02 AM, Rob Frankel at rob_at_robfrankel.com wrote:

>> 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.

That is a nasty thing to say, Rob. Please stop saying such things to me.

>> 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.

I do not understand how my age has anything to do with the matter at hand.

>> Acceptance of their definition is not arbitrary. The definition sounds right
>> to me.
>
> That's as arbitrary as it gets.

I do not understand how my being comfortable with a definition of branding
that is at least facially plausible is arbitrary.

>> 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.

Why? Are you willing to answer the other questions that I asked?

>> How do you differentiate between a marketing strategy
>> and a marketing tactic?
>
> That's marketing 101. Strategy is the plan. Tactics are the actions.

Okay: strategy is the plan--tactics are the actions. I am comfortable with
that.

But, couldn't a business plan to be the lowest cost provider of a product or
service, and then take action by (1) selling their products or services at
the lowest prices and (2) advertising that fact. In that example, "low
prices" would be the strategy, tactics, and at least a part of the brand,
right?

Another example: Vanguard <http://www.vanguard.com/>. From the beginning of
its existence, Vanguard has positioned itself as the lowest cost provider of
investment management services. Vanguard commercials hammer the idea (and
reality) that they are the lowest cost provider of investment management
services. When I think of Vanguard, I think of low cost investing. Many of
their most popular mutual funds are commodities--index funds! No one has a
monopoly on having index funds. "Low costs" is part of Vanguard's strategy,
tactics, and a substantial part of their branding, right?

>> 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.

I am not a cynic. I think that you probably have a good faith belief in
everything that you have said, but I have not been able to figure it out
yet.

>> 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.

Okay, let's not get stuck on the definition of "premium." I want to get an
understanding of what your definition of branding is.

>> 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.

Then I definitely do not understand what you mean by branding. Can you
explain this further?

>> 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.

I apologize if you think that I am "fighting it." I really do not think I am
fighting anything. I am honestly trying to understand. Can you provide a
direct link to your definition of branding?

I would think that this would be a much appreciated opportunity for you to
explain your opinions about your expertise in a public forum. I do not
understand why you are not willing to engage more.

This thread started when you publicly told a member of this discussion list
that she was using the term "branding" incorrectly. I have seen you do this
many times before. But, I have never seen you offer a clear and concise
definition of branding. (You may have, though--I have been an on-and-off
subscriber to this list for a long time.)

By repeatedly being critical of how other people have used the term
"branding," I think you have obligated yourself to tell us exactly what your
definition of branding is. Then, we can all discuss it intelligently.

Lastly, I am not particularly sensitive--I heartily enjoy lively debates
about ideas. But, I do not enjoy personal attacks. If you make more personal
attacks on me, my participation in this conversation will end.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

/s/ Damon Kirschbaum

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Kirschbaum's Investment Advisory Service
<http://www.damonkirschbaum.com/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------





Received on Wed Feb 26 2003 - 16:56:21 CST