Re: Branding definition

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Thu 27 Feb 2003 20:18:06 -0600

At 4:48 PM -0600 2/26/03, Sean M. Hays wrote:
>"Profitability" is not a necessary ingredient to the definition of
>"brand". Profitability may be key for an individual company's brand, but
>there are many organizations that are not at all concerned with
>"profitability". Think about the Make-A-Wish Foundation, the Boys, Girls
>Clubs of America, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I don't know what their
>brand managers and marketing departments are aiming for, but I suspect
>"profitability" is not the whole point of branding. Maybe revenues..

I'll accept revenues. For non-profits, I'll go one step farther:
why will you contribute to one as opposed to another? The brand
strategy has a lot to do with it.

>.
>Additionally, "customers" are not the only people important or that
>define a brand. I believe that all "stakeholders" in an organization are
>important and help define an organization's brand.

Right. You've touched on an important point that most people
overlook: the brand strategy has to get buy-in internally, or it
can't project externally. This is something that Trout and Ries
never addressed. One more example of how branding has matured and
evolved.

>If there are there
>any Proctor and Gamble employees on this list they can tell us how P&G
>leverages its brands to acquire shelf space in retail stores, or how P&G
>uses its brands to acquire the good employees, or how quickly P&G's
>suppliers jump when CREST says "jump!" Sure, P&G has enough money that
>suppliers will jump either way, but take away the brand and there is
>something lost.

It's called "slotting fees." Many folks don't realize that
supermarkets are more about leasing real estate on shelves than
consumer demand.

>
>I've always thought that "perception" and "position" are important to a
>brand. "Perception" may even be necessary in the definition of brand.
>Both "perception" and "position" have quantifiable benchmarks to measure
>performance. Although these are not an exact science, sometimes
>"profitability" isn't all that exact either. Why were so many
>"stakeholders" SUDDENLY SURPRISED when Enron filed for bankruptcy
>protection? Every quarter there were measurements of "profitability"
>given to the public. Numbers don't lie, but there definitions can be
>inaccurate.

Percpetion and delivery on that percpetion are key.

>
>Your views on "profitability", "perception" and "position" in relation
>to "brand" are new to me. If you're book addresses these issues, let me
>know, I will buy it. Although your definition may not be precise, it
>sounds like its worth the ink used to print it. I'm sure I will learn
>something.
>

It's all there.
--
Rob Frankel, http://www.RobFrankel.com
Big Time Branding Guy and Author of "The Revenge of Brand X: How to
Build A Big Time Brand on the Web or Anywhere Else" & "The Frankel
Tapes -- Volume One" on sale now at http://www.RevengeOfBrandX.com




Received on Thu Feb 27 2003 - 20:18:06 CST