Re: Branding

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Mon 03 Mar 2003 11:05:59 -0600

[Note from Moderator: I've removed the first part of this exchange,
as it that seemed to deal more with personal issues between the
participants than with branding related issues. The remainder follows.
--Cliff]

At 4:56 PM -0600 2/26/03, Damon Kirschbaum wrote:

>
>>> 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.

Because it's not based on anything other than your opinion. It's
somewhat sparse in supporting arguments, let alone pertinent data.
If you choose to be arbitrary in your opinions, seems only right to
be totally accepting of others' opinions whether you agree with them
or not.

>
>>> 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?

The pertinent ones, yes. The argumentative ones, not really.

>
>>> 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?

No, and that's the part that you're not seeing. Price strategy is
not a brand strategy. The fact that many people seem to think so
doesn't make it so. It's also the reason why so many price cutting
companies crash and burn so often. There's nothing there for their
users to sink their teeth into. No investment whatsoever.

Look at it this way: if a company hinges everything it has on price,
it loses all its users to another company that presents lower prices.
A brand, properly built, cannot be duplicated by another entity.
Which means users have to have a really good reason to abandon it.

>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?

Not really. Vanguard has no brand strategy. If you go there, you'll
see there's absolutely no reason why I should see vanguard as the
only solution to my investment issues. It may be part of their
pricing strategy, but I guarantee you that Vanguard has to
merchandise much more than low rates to keep accounts.

>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.

I kid you not, go to http://www.revengeofbrandx.com and read the free
sample chapter excerpt. It really does provide the examples and
rationale that adds dimension and meaning to these topics. Really.

>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?

http://www.revengeofbrandx.com or almost anywhere on http://www.RobFrankel.com

>
>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.

I have a full time job. This truly is the shortcut, because I would
just write what's there anyway! You can also look at
http://www.RobFrankel.com/frankelaws.html

>
>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.)

I submit to you it is in my sig below.....

>
>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.

Done it. Now you have to really look at what I've said. Not trying
to be difficult, just pointing you to everything you're asking for
and then some.

>
>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.

Sounds fair to me.

--
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 Mar 03 2003 - 11:05:59 CST