Re: Google a brand?

From: Brian Rock <Brock_at_networkten.com.au>
Date: Fri 19 Sep 2003 09:03:23 -0500

Interesting discussion.

There is a bit of semantic confusion here. Strictly speaking a brand
has traditionally been an identifier for a product or service, so in those
terms Google is a brand.

Rob calls this an "identity", with the difference being that a brand is
"definable" and "can be evangelized in an articulate manner". Although
I'm not crazy about re-defining a term - I'd have preferred if Rob had
invented a new word to capture his concept of branding - I understand
his point.

However I'm not at all sure I accept that a brand being able to be
clearly defined is the pivotal aspect to a good brand.

Following on from John Cass' example of Volvo, the Volvo=safety story
is well established; Ries & Trout have been using it as in illustration
for 20 years. Compare this with Audi: what does Audi stand for? Dunno
really.

Having said that, in Australia the Audi A$ outsells Volvo's S60 2:1.
Which is the better brand? I know which one is more profitable.

Of course the BMW 3-series outsells Audi 4:1, and Volvo 9:1, which says
to me that "definable qualities" + "other factors customers like" is
going to give the best ROI.

As for branding being "about getting your prospects to see you as the
only solution to their problem" - well, let's just say I'm not entirely
convninced. I can't think of a single product category where I have 100%
product loyalty, be it FMCG, consumer durables or services.

On the other hand Google, which by Rob's criteria isn't a brand,
manages a 50% share of usage in Australia, which suggests to me that for
a large number of Internet users indicates it is indeed the only
solution to their problem. On that criteria it is a good brand...

I don't pretend to have the definitive answer. Hope this contributes to
the discussion.

- B








Received on Fri Sep 19 2003 - 09:03:23 CDT