Re: Google a brand?

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Mon 22 Sep 2003 10:04:41 -0500

Brian Rock wrote thusly:

>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.

I appreciate that point, Brian, but here's the view from where I sit:
SO many people out there have so many different interpretations of
what branding is, that you can't get them to agree on anything having
to do with it. That's why I stress branding at the definition level.
As soon as everyone agrees - or at least can agree - on what branding
is, they can gage their expectations of what it should do for them.

In fact, we just completed a follow up survey on branding (the first
was conducted to launch my book, and found that no two respondents
could even define branding in the same manner). This time, instead
of interviews, we visited sites professing to be "branding experts".
None of those agreed on what branding is, either!

To create another term would have just confused the issue further.

>
>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.

Actually, one of the major drawbacks to Trout & Ries is that they
have expanded beyond their views since the 1970's. None other than
Jack Trout once proclaimed that the web is useless for branding. How
out of touch is that? And to further show how they're somewhat
obsolete, try visiting http://www.troutandries.com <G>

>
>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.

It wouldn't matter if you agree on what branding is supposed to do.
If you ask the Aussies which is their choice for safety, and they
answer Volvo, then Volvo has done its job.

Don't confuse a successful brand (Coca-Cola) with a good brand
(FedEx). They're judged by different criteria.

>
>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.

It does help, though, in terms of getting people serious about what
branding can do. You have no idea how difficult it is to work with
clients when they (A) can't agree on what branding does and (B) are
not able to see its tangible benefits. So from a business angle,
branding has to be tied to real, tangible, trackable results. That's
my approach. Since it makes more business sense, an increasing
number of clients are more able to make the business case for
investing in brand development.

>
>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...
>

For clarification, I didn't say Google isn't a brand. I said it
wasn't a good brand. Big difference.
--
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 Sep 22 2003 - 10:04:41 CDT