Re: Google a brand?

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Wed 24 Sep 2003 08:14:33 -0500

At 8:51 AM -0500 9/23/03, John Gaskill wrote thusly:
>
>That any firm ties its branding success to
>the process of being touted by its users
>entails enormous risk. It is safer and
>easier to advertise the brand and its
>desired attributes and association and
>let users "confirm" their factualness to
>interested third parties who bring up the
>subject.

I so rarely disagree with Gaskill that I just couldn't resist here:

The above points out the difference between old style Trout & Ries
age of branding and my point of view.

While it might seem safer and easier to let users "confirm" their
factualness, that's precisely the reason why so many brands fail.
Allowing people to make up their own reasons for choosing a brand
actually undermines the brand, because everyone has their own reason
for choosing the brand.

On the other hand, if a brand takes the lead and states a specific
message, it can lead with that message while its followers
personalize around that message. The result is that the users
evangelize around the important message, which allows the brand to
more effectively fulfill that message.

In the old days, it was just about identity and awareness. The whole
dynamic of branding has changed.

>A search engine is much more to explain
>than a car. Witness Yahoo's success with
>its TV ads for catching giant fish, but its
>failure to preserve its Numero Uno position
>in the search business resulted from how
>it perceived the business, not its customers'
>perceptions of the business.

In my experience at least, there's never been a product or service
that was more difficult than another when it came to branding. The
main frustration most businesses have is prioritizing the messages.
So they try to dump everything into one generic statement, which is
how they arrive at strategies that communicate either confusion or
nothing at all.

>Google's brand has more than high
>awareness. It has loyal users who
>helped build the brand by explaining
>to other folks how to use the product.

Ya think? I personally believe that Googles speed and simplicity was
what won over a lot of people. But that was all in contrast to
people's dissatisfaction to Yahoo, not to Google standing for
anything in particular.

>Many people buy a Mercedes but
>never learn how to use it because they
>fail to read the owner's manual.

The owner's manual doesn't really play a part here. People buy
Mercedes because Mercedes (in the USA at least) is branded as a
high-end status symbol. That's the Mercedes brand.

>I believe that Google's "hands off" approach
>to their branding is in keeping with how the
>Internet is used and viewed by people. Aside
>from a little PR now and then, they let their
>customers drive.

I agree, but in the maybe not so long run will prove their ultimate
demise as a brand. Not saying that they'll go broke, because as you
know, they have too much other business to support the company. As a
brand, however, if Google doesn't state what they are, they're
abdicating a serious responsibility; allowing every person to decide
for himself as to what it is and why anyone else should use it.

--
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 Wed Sep 24 2003 - 08:14:33 CDT