hat is a brand?

(This is worth all the crazy leaps about the page. If you miss "Socrates," you miss the point.)

Here are WhizzO's brand-building advertising caveats Brand-building is supposed to encourage trial and, subsequently, brand loyalty. This can be done, but not using today's brand-building strategies. 1) Brand-building advertising is wasted on commodity products, and most products are a commodity. Examples include any disposable product, including soap, medicine, detergent (even Tide!), cereal, toothpaste and toilet paper. Yeah, some people may argue with our premise, but after the initial promotional flirtation to try something new, consumers will buy disposable commodity products because of their availability, price, product performance, and because of the buyer's personal preference. If you don't like frosted flakes, cartoon tiger roars will not change your mind. You might try Tide because it's "New and Improved," but that, friends, is a promotion or product-announcement ad, not brand-building. Changing a customer's mind is still possible. It's just that brand-building isn't the way to do it. 2) Brand-building television advertising backfires when applied to high-end 'glamor' products. This means Mercedes, Sea Rays, Rolex and pretty much anything Jack Nicholson owns. It may seem ironic that the most durable brand names can be harmed by a brand-building TV campaign. WhizzO doesn't find that ironic at all. We think that is exactly the point. 3) Brand-building is useless on products designed for a short shelf-life. Examples include movies, music, games, and just about anything directed toward kids, like Pokemon and Beanie Babies. Notable exception: Barbie. Barbie is so successful a branding campaign as to be positively mystical. 'Candidate Barbie' got more coverage than Hillary Clinton's opponent, whose name no one remembers. Criminy, it's just a piece of plastic! Note that very little of Barbie is brand-building TV advertising. 4) Brand-building advertising is most effective upon consumers who have little knowledge of or interest in a product category. There are no exceptions to this rule. That's just the opposite of what agencies claim, but think about it. An informed customer does not buy an 'image'. S/he buys based on fact and experience -- which product performs best, is priced best, is most durable, comes in the shape/color/size s/he wants, etc. Need an example? Consider computers. 5) Just because you spent money on brand-building advertising does not mean customers will spend more for your branded products. The biggest lie about brand-building advertising is also its biggest justification. Nike is the most famous example. Is a swoosh worth an extra 25%? (See above for the answer). Naive buyers may pay a premium for image. Knowledgeable buyers will pay a premium for what matters to them -- performance, etc., etc. If another product offers more of what a knowledgeable buyer wants at a price s/he will pay... they will switch, regardless of the purported strength of the brand. 6) This leads to the terrifying conclusion that brand building advertising does not build customer loyalty! In WhizzO's view, only customers with little or no product knowledge are noticeably affected by brand-building advertising. If a customer gets smart, s/he is not merely more likely to try out the competition -- he or she undoubtedly will cheat on your brand!

A brand is an indelible mark. Once it's put on, it doesn't come off, like the red ink in your kid's stupid tattoo. Brand-building advertising rarely achieves such permanence. And when it does, it's often a disaster.

Tough words. And we mean them.

WhizzO believes that product (and line) design, functionality, pricing, distribution, promotional advertising, internet and direct response marketing, industry alliances, consumer/buyer research, customer word-of-mouth, research & development, timeliness, context advertising and even luck are almost always more effective branding tools than 'brand-building advertising.'

Even ditzy PR-pixie nonsense like internal communications, letterhead and evidence of sufficient washroom supplies in the company restroom sometimes can build a brand better than brand-building advertising.

Some observers may argue doing all that stuff constitutes building a brand. They may say advertising should be a reflection and reinforcement of all these key elements.

---

And that is absolutely correct.

---

Tired of scrolling? Click here to continue on another page.

 

What may seen a mystery is why it almost never works.

WhizzO postulates that brand advertising generally fails because most products aren't well-suited to it: The advertiser tries to brand-build a poor candidate product or service, or -- all too often -- the advertising itself is just plain bad.

Even more pathetic are those poor schnooks at Philip Morris -- er, "Altria" -- and Oldsmobile, who spent hundreds of millions to brand themselves as evil and hopelessly fuddy-duddy.

Most agencies and quite a few corporate marketing execs will scoff at our definitions. That's okay. We are right, and they are wrong.

The very word "brand" could use some branding of its own. These days, companies and agencies claim every product they make or represent is a 'brand.' Ironically, brands have become mere commodities.

A brand is nothing more than a durable, distinctive mark Traditionally, brands are applied to herds of (occasionally good-looking) animals. Well, jeez. That's simple enough. A brand is whatever name or logo is welded onto the end of your red-hot poker

Please note that brands -- the red hot kind -- tend to be smallish affairs. No self-respecting rancher would burn a tagline like "bred to be served rare" below the ranch imprimatur. I mean, ouch! PETA would burn down his barn!

Taciturn common sense is a tradition out West, and those ranchers were right. There's almost never a need for a tagline on a brand. The product speaks -- or at least moos -- for itself.

These days, ranchers use florescent dyes when necessary to mark 'lots' of cattle. Permanent brands have become outmoded.

 

 

Are we right or are we
smokin' whacky weed?
Post your opinion
in the WhizzO Forum.