MY ONLINE FOOTPRINTS

LinkedIn - Todd And

Facebook - Todd And

Technorati - Todd And

Twitter - Todd And

Delicious - Todd And

iTunes iMix - Todd And

SlideShare - Todd And

Flickr - Todd And

YouTube - Todd And

StumbleUpon - Todd And

FriendFeed- Todd And

Power 150 OPML

RSS - Todd And

ADMIN

The Complex Meaning of Brand

January 29, 2007

My latest MBA course - Brand Planning and Message Strategy - had its first class last week. Normally, I don’t write much about my classwork; however, a discussion ensued in my Brand Planning course that made me want to pull perspective and insight from the marketing and branding blogosphere.

What is a brand?

One of the books we’re reading in the class is called Brand New Brand Thinking by “11 experts who do” and the first chapter basically suggests that we are careless in the way we use (or overuse) the term. Sure, this is understandable, but there seems to be a lot of rules that differentiate the brands from the nonbrands.

After a short dialogue with my fellow students and the professor, a SVP at Leo Burnett, I was second guessing everything that I had originally labeled a brand in my head.

According to the professor, there are four types of marketed concepts:

1 // Traditional Brands (i.e., Crest, Heinz)
2 // New Generation (i.e., Las Vegas, Spice Girls, Cirque du Soliel)
3 // Marketed Entities (i.e., Michael Jordan)
4 // Trademarked Commodities (i.e., Utilities, Milk)

The professor thought that Madonna and Rolling Stones were brands, but said she wouldn’t classify U2 as a brand. She said the Chicago Bears are a brand, but not the Chicago Blackhawks. She said the City of Chicago is not a brand, no matter how much Mayor Daley would like to think it is one.

According to the professor, a brand is:

Alternatively, a brand is NOT:

Does your definition conflict with this one? Personally, I’m of the mindset that 10 people in a room will have 10 different definitions of the word brand. But I’m sure there is plenty of common ground and I’m certain that many brand experts have opinions on this matter. Can you think of your own examples for traditional brands, new generation, marketed entities and trademarked commodities? Perhaps Toyota, Google, Superman and Soy, respectively?

Personally, I don’t think I have a problem deciphering traditional brands from new generation brands. My big question mark comes with differentiating a brand from a marketed entity. Anyone? How many shades of gray can we find?

I’d really like to hear from some of the branding bloggers and any other marcom blogger with thoughts on this topic. To start, how about John Moore, Gareth Kay, Brand Noise, Brand Flakes for Breakfast, Branding Strategy Insider, Anne Simons, Clay Parker Jones, etc.

Filed Under Advertising, Educational, Management, Marketing

Comments

6 Responses to “The Complex Meaning of Brand”

Allan Jenkins on January 30th, 2007 1:20 pm

Todd, the first thing to know is this: you rise to SVP at major ad agencies by being able to sputter dribblelous nonsense at the drop of a hat. No offense to your prof, but anyone who can say “Madonna is a brand, but U2 is not” while applying the four criteria you mention is eminently qualifed to be CEO of Leo Burnett.

To me, her four marketed concepts are simply four of the ways brands appear — in other words, four categories of brands. I find the distinctions fairly useless, mind you — sort of like dividing the produce section at the PigglyWiggly by color — but there you go.

When I define a “brand,” I look at her first three criteria.

* Residual equity lifts the product from commodity status. It’s not just flour, it’s Martha White flour.

* The consumer (and that could be a client; this is not limited to “goods”) has psychological “image” of the product.

* A name with reputational association, “created” jointly by the maker and the buyer. Again, this is not limited to goods.

There you go… a brand. Might not be marketed, might be terrible… but it’s a brand.

toddand on January 30th, 2007 1:41 pm

Good points, Allan. Thanks for chiming in - appreciate it. I like your PigglyWiggly example.

Clay Parker Jones on January 30th, 2007 2:41 pm

Hmm. While this lady may indeed be full of it, she does have a good point. Specifically the idea that the people are the arbiters of truth when it comes to the brand. Just like with people… It’s great if you think you’re a nice person, but if other people all agree that you’re an asshole, well…you probably are.

I think it’s less worthwhile to define what a brand is than to spend some time thinking about how you can make a good one. Or rather, how you can help people make you a good brand (if that makes sense). John Grant (BrandTarot) and Richard (AdLiterate) have some really good thinking going on right now… So I would check those places out ASAP.

I personally like to think of it in a bit bigger terms. I draw three intersecting circles (Venn Diagram-style) with the following labels: Culture, Company, and Consumer Need/Want. I figure the middle intersection is where brands exist.

Sometimes I like this image, which I made after reading one of Faris’ (Talent Imitates, Genius Steals) posts:

It’s all Web 2.0-style-y, but that’s hip, right?

Clay Parker Jones on January 30th, 2007 2:42 pm

The image didn’t show.

Here’s the link: http://exitcreative.net/images/nonzero.jpg

toddand on January 30th, 2007 4:05 pm

Thanks, CPJ. Good call on your three intersecting circles visual. And thanks for suggesting the other resources. Hope your radio interview went well this morning.

Diary of an Ad Man » Blog Archive » Super Bowl Ad Blogs on January 31st, 2007 8:30 am

[...] Todd and the Power to Connect reflects on brands from an MBA perspective.Â Lesson one: The term brand is overused. [...]

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

MY ONLINE FOOTPRINTS

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

BLOGROLL

ADMIN

The Complex Meaning of Brand

Comments

SEARCH

VIDEO OF THE MOMENT

SUPPORT OUR SPONSORED LINKS

RECENT COMMENTS

HOW MY POSTS RANK

RECENTLY WRITTEN

MUSIC FOR MARKETING

BOOKS FOR MARKETING

TWITTER UPDATES