I was recently alerted to this post at Marketonomy that talks about brand definitions. More specifically, Christopher delves into why I shouldn't offer my definition of a brand, and why my definition is wrong. (Side note: why don't people use trackbacks? it's the best way to keep a conversation going... but I suppose that's another rant for another day.)
So this looks like it could turn into a juicy debate. Let's get started.
First, Christopher highlights the following quote from me:
"My definition of a brand is an idea in the minds of your customers... and that idea is formed by what you say and what you do."
And then he comments:
(First) let's just parse the framing of this definition. It is "My definition". Not "the definition". "My definition". What, exactly is the purpose of a "definition" if its meaning can be determined individually? How do you transfer knowledge about a thing, if the meaning of the thing can be arbitrarily open to interpretation? We MUST stop treating such bedrock professional concepts as a blank page for waxing philosophical about meaning... Apparently we marketers don't know how build equity for our brand.
Christopher, you're right on. There are far too many definitions of 'brand' floating around. I noted over a year ago that (according to Jargon Universe) "there are 37 (37?!) definitions for brand ________, some of which I've never heard of. Brand personality. Brand promise. Brand fingerprint. Brand sense. Brand signature. Brand voltage. Brand commitment. Etc. etc. etc. And we wonder why there's confusion about the concept of branding?"
And yes, here I am adding fuel to the fire with my own definition. Not only that, but supposedly I've committed a double sin: I've proposed a definition that's incorrect. Christopher says,
There is a legal definition, and legal status for the concept of a brand. You own it. You can buy it and sell it. There are laws to protect it. Not one of these commercial facts applies to the concept of "an idea in the mind of your customer". Your brand is your logo, your name, your trade dress. Everything going on in the mind of your customer is derivitive and distinct. Call it brand image. Call it brand reputation. It is not your brand.
What I find interesting is that Christopher pokes holes in my definition but doesn't offer up his own, other than to say it's something that a company owns. I'm not sure what the "legal definition" is. Perhaps he doesn't want to muddy the waters with his own definition, which would be consistent with his earlier argument. The way I see it, the only way we can all agree on a definition is if several get thrown on the table, debated, massaged, and one is selected. We can't just throw up our hands and say that there are too many definitions and "we need clarity" without doing something about it.
(A tangent on "legal definition"... many traditional marketing concepts are shifting over time. This blog is titled BrandShift because many of us in the branding profession believe that the traditional way of viewing branding is no longer effective in the emerging networked economy. On a related note, the AMA recently offered up a new definition of marketing. This 'definition evolution' isn't because we're a fickle group; it's because changing times, dynamics and social structures demand it.)
OK, back to the rationale behind "brand as an idea."
Let's take a fictional character called Joe Shmo. Joe works hard to cultivate a reputation as a smart, well-connected and savvy business professional. He believes that these qualities represent his personal brand. Unfortunately, those who know Joe say he's overly opinionated, boorish and irritating. They believe that's Joe's brand. Who's right? Joe, or those who know Joe?
The answer is, both are right. Christopher would say that others' opinions represent 'brand reputation,' not the actual brand. I say that a brand is worthless without understanding how the brand is perceived in the marketplace. A brand is the ultimate co-created corporate asset. You cannot quantify brand equity without calculating the premium that someone is willing to pay for that brand... and the willingness to pay a premium stems directly from customers' perceptions about that brand.
What Christopher is defining as brand is really an intention. Joe Shmo intends -- and hopes-- that others will perceive him the way he wishes to be perceived. The intention does not have intrinsic value. The real value is created (or destroyed) when the customer intersects with that intention and forms an opinion about it.
So back to the definition in question. "A brand is an idea in the minds of your constituents. That idea is formed by what you say (marketing) and do (operations)." Yes, what you say and do is under your control; this is the part of the brand that you own. But the other half of the brand is how your intention is perceived. The magic in co-creating a brand with your customers is that it requires dialogue and behavior modification to ensure that the brand in your eyes is actually the same brand as seen through the eyes of others.
I welcome your thoughts on the subject. I'm not saying I'm right; but I do believe that this holistic, ecosystem view of the brand is more on track with reality than the traditional company-centric approach.
[Update: I discovered this article by Christopher in BusinessWeek that states that a brand is the name and logo. Hmm. In my world, that's called "brand identity." There are brand identity specialists who will design a logo for you. They do not do branding or brand strategy. But now we digress into the world of semantics.]
Jennifer Rice
Andy Lark
Johnnie Moore
John Winsor
1. Steve Portigal on April 18, 2005 04:28 PM writes...
I like the Joe Shmo example, but for corporate (i.e., non-individual brands) the co-creation process expands, doesn't it? Not only does the marketplace help define the brand, but also many individuals within the organization and its many touchpoints. That enormity of that process, from the Comcast customer service agent who talks to one customer, to the excellent programming available to another customer, to the poor signal delivered to another customer, to the advertising seen by a prospective customer - all add up to create a very complex brand definition scenario.
All the individuals within the organization that develop those interactions, based on intention, and their own understanding of the desired corporate intention, all create...oh God, I'm going to do it.....brand experiences (oh, I'm so so sorry) -- moments where the brand itself is experienced and the perception of the brand is accumulating.
I don't know if I'm adding anything at all here; I guess just to point out that it gets real complex real fast when you have a large number of individuals manifesting a vision in what must ultimately be their own individual way.
Maybe what this contributes to the conversation is that the definition of brand is indeed slippery but by describing the process of creating that brand we can begun to understand what that definition is, more implicitly?
Permalink to Comment2. Tim Siedell on April 18, 2005 05:17 PM writes...
Christopher is misguided in his thinking. Trademarks, tradenames, copyrights and patents are legally protected and can be purchased or sold. Brands cannot. It's true, the goodwill built up in a brand can add millions (even billions) to the value of a company. But there's no way to legally protect that goodwill, just as there's no way for a company to legally protect its stock price. It can evaoporate overnight despite the best efforts of the brand "owners." See Enron.
Permalink to Comment3. jbr on April 19, 2005 01:11 AM writes...
and i always thought a brand was a symbol that was seared into the flesh of a cow in order to signify the ownership of the cow.
well, it goes back even further than that....Meaning of "identifying mark made by a hot iron" (1552) broadened 1827 to "a particular make of goods."
there's an interesting term, identifying mark. now, a mark is something a company can own. it is the physical/visible indicator for ownership. mark, by the way, originally indicated a boundary around land.
so, we have a fire induced boundary symbol...and for 275 years, it represented an identity. then, in 1827, it began to represent a particular make of goods. i suspect this evolved from market conversations along these lines, "look for goods marked with Kelly's brand. you can trust their product, but stay away from O'Malley's brand, they can't be trusted"
somewhere in those 275 years, emotional terms such as trust became attached to the identifying mark. this seems relatively straight forward, no?
here we are, roughly 200 hundred years later discussing something that isn't easily definable. marks were made on physical entities to signify ownership/boundary. as markets evolved and market conversations occured, these marks began to take on directional meaning based upon emotion. the emotions could have come from a variety of reasons based upon experience.
from this history lesson, we can summarize a couple of things...the company can own the mark it places on a box/can/package. whatever symbol it wants to burn onto a product, they own that symbolic boundary. what the company can't own, but wants to manipulate is the directional meaning conferred by experience(market conversation).
hopefully, this little entymological summary clarifies things....btw, Jennifer, "idea in the mind of constituents" looks familiar...if mine, I am honored....
Permalink to Comment4. Bruce DeBoer on April 19, 2005 06:42 PM writes...
Brand, brand image, brand essence – I use these interchangeably in my writing. Context provides the instrument for understanding that I intend them to be one and the same.
I’ve used many permutations of this definition but settled on this one because it provides me the springboard with which to educate my clients on what “brand” means to them and their customers. The definition is:
“Brand essence is the sum total of your customer’s experience across all contact points with your product or service.”
This means that their experience with your product, your marketing message, how your employees talk about the product, even the manner in which your receptionist handles an incoming customer call, all contributes to your brand image. Inconsistent experiences across contact points will damage your intended brand image as it relates to your customer’s perception.
Customers own their perception but legally the company owns the brand Identity (logo, etc – all that legal s**t). Our job, as marketers, is to influence our customers brand perception by altering the contact points in such a way as to help their perception meet our intended image. The intent is to create a brand image perceived by the customer to be something they want to include in their lives; something for which they have an emotional affinity.
I recently posted a topic at AdRants (http://adrants.soflow.com/AffinityNetwork.jsp?t=1113950139985) regarding the phrase, “customers own the brand”. I thought I’d get a confusing cacophony of responses but I didn’t. Everyone had a slightly different version of the same explanation (with a few hairballs thrown in as usual). My point here is that we are closer to the same page than it may at first appear.
Permalink to Comment5. Barry Anderson on April 20, 2005 02:13 AM writes...
There's an awful lot of brainpower going into this brand lovefest... and I'm sure the brandy professionals (of which I am one) with their multitude of snappy labels are all, in some way, correct. But let me chime in for our beleaguered clients for a moment. The problem with some of these rather abstract definitions is not that they're intrinsically obtuse... but that we don't take the next logical step. That is... show how they apply in the real world! Our clients are, by and large, businesspeople who need to ACT to survive. So they need actionable ideas from us gurus. If we're going to say that a brand is an "idea in the minds of your customers..." or "...the sum total of your customer's experience across all contact points..." Then what is that sum total? Give an example of how any of these definitions actually work in the real world. Using any of these definitions... identify some brands that we can all relate to... What is Nike's brand? What is Coke's brand? What is the Boston Red Sox's brand? What is Apple's brand? What is America's brand? Because ultimately, if we're going to be of value to those who look to us for guidance... we're going to have to provide some concrete reference points. We'll need to clearly describe to them (or they to us) what THEIR brand is now... and/or work with them in moving the brand to where it should be. But it starts with definitions that can be made meaningful with good examples and illuminating stories. My challenge to my fellow brand gurus then, is to end every and any well meaning definition with the words "case in point..." And thanks to Jennifer and her fellow brand bloggers for some sharp debate!
Permalink to Comment6. Tom Asacker on April 20, 2005 11:20 AM writes...
I'm with you Jennifer. AND with Barry. Check it out at www.acleareye.com and let me know your thoughts.
Permalink to Comment7. Chris Kenton on April 20, 2005 02:39 PM writes...
Tim--
I may be wrong, but I'm not misguided. I appreciate your attention to semantic detail--you're right, in legal terminology the exclusive and enforceable right to a name, symbol, design, etc., belongs to a trademark, copyright or patent.
My own limited understanding of the relationship between brand and trademark is that all trademarks are brands, but not all brands are trademarks. I asked Jonathan Knowles of BrandFinance to elucidate, and his comment was that Trademark is the heart of the brand, but that "a brand consists of a broader bundle of intellectual property including trade dress, copyrights, formulas etc."
I'll put the same question to Jon Tandler, who is a well-respected IP attorney, but my suspicion is that while ~enforcement~ would be pursued for violations on the basis of each trademark, copyright, patent, etc., other legal processes, such as M&A, licensing, etc., would recognize the collective value of these individual assets as comprising a brand.
Regardless: in business, the *value* accrues to the physical assets that can be quantified and measured.
But the point of the whole argument--from my perspective at least--is that marketers are woefully out of touch with how businesses define value, and how they are being pressed by competitors, investors, and regulators to *further* quantify the bottom line value of marketing activities. Marketers tend to believe that it's simply the mentality of bean-counters who don't get the value of marketing, and go on waxing philosophical about the wonders of ~brand~.
Think of it from a Darwinian perspective. Who do you think is going to get the job: the marketer who says brand is an ever-complex concept that mediates the relationship between company and customer, and which can never be concretely measured? Or the marketer who says brand is a tangible asset that adds value to the bottom line, and can *be* the measurement for various complex activities that enhance the relationship between company and customer? You can argue all you want about which one is "right", but I know which one will have a job 5 years from now, and will therefore be able to make a real difference in how marketing is practiced.
Permalink to Comment8. Bruce DeBoer on April 21, 2005 09:40 AM writes...
Barry - Very good point. The definition I used above has been very helpful for exactly the reason you mentioned. Once understood, it is much easier to identify contact points and focus efforts on creating a consistent brand image. Without identifying physical, real world contact points, brand image remains an esoteric idea and not an action oriented goal.
While both definitions are 100% correct, I've had better luck translating this one into action for my clients.
Permalink to Comment9. jennifer rice on April 21, 2005 10:24 AM writes...
Thanks, Bruce... you summed it up perfectly. What is the brand view that enables us to best help our clients? Personally, I find that there's been too much one-sided emphasis on the company... so my definition of brand helps clients realize that their customer is a critical player in a brand creation or revival exercise. Perhaps this is all semantics; perhaps Chris gets the same result from his brand view. Frankly, the clients don't care about the theory anyway... they just want sales to improve. I think they'd find this entire debate rather pendantic. :-)
Permalink to Comment10. Chris Kenton on April 21, 2005 12:05 PM writes...
I agree that the argument is pedantic, and that customers don't care what we mean by brand--unless your customer happens to be your boss. The reason I'm making such a big deal about this is that I've had a front row seat to the wholesale discounting of the marketing function. I've had clients who have layed off entire marketing departments; I have friends who are finding that marketing salaries and responsibilities are dropping; I have colleagues who are locked out of the strategic boardroom discussions. Worst of all, I have a friend who teaches marketing finance at Stanford who says that class after class of marketing students are *clueless* about what is happening in the real world.
A company called Launchpad in SF has been doing studies on marketing's share of the corporate budget, and year over year, budget is declining against sales and IT. In the academic world, the debate over corporate strategy in management circles has gotten to the point where people are saying *openly* that marketing has no value in the strategy discussion, that it is only a managerial and line function. This is a HUGE problem, and marketers are whistling past the graveyard, blithely saying that their value is self-evident to any company smart enough to survive in a competitive landscape.
I launched this whole diatribe on brand meaning because it is *one* representational issue at the heart of marketing's self-destructive behavior. Yes, the customer is wholly important. But the company paying the bills is *also* a customer, and we are taking them for granted. They do not understand our value proposition and they're beginning to shop on price. You can deny that this is happening if you want, but I'm working to reinvent my products.
Permalink to Comment11. Peter Saal on May 1, 2005 03:19 PM writes...
A brand is a name. All of the brand _______'s are the attributes associated with that name, and not the brand itself. But then I don't know anything about this stuff.
Permalink to Comment12. Peter Flaschner on May 4, 2005 01:40 PM writes...
Well now. I'm a bit of a Johnny come lately to this discussion, which is a real shame. I was busy writing my own definition of brand!
As bizarre as this may sound, there is a physiological reality to branding. This fact gives us a platform upon which we can have a more unified discussion about the various constituents that make up a brand.
If you're interested, you can read the article here http://www.peterflaschner.com/index.php?id=110 or at http://creativelatitude.com/articles/article_0505_flaschner.html
Thanks!
Permalink to Comment