I think we can all agree that branding is supposed to set companies apart - or rather set a specific company (the one being branded) apart from all others that it might typically compete with.

What would happen if every company in the world branded itself?

Is it possible for hundreds of millions of companies to truly be unique in their markets?

I believe what makes branding work is that the number of companies that invest in their brands is actually quite low. I've not seen any statistics, but certainly among small businesses branding is so rare as to be almost non-existent. And in mid- to large- companies I'd wager we're looking at less than 10%.

To my way of thinking, the lack of buy-in from the majority of companies makes the money spent by the companies that do brand go much further. It is easier to be unique when no one else is making an effort to do so.

But what happens when everyone is branded? Honestly I'd like to know. Has anyone envisioned a world in which every single company has carved out a niche for themselves?

Personally I think that in a world of branded products a generic solution becomes desirable. We're already seeing some of this in the young adult markets. A few thoughts from other experts on the topic:

• Way back in 2000 there was already a backlash against the .com brand concept. Internet News (.com) covered it. Granted, this is only the most basic kind of branding - associating yourself with other like brands rather than setting yourself apart from them.
• Adculture seems to think that the young educated folks are misguided in their hatred of brands, and that brands will become more (not less) prominent as consumers realize that their are products that directly fit the voids in their lives.
• Multichannel Merchant points to branding as no longer a novel way to differentiate, but as a strategic tool that can be leveraged by savvy companies. The article calls out the Sears Big Book (and its demise) as proof that non-branded stuff can't survive even when there's a backlash against brands.
• Finally, Neurocyber cites anti-globalization as one of the key drivers against branding.

I think that there's validity in the argument provided by many educated affluent young adults - that global brands are in some way a little bit overly produced or manufactured. Once an organization gets huge there's so much variability and inconsistency (in staff, work product, direction) that a single identity can't really encompass it. Any solid brand is a gross simplification.

I guess this is why I am so constantly surprised that the smaller companies aren't branding. Small companies can genuinely build their brands and immediately see the effects. So long as most small companies aren't doing this (let's say it's an example of the 80/20 rule) this should work.

I'll refine my question(s)...

Do any of you think that there's a set percentage or ratio at which branding will cease to work for anyone? Is it 20%? Is it 80%? Is it when an unbranded company becomes unique by its very lack of brand?



Tate Linden Principal Consultant Stokefire Consulting Group 703-778-9925