|
I was asked to provide an industry review of a book nearing publication. I typically provide these sorts of things without fuss, as I see it as a way to keep tabs on where the industry is heading. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and I'm not sure I can finish.
For the first time ever when reading a book about branding I find myself thinking - or even saying aloud - "No, that's completely wrong" or "That's so wrong that I wish I could slap you across the face." So... I'm not going to be reviewing the book. At least not officially. The idea behind the book is that Branding is dead. This is actually an idea that is actually worthy of discussion. I've read some great books that explore this concept - that consumers today are too savvy to be swayed by branding. That we don't buy into the whole Design Is Life concept that Apple has at its core. Rob Walker's recent book (that I was not asked to review, mind you) did a great job examining this concept. Interestingly he finds that almost everyone thinks themselves immune to the efforts of marketers... usually while in the act of sipping on their Grande Cappucino as they buy their Graves tea kettle at Target. So, back to the book I was asked to review. It explains branding as the stuff companies do to establish themselves in the consumers mind. But in chapter one he begins to give examples of what he considers to be branding. Those examples include:
These things are not branding. These things are execution. They're PR, marketing, advertising, and talent. Branding relies on execution to succeed, but really happens before execution begins. Branding is what might've led Budweiser executives to realize that their beer made men feel virile, and to consider how this might be communicated to the target market in a way that would make men want their product. Sexy girls might just work. Incidentally, the author claims that many people won't remember which brand of beer sponsored the advertisement, but I'd argue that when your brand produces about 30% of the products on the shelf (or whatever that significant number may be) you don't really care all too much whether or not they remember your name. You've got products in each price tier, so if you get 1/3 of the dollars from beer drinkers moved to buy the category you're doing pretty damn well. What really gets me is that he's a great writer. He tells compelling stories. It's just that the whole book derides something that he names incorrectly. It's like reading a book about how ice cream is evil, and then figuring out that he didn't mean "ice cream" he actually means "lard." As I flip back through the pages of the book I find that I am becoming quite illogically irate. "Branding is a hope wrapped in a desire inside a fantasy" is a direct quote from the book. That ain't branding. That's a marketing technique. Figure out what people want to connect with and then tell them that your product will get them there. You advertise the effect the audience wants. It's how we've become a nation of people who believe soap can make us beautiful. If anyone ever really sat down and thought about it they'd see the truth in the "hope wrapped in a desire inside a fantasy" he mentions. Soap can get us clean and it can make us smell nice, but if we expect to go from a loser to a beauty queen just by rubbing a bar on our face we're deluding ourselves. The companies that get branding are the companies we think about without thinking about it. The president of Starbucks had the idea to make his establishment "The Third Place" where people would hang out between home and work. This worked great until he lost focus and it morphed from a cool place where people could soak in the atmosphere and hang out into a place where everything from the music on the stereo, to the cups, to the coffee machines... The core brand remains, but its effectiveness has been dampened due to the fact you can't see the Third Place for all the CD racks, credit card applications, and advertisements on the walls. Branding is not what most people think it is, which is why most branding projects fail. The Subservient Chicken might've been great PR, but unless it was supposed to sell whips to poultry lovers it was piss poor branding. To us at Stokefire Branding is still very much related to those branding irons they used in the Old West. The shape itself wasn't that important - it was what the mark indicated about the animal it was branded on. If your ranch was down in the valley and had the best grass in the area your brand stood for the fattest livestock in the area. That could've been a Lazy W or a Diamond Bar... the graphics didn't matter. What mattered was what qualities people assumed that the livestock with your mark would have. Your brand is what makes you different - really different - not what advertising gimmicks you offer up to get people to talk about you. So... anyhow... I'm thinkin' I'm not writing that book review. |
