Branding is for cattle

Marketers are a bunch of flaky wimps.

I have been speaking with many technology company CEOs recently—something like 50 in the past three months while on the speaking circuit and as part of research I am doing into how great technology companies build products and develop go-to-market strategies. Many CEOs tell me that the way marketing tends to happen in technology companies is ineffective. Some CEOs say that within the management teams and employees at companies they have worked in, marketers are focused on the wrong things. They are not aligned with the goals of the business. Yes, some CEOs tell me that marketers are a bunch of flaky wimps.

Hold on there. Why is that?

Branding.

When I see "brand" as a focus of technology company marketers I want to puke. A brand is what is burned into the side of a cow's butt. As a marketing term branding is a misunderstood and over emphasized concept in technology businesses. Marketers prattling on about the brand confuse the CEO so its no wonder marketing doesn't command respect in these companies. While the rest of the organization is focused on metrics and revenue and ROI and reaching buyers, these ineffective marketers are worried about how the T-shirts look.

Marketers who obsess about brand usually focus on aesthetics over buyers. They are more interested in the color scheme of the Web site than in meeting their buyers' needs with a content marketing strategy. They care about logos not buyers. They research color schemes instead of the market. Countless marketers got their knickers in a twist about the outward manifestation of an organization's brand--including logos, image ads, and tchotchkes--all at the expense of buyers and what they need to understand the company -- especially the content found on the company’s site. Well, they are flaky wimps if that's what they do.

What's really at stake—in fact what branding's really about—is a focus on the buyer. As each buyer builds an emotional response to a company, that emotion becomes the brand-image for that person. Fortunately, some great marketers understand that the provision of quality Web content does more to build brand than pretty logos, cool Web design, and hip color choice.

Our challenge as marketers becomes taking that understanding and selling it to the CEO and the management team in terms that they understand, like ROI and dollars and cents.

Comments

[Mike Sigers]

Thanks for saying what a LOT of us think.

I hate BRANDING !

The only thing that brands me to a product is a great product/service that goes well beyond what I expected.

THEN and only then am I branded, not because of any advertising or marketing crap.

[Chris Moritz]

Hear hear!

[Teri]

I have to agree that putting the brand above the needs of the customer/buyer/visitor is a mistake. But I can't put the blame entirely on the marketers; sometimes it has to rest with the site owner. I can't count the number of times site owners have been more worried about what their web site looked like than what it said. Then they complain that they spent a lot of money but aren't getting anything for it.

[Jack Crozier]

Amen Brother. Good article. I get frustrated with Marketers who are only trying to win advertising design awards. Resume builders.

When you think about it – for most companies, the implementation and client services teams have much more to do with brand image than Marcom. Marcom can help spread the word – but the “word” is what the clients think – and what they think is your brand equity, good or bad.

So branding isn't graphics - it's the execution of a philosophy throughout all functions of an organization - market-facing and internal.

[David Leland]

I agree that branding is difficult, if not impossible to measure. Moreover, by itself, I seriously doubt that it sells products.

In fact, my experience with branding has been that companies very, very rarely commit the time and resources to make branding work.

Two companies that excel come to mind: IBM and Apple.

IBM with its e-business solutions and Apple with all of its cultural products.

Without budget, branding is nothing more than a silly set of rules that everyone breaks.

For those considering a branding campaign, I suggest frequency, frequency and more frequency. Damn the ROI - full speed ahead.

Gee, an integrated marketing campaign just began to sound pretty good.

[Jon Silvers]

Great post! Small companies especially can't afford to waste time on branding nonsense. Create a great customer experience, the rest will follow.

[Eli Singer]

I'm the Social Media guy with an online community background who works in a Branding firm owned by an Advertising Agency, so I feel like I'm trapped inside the vortex of your post.

All I can say is that the 96% of people out there who don't get it are screwing it up for the rest of us who want to do what's right.

In my mind, communications as a discipline is undergoing a massive revoltion right now.

There are only two elements - Branding and Communications.

The message (tone, manner, style) and how it's delivered.

Would love to chat more but gotta run.

ES

[Jonathan Salem Baskin]

I agree! Maybe we have it backwards: brand isn't some imaginary construct that leads experience, and it isn't something conceived before, above, or beyond reality; rather, it's the tangible outcome of real experience. Branding isn't telling people stuff, but the stuff people say and feel about what, how, when, and why they do things with products and services? Radical proposition, and if it's true, it obviates cool billions of expenditure every year on that invisible 800 lb. gorilla of image. Maybe people don't have 'relationships with brands,' but rather 'branded experiences?'

[Patricia Milton]

When you refer to "branding" as images, aesthetics and logos, not buyers, it seems you don't know what "branding" really means.

The logo is the least of it. And buyers - how you interact with them, how they experience you - is a huge part of branding.

So I guess I do understand what you are ranting about (style over substance), but that ain't "branding."

Just my opinion.

[M]

Point well-taken. However, what evidence do you have that design is "the flaky stuff?" Quality design goes hand in hand with quality strategy...they are equally integral to any visual marketing campaign. By calling design "just the flaky stuff" you've made the common mistake of undermining the skill, experience and strategy that goes into good design toward the goal of successful branding. I often see the language barrier between designers, marketers, managers and CEOs. A good creative director or marketing manager overcomes this barrier by addressing all the factors that are part of a successful campaign, and is able to convey the importance of each to everyone involved, getting top results from all the players.

[Ladd Woodland]

Wow! Branding is very misunderstood. It seems even by marketers and CEOs. Logos, typefaces and color schemes are only the visual elements of your Brand Image. These elements are used to build a memorable image in the minds of the consumer; a perception of your company or product. Visual elements are only part of the brand building tool kit. The retail or corporate environment, customer service, employee dress and appearance, sound and scent are a few of the other elements.
A “Brand” is none of the above and all of the above. A CEO who complains that the employees are not aligned with the goals of the company should spend more time managing the company’s brand. The core values of a company IS the “Brand.” The way the employees experience and internalize the “Brand” is through visual and behavioral touch-points.
“Branding”, the activity of brand communication, is all about the consumer experience, even if the consumer is the employee. A brand lives, grows or dies in the minds of the consumer. Branding is about building a positive impression and a strong preference for your company or product.
The value of the brand? A brand’s value is measured in the additional value of the company or product beyond its tangible assets. If the CEO does not understand that, perhaps he or she should find a new job. More and more a company’s brand is finding its way to an entry on the bottom line. It’s obvious many feel that brand is just Flaky Stuff but I’m sure the CEOs of P&G, Coke, Apple and Nike would disagree.
P.S. there is no such thing as a “Branding Campaign”. That is advertising and advertising is not branding. Neither is marketing.

[K2]

For everyone who doubts the power of branding and the improved margins it yields, I refer you to Proctor and Gamble. They successfully get millions of consumers to pay too much for items identical to much less expensive non-branded items, often on a first purchase, so the experience based argument just went out the window. That said, if you're midsized or smaller, you're better off putting the money elsewhere, you can't afford the repetition necessary to pull it off (like good copy writing that actually conveys what problems you solve for your customer and what makes your product the right choice for them… you do know that don’t you?).

[Jesus Tachatte]

Have you hear of http://www.sosickofyou.com ? It is a great place to get it off your chest and let others know about your issues. It is similar to twitter.com

[Bill Wilkie]

Hi David: I just read your New Rules book (harcover) after it was recommended by a few mutual friends. I'll be implementing like crazy in the coming months. Before I became a thought-leading leadership advisor, I spent 20 years in branding. And I agree with you completely! But ONLY if we agree to use a pretty backward and impoverished definition of branding. The best branding, practiced by the best agencies that I worked for or admired (like Chiat, Wieden, Fallon,etc),is about seeing real TRUTH in a consumer need or experience, or in the wider culture, before the consumer, pundits and competition even realize it's real, and then working hard to make it real and keep it real. So yes, 98% of branding is what you describe (and most tech companies haven't got a clue), but that just creates opportunities for leaders to do it right.

[David Meerman Scott]

Bill, You're right. Thanks for stopping by.

David