(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...A while ago I had a brief exchange with a VP of Marketing of a company that’s actually in the marketing arena. I had stated my definition of branding…
“A brand is what creates a collective sense of vision, perception, image, or experiences that a significant amount of current or potential customers relate to a specific product or service. To be successful, the brand must elicit supremely positive benefits to provide a solution, it must differentiate itself from the competition, and it must be consistent and long-term.”
The short way of saying this is that I had posted that on the company blog. It wasn’t live because he wanted to edit it.
He didn’t necessarily disagree, but he ‘corrected’ it by completely equating brand with image. He did that in part because the term image is part of their tagline.
But he was wrong. Brand doesn’t equal image. How to explain? Best way is to give an example or two.
WalMart
I’d say that WalMart’s brand is related to the fact that it’s a huge store that you can buy almost anything. And buy it cheaply. Clothes, food, toiletries, toys, sporting equipment, cosmetics. It’s variety and convenience have made it a go-to place for many ‘middle Americans’.
But it’s image…well, that’s different. The Killer of Downtowns in small town America. Cheap labor and anti-union. In other words, the convenience and the variety get stripped when it comes to WalMart’s image.
McDonald’s
With billions served, McDonalds has become one of America’s most recognized symbols. It’s brand relates to, well, convenience and cheapness, but also cleanliness and familiarity. You’ll get the same tasting sandwich in Topeka, in Tacoma, in Tucson, and in Tallahassee. It’s convenience makes it easier for parents to get a quick meal for the kids.
It’s image is different. Greasy unhealthy food that completely lacks nutrition. Fast Food Nation.
I could go on, but you get the drift.
So I have to say NO to this marketing guy…brand and image ain’t the same.
Loading ...
John, good point: You can’t precisely substitute the term “brand” for the term “image”. Agreed.
But image (or reputation) is the expression of the brand out there in the real world.
The concept of a brand, or the idea behind it (usually translated into the “message”) is usually what a brand’s CMO focuses on: For McDonald’s, it’s that combination of convenience, cheapness, but , cleanliness and familiarity.
Some companies do a great job of reconciling both the message and the image/reputation so that you get a consistent brand experience from the messaging to the regular use of the products that fall under their umbrella. (Macintosh, for example. Or Rudy Project. Or BMW.)
Others, however, don’t. In those cases, you get a clear separation between the message (wishful thinking/lip service) and the image or reputation (the sad reality).
Who can forget the fast food scene in “Falling Down” in which a completely insane Michael Douglas holds a fast food joint hostage while he rants about the difference between the way the restaurant’s burgers look on their menu and how they look in reality? The scene is a fiercely effective illustration of the divide that can exist between a brand’s message, and a less pristine reality.
Your brand is both the promise and the execution of that promise. It cannot be successful if these two are not perfectly aligned and balanced.
I continue to run into CMOs who only want to talk about branding in terms of messaging (the promise). It’s all Marketing communications, PR, creative, etc. They don’t understand that their brands are about what they do (the execution), not just what they say.
So while the person you mentioned may be taking his definition of a brand a little too far in the “reputation management” direction, he could teach a thing or two to old school marketers who still live in a command & control state of denial.
Great blog, BTW.
Oliver
For clarification, how does one explain when a company reasonably carries out its brand message effectively - like WalMart and McDonalds) but doens’t necessarily convey that to their overall image.
It’s my guess that there are a lot of parents that may not like McDonalds as an establishment but will still take the kids there because it’s quick and inexpensive. And this, of course, creates a new generation of customers.