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.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }