A Boy and His Voice

It all started with this article that Christopher Kenton wrote in the BusinessWeek.

In his definition, a brand is basically "just a name, a sign, or a symbol that distinguishes the products and services of one company from all others." It is "your name, your logo, your trade dress." In fact, he has even liken it to a "burning scar on the side of a cow." Now the interesting part comes in. He says that a brand is NOT about being a promise to the consumer of the quality of your product. It is also NOT about the expectation that consumers that begin to attach to your brand. Those are different things. In short, he's saying that a brand, is the physical, tangible thing and that you see.. and that brand experiences and brand equity are important.. but does NOT constitute a brand.. they are what he calls, "derivatives of brand."

Apparently, his definition of the word "brand" has (in his own words), "sparked a flood of polarized e-mails." Marketers argue that his seperation of the concept of brand - a name, a sign, or a symbol that distinguishes your products and services from competitors - from derivative concepts like brand image and brand equity was merely semanitc. (Read the whole of the follow-up article here.) His response was that if everybody had a different definition of brand, how do we (marketers) even know if we are communicating on a level ground and that everybody is talking about the same thing? And if we as marketers don't even know the REAL meaning of a brand, how are we going to convince our clients to part with the money to build a brand. "A brand is something you create. Brand Image is something you cultivate."

He goes on to give examples of other marketing terms that doesn't really have a standard definition and how detrimental it can be for marketers. (Read it here.) He also gave his take on what someone said in a letter to him that, "Marketing or branding is a qualitative aspect. It is not a 2+2 sum which will give you a definite answer. In marketing, you're playing with emotions and human psyche, not numbers." (Read his reply here.)

I apologise for the lengthy summary, but I find it a necessary evil for discussion when and if people are too lazy to read the whole article. Now, let's get on with the ranting..

To be honest, I have no idea what the buzz is about, because I agree with Kenton. I don't know about the rest of the world, but as a student, I find the endless definitions of what a brand is.. enlightening. Not. I just spoke to Andrea, a dear friend and brilliant writer. She was saying that Kenton's definition is so not what today's definition of brand. Now, if we have a yesterday's definition of brand, a today's definition of brand.. how are we going to predict tomorrow's definition of brand? And if everyone has their own definitions, how then are we (as marketers and advertisers), going to convince companies to part with their money; much less work on a common ground?

Actually, Christopher's definition is not that difficult to understand. Let’s take for example.. the brand, Apple. The word Apple, the logo and the colour is a brand. People see their products and their brand as fun, funky and modern. That’s the brand experience. Assuming Apple stops producing iMacs and funky gadgets, and instead focuses on mass producing black and beige boxes called the personal computer. Would people still see them as fun, funky and modern? The brand (Apple, logo and colour) remains the same, the brand experience doesn’t. You Dig?

Of course the brand experience and the brand equity is important.. but they’re just different things.. they’re there in relation to the brand. Different people may have different experiences, or feelings about the brand.. but the brand remains the same.

Regarding the letter that was addressed to Christopher mentioning that, marketing is about playing with emotions and human psyche, not numbers. I think he needs a new job. It’s not about number?! Com’on! It’s always about the numbers! Are you going to tell me you’re going to spend $2 million dollars on a marketing campaign to.. arouse audiences’ sensory, to tickle their funny bone and evoke their inner most desires.. without a promise of any returns? I would like to see him telling my lecturer that! Sure marketing is about emotions and human psyche, but more importantly, marketing is about using these emotions to try and ‘persuade’ customers to be more willing and open with their wallets the next time they see you.

Really, I don’t see any reason why separating the two can be so difficult. It actually makes it easier, no? Now you know what your brand is, you can build that experience that you want your brand to be associated with. Easy, no? The only reason I can think of for marketers to protest this notion so aggressively is their ego. Imagine being in the business for 20 years, and telling countless people that what you think the definition of a brand is; and then one day, someone tells you that whatever you ever thought was true, is not. How would you react? For the better good of everyone, I think they should sit down (after all the whining) and decide that it is best to have one common understanding of what a brand is. Go ahead, reject Christopher’s definition.. but please come up with one that everyone can agree on.

I (mildly) suspect that I have my personal reason for supporting Christopher’s point of view. Mainly because I feel that it makes sense.. and that it would be that much easier to convince my lecturer of my purpose if there was only one meaning to branding.

Now, I have given my take on things.. what's yous?