When it’s your job to promote and nurture the brands of your clients, developing and promoting your own brand can often be an even tougher job. As people, we tend to define ourselves and those around us by what we do. It’s only natural, but when you begin to define your brand around what you do rather than who you are, you will only end up selling yourself short.
Falling into the trap of “you are what you do” is all too easy, especially when a firm is branding itself. You love what you do and you want it to show - that’s a great place to start. From there, you need to deduce (or create) whatever it is that truly sets your firm apart from countless others that do exactly the same thing. Over the lifetime of a company, services may be added or subtracted and people will come and go - great brands go beyond the temporary aspects of the company to establish and define their legacy.
Creating a Bright and Shiny Future
Sustainability - it’s the magic word, but in this case it isn’t the rain forest that’s in danger, it’s the stability of your brand. Many great articles have been written on brands that have been able to stand the test of time, trying to glean what it is that has given them such phenomenal staying power. While I won’t wax philosophy on the success of Spam (the edible canned meat product, not email) throughout the years, I do have a couple of thoughts on the matter at large. The word “sustainability” means, for many people, the promise of a future, and hopefully, a brighter, cleaner, happier one. A successful, sustainable brand will reach this bright and shiny future. A good brand makes a promise to the customer that it will be a reliable solution to their needs now and in the future, offering the stability that people crave and feel comforted by. With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that, in a study by Interbrand - a leading branding consultancy, consistency was listed as the number one contributing factor to successful branding. By surveying the leading brand experts, they’ve come to the conclusion that design discipline is not necessarily the difference between good and bad branding, but rather consistency in which the message of the brand is carried out.
Brand Differentiation - Avoiding the Clone Wars
In branding, it is important to actively seek out ways that you can distinguish your product or service from everyone else doing the same thing. For some, the path to a strong, consistent, and well-defined brand can be one of sacrifice. Jack Trout, in his book Differentiate or Die, suggests that choosing a point of differentiation is crucial in developing a brand. For smaller firms, finding distinguishable elements usually involves focusing on a smaller area of expertise such as a single product or service, a unique product attribute, or a more specific target market, to the exclusion of all others. This strategy is especially effective when focusing efforts on a previously under-served segment of the market. Through careful manipulation of focused brand delivery it is possible to reach out to people who will see and appreciate your brand for all that it is. If you can reach these people, you’ve got your work cut out for you because these appreciative people are likely to share your brand with others in a positive manner.
Remember, your brand is the proverbial foot in the door - it’s the initial momentum that’s needed to generate interest from customers and, in turn, conversions and revenue. You can never do too much research on how to best understand and meet your own branding needs. To help, Interbrand has a lot of helpful material available for download on their website discussing popular branding trends, common branding mistakes, and case studies on some of the largest brands in the world.


November 11th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Ian,
I agree that one’s brand is of paramount importance in marketing. Al Ries has frequently demonstrated the supremacy of a strong brand over a strong product, such as with the Volkswagen Phaeton example. While the car was superior to its counterparts at the product level, it betrayed its own brand (or vice-versa, depending on your perspective) and thus failed. At any rate, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate at the product level and the most sustainable differentiation seems to occur with emotional benefits rather than functional. When does product superiority equate to category ownership? Not very often. It’s those strong, favorable, and unique elements of a brand — to put it into a Keller context — that are difficult to replicate, and even more difficult to identify. Since a brand is defined by the collective perceptions of every contact point imaginable with a product, service, or company, I guess we just try to do things as well as possible as often as possible, cross our fingers, and hope to be defined positively by consumers.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Great to hear from you-
The Phaeton is a great point! It just shows how even a brand like VW with a lot of ‘emotional benefits’ as you put it, can easily alienate its market with a move like that. On the other hand, Saturn has made a similar shift and fared better. It might be interesting to compare the marketing initiatives around the time of the Phaeton with those of Saturn as they shifted into the higher sports/luxury bracket.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:24 am
Oh, it’s very interesting, thanks!