Hugh Macleod has been saying that Branding is Dead, and Doc Searls agrees. Robert Scoble disagrees.Well, it all depends on what you mean by branding, and it means different things to different people. .
.. "brands" are just bits of shorthand we all get to use to describe ideas. Ideas we have about companies, churches, politicians blah blah blah.A lot of smart-alec advertising and fancy logo designs may have been quite powerful in the past. I think they're becoming less powerful now. When brand experts issue pronouncements like "Kelloggs is synonymous with health and vitality" they may think they're doing some big branding. My hunch is that, lacking credibility, they're not doing as much as they think.
Excellent summary by Johnnie. Branding as idea only goes so far. Take ntl's relatively new mantra - "More Choice. Better Value" - its not the brand but I believe recently I was told it was. How much is the customer going to buy into that? Is it a shorthand for ntl? Well from a product perspective our triple play of TV, Telephony and Broadband might lead you to more choice. But better value? ntl certainly isn't the worse value not by a long shot but 'better'. It also screams out at an integrity to do with support i.e. value to me isn't just the products (or services) but how you support the customer through the whole engagement with the company (or the moments of truth if you will). This to me is where the brand really takes shape. Now I am focusing on a service example here not on the FMCG categories like Kellogs, nevertheless if you cannot offer customers the idea then the shorthand comes to mean something very different from the idea. What is Enron short for these days - corporate idiocy or fraud?
Branding isn't dead by a long shot but consumers are more intelligent, cynical, aware and just sprouting a short snappy mantra doesn't deliver on the promise. You actually need to engage with customers to achieve that (Church of the Customer anyone?)