whoa... brand, brand, brand?

Reading Evelyn's post I (my fault) get stuck on one word, one concept: "Hang on, brand? Why brand?"
Yes indeed, why the notion of brand?
Of course I accept that a Brand is an important asset. Just like an old building. Great to inherit, important to keep up.
But would you build an old building?

Brand is freeze-dried-trust. Brand is the belief that BMW build more precise engines than Ford, actually have finer margins when building a cylinder head. Is that so?

iPod was no brand, still people bought it in spades, it simply being a great product. Now it's a Brand.
What to expect then? The Brand is now an asset to be used, in other words we will see more products jumping on the iPod brand-skateboard. Will all those be as good? Do not bet on it. One day a flop will appear under the brand-umbrella.
And me the consumer will inevitably be led into buying it, gullible as I am. I'll get seven good products, then a useless one. Suspect we're two down now with the miniMac just out.
Should I not simply get out of the way, stop buying the moment I get a whiff of 'brand building'? That would at least keep the future dud product out of my way.
But I love the miniMac... it's hard...

A flip back-in-time: A business have two basic tasks: Interact with customer and make the product.

Last part we're good at, thanks to industrial technology. First part we've been bad at as we did not have information technology when we needed it. So a makeshift solution came to life - push, push, push. Marketing as we know it.

But something was lacking when we started pushing - trust was not a given. Not the kind of trust I built meeting my customers face-to-face in my little shop in pre-industrial times.

Brand was the answer. Trust-in-a-wrapper. Fragile. Static. Inevitably deceiving.

Now we have the technology. Trust can be dynamic.
Focus on trust - which BTW equals transparency. Be open, be true, make a damned good product, stay transparent, be bold. Then the inevitable dud product would die by itself and not kill the future.

Do not build the future on 'Brands' please.

Comments

[Evelyn Rodriguez]

A brand is just a concept - and it is ephemeral and dynamic as life itself. You might have a snapshot in time of it, but it doesn't sit still.

Now, brand managers in the process of brand-ing might like to have it be freeze-dried trust (especially if it were frozen to some past when they had some trust). Brand-ing as an activity is futile. A brand exists without or without 'brand-ing' to accompany it.

I guess I didn't share MY view of brand, just others. (Although I think you can invite someone to be in a story...)You can put these two posts together, read a bit between the lines and get a sense:

http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/crossroads_dispatches/2004/08/seth_godin_asks_1.html

http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/crossroads_dispatches/2004/11/the_pace_of_the_2.html (focus on story-dwelling aspect in this post)

[sig]

Evelyn, those where two post I never read. Thanks for the prompt!

I agree totally with your take on brand as story-dwelling, a dynamic concept. An excellent twist to the markets are conversations. And you certainly got me thinking.

Now, I've got two hats on: A a marketer I would follow my beliefs and do my utmost to prepare the environment for my customers to see all aspects about our company, our product and our people - and keep the dialogue going while we focus on product and service, not wasting time, focus or money on manipulating the story-dwelling. And keeping my competition from changing would be of interest.

The other is the consumer/human being hat: I would want marketers and business people-in-charge to spend all the resources, focus, product development creativity and training on making the product better, and preparing the environment in a way where I'm enabled to make an unabridged story on my own. I think we'd all be better off that way.

If so, how to get them there? By rewiring their understanding of a well-entrenched concept (brand)? I'm sceptical - as long as it exists, even with a serious Cluetrain twist I would expect the marketers to see the brand as something they own, something they can control, dynamic or not. Concept or not, it's pretty tangible in most businesses' minds. And accounts!

It's a bit similar to teaching (push) vs. learning (pull). The latter entails complete trust in the individual, hands off and complete focus on one single thing - prepare the environment.

Using that image I would argue we would be better off dumping the notion, the concept of brand all-together. Trust the market, hands off, just make your very best to stoke the conversation - and that is not a concept, not the very least tangible - it's merely a natural part of the flow named business.

P.s. Here (http://thingamy.typepad.com/sigs_blog/2005/01/marketing_manag.html) I argue that marketing (obviously including the concept of brand) is merely a makeshift solution to handle interaction with the customer, a temporary solution that can be ditched using the right information technology today. That might give you an idea as to where I come from :-)

[fouroboros]

"Brand is freeze-dried-trust."

What a crystalline description. Freeze-dried, or preserved in amber, either way they're dead, eh?

Interesting post and follow-on, Sig. (Hi Evelyn--We have to stop meeting like this!)

I think you nail it Sig, with the teaching analogy. Advertising is commerce coopting education and bending it backwards, or pushing it so, as you note. Two beasts that marketers face: We love to buy, we hate to be "sold." We love to learn, we hate to be "taught." The ill-fated marriage of the two hates comes often when we're jerked out of the reverie of being immersed in an interesting new experience, only to realize "Damn, they're just trying to sell me something."

(If this sounds right, you might appreciate something blogged last May: http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/2004/05/information-resistance-paradox-ominous.html )

I'd say pursue Bonds, not Brands. In that way, we "manufacture" trust: the seedbed for happy accidents like Ipods to happen or minimacs to fail. (Neither are 'accidents' obviously, nor is the "tilling.") In a way, as marketers, we're generating owners-by-proxy in our consumers. If they perceive our hearts are in the "right place" (the same place as theirs), proven by us birthing tools that enliven them but that they couldn't have asked for without our prompting then they, like all owners, are willing to forgive a fair multitude of sins in a vision. Minimacs can die without damaging the "soil": the idea that Apple is capable of and will do great things in the future--and I, as an "owener-by-proxy" can feel sure of that because if they're wrong in their ambition, then so am I. And we can't have that can we?

Trust, and "why?" to trust; the bonds and barriers that build or destroy it. That's where biz schools and marketing programs drop the ball.

Thanks for letting me ramble. Enjoyed your blog.