Comments on: Reacting to brand-reactionaries… http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/ Everything is Interactive Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:25:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Darrin http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/#comment-212 Darrin Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:45:00 +0000 http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/#comment-212 To Quoth Timothy:<br/>"On the other hand, though advertising extensively, I think McDonald's has diluted its brand in an attempt to stay current by branching out beyond its original "burgers, fries" concept."<br/><br/>So true. Look at Hardees, who diluted their brand and product, then re-focused - to great success - and is now diluting the product again.<br/>So sad.... To Quoth Timothy:
“On the other hand, though advertising extensively, I think McDonald’s has diluted its brand in an attempt to stay current by branching out beyond its original “burgers, fries” concept.”

So true. Look at Hardees, who diluted their brand and product, then re-focused - to great success - and is now diluting the product again.
So sad….

]]> By: Tim http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/#comment-211 Tim Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:03:00 +0000 http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/#comment-211 As Darrin says, many people using the term "branding" improperly has diluted it to the point where it's lost its meaning, becoming something akin to advertising. By citing White Castle and Jiffy (who don't advertise), Conley seems to be implying that people aren't swayed by companies with large advertising budgets. But when you walk into a White Castle, you are getting the same experience no matter which one you enter. And when you buy a Jiffy biscuit package, you know exactly what you're going to get as well. If that's not branding, then what is? Perhaps what he's missing is a case of a company like Starbuck's, which as you say, has turned a former commodity product that uses consistent experiences to brand its stores--the logo, the packaging, the tables, the naming scheme (latte, etc.). Starbuck's really doesn't do that much advertising on a scale as those cited by Conley. But it is consistently branded. On the other hand, though advertising extensively, I think McDonald's has diluted its brand in an attempt to stay current by branching out beyond its original "burgers, fries" concept. As Darrin says, many people using the term “branding” improperly has diluted it to the point where it’s lost its meaning, becoming something akin to advertising. By citing White Castle and Jiffy (who don’t advertise), Conley seems to be implying that people aren’t swayed by companies with large advertising budgets. But when you walk into a White Castle, you are getting the same experience no matter which one you enter. And when you buy a Jiffy biscuit package, you know exactly what you’re going to get as well. If that’s not branding, then what is? Perhaps what he’s missing is a case of a company like Starbuck’s, which as you say, has turned a former commodity product that uses consistent experiences to brand its stores–the logo, the packaging, the tables, the naming scheme (latte, etc.). Starbuck’s really doesn’t do that much advertising on a scale as those cited by Conley. But it is consistently branded. On the other hand, though advertising extensively, I think McDonald’s has diluted its brand in an attempt to stay current by branching out beyond its original “burgers, fries” concept.

]]> By: Darrin http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/#comment-210 Darrin Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:52:00 +0000 http://armchairmedia.com/2005/10/13/reacting-to-brand-reactionaries/#comment-210 I think the truth of the matter lies in between (or perhaps buried deeply within) both of these points-of-view. Conley was right in FC that "branding" (the verb) has become overused to the point that half the people using it don't have a clue what it means anymore. They apply it to everything willy-nilly.<br/>On the other hand, Bain was correct at Armchair Media that it is more than simply the product.<br/>In my very humble opinion, branding is how people feel about your company and your products. So, everything you do affects it. (Which is why I so frequently say that marketing is so much more than simple sales and advertising.) <br/>So many of those people applying the branding name to everything are doing so in an attempt to control (and I mean control-freak control) their brand. You really can't do that too well. All you can do is start the conversation and carry on your side of it in the best manner you're able. The public will respond in their own way. You can't force them to love your brand, but you can deal with them in such a way as to make them fall in love with it. Those are the ones who have a great brand. I think the truth of the matter lies in between (or perhaps buried deeply within) both of these points-of-view. Conley was right in FC that “branding” (the verb) has become overused to the point that half the people using it don’t have a clue what it means anymore. They apply it to everything willy-nilly.
On the other hand, Bain was correct at Armchair Media that it is more than simply the product.
In my very humble opinion, branding is how people feel about your company and your products. So, everything you do affects it. (Which is why I so frequently say that marketing is so much more than simple sales and advertising.)
So many of those people applying the branding name to everything are doing so in an attempt to control (and I mean control-freak control) their brand. You really can’t do that too well. All you can do is start the conversation and carry on your side of it in the best manner you’re able. The public will respond in their own way. You can’t force them to love your brand, but you can deal with them in such a way as to make them fall in love with it. Those are the ones who have a great brand.

]]>