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. I think what's starting to fade is the idea of branding as something that is done by the magic wands of expert marketing guys, admen and brand consultants. These guys all have their role, but "brands" are just bits of shorthand we all get to use to describe ideas. Ideas we have about companies, churches, politicians blah blah blah.
Anytime any of us engage with, spit on, rage against or purport to fall in love with, a brand, we're doing a bit of "branding". If our own voice has credibility and bandwidth, we might have more influence on other people's thoughts about the brand. If we talk hot air, we probably don't.
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.
Bookmark: del.icio.us Digg it ma.gnolia Yahoo MyWeb Google StumbleUpon
Permalink
Facebook/Johnnie Moore
Linkedin/Johnnie Moore
Twitter/johnniemoore
Last.fm/johnniemoore
Del.icio.us/johnniemoore
Technorati/johnniemoore
MyBlogLog/JohnnieM
Blog/Johnnie Moore
Comments (4)
Totally agree with you Johnnie...perhaps everyone's actually in violent agreement but it's the term "brand" that's too swishy. Scoble is himself now a brand; probably so most A-listers. Tom Peters commands $65K for an hour speech while many consultants and authors couldn't give away their speeches. Branding is dead? Don't think so. Perhaps megaphone-broadcast branding is dead.
October 25, 2004 01:25 Permalink for comment
"Swishy" is a good word to describe it. "Mooshy" works, too.
"Brand" or "Branding" sort of reminds me of The Elves. Now the Ring has already been cast in the Crack of Doom, they don't really have much else to do except mosey along to the Grey Havens...
Evelyn, some of us B-Listers could be considered "Brands", too ;-)
October 25, 2004 03:27 Permalink for comment
I with you all. Except perhaps Hugh. I can't seem to follow his whimsical, metaphorical blogging.
But Evelyn, please don’t believe that mega-phone broadcast branding is dead. If it were, then the nut that got stuck between a rock and a hard place and hacked off his arm wouldn’t be speaking to business audiences today.
Daniel J. Boorstin wrote, “The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness.” Peters commands big bucks because his first book made him a celebrity. And the mass media is still the best way to create celebrity status.
October 26, 2004 20:36 Permalink for comment
Interesting comments by Tom. You certainly don't need to be a celebrity to be a brand, but I wonder - no pithy answer - *if* mass media is the only way to near-celebrity status. And are mega-hits necessary any longer for success? I've been puzzling on this thought-provoking article, The Long Tail, in Wired this month.
Part of reason a brand commands higher prices is it's a "known quantity" - what Tom refers to as "well-knownness" - and that somehow that conveys trust, reliability and credibility. But are their other routes to convey trust and reputation today?
Tom Peter's was an overnight success because of A Search for Excellence. But many others like Deepak Chopra weren't catapulted to overnight sucess by their books, but nonetheless ended up quite successful.
October 27, 2004 02:19 Permalink for comment