While I agree with most of your points above, I have to disagree that Branding comes ‘somewhere towards the end’. The process of branding begins at the start. Understanding who you’re trying to reach with your brand, what they expect from your brand and how you can deliver it to them. How you can create value in what your brand offers so that customers will habitually choose it above other brands that may offer similar products.

Yes, the logo isn’t the be all and end all, but branding is much, much more than that. I’m sure our thinking is aligned, perhaps it’s just semantics on our definition of branding.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am

Interesting.

So, as a start up who is bootstrapping my business – how does branding make me money?

What’s the ROI?

[Reply]

Andy Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

I think that just because you’re a start-up doesn’t mean that you can’t follow the fundamentals of branding (some of which I referred to in my comment).

If you’re a service brand for example, you’ll focus on customer service and how your brand is brought to life by your customer facing employees. What do they look like, what’s their manner, how do they go above and beyond expectations? This doesn’t necessarily involve a considerable outlay of dollars, but should perhaps in time and training.

Of course a consistent, smart identity would help as well. I know your post started as business being more than just a logo and I whole-heartedly agree. But branding also stretches to all touchpoints with customers.

As for the ROI I don’t have any specific case studies, but I’m sure personal experiences at places like Bunning’s (and on the other hand Telco’s that outsource customer service) would help to make the point.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Hey Andy,

THIS is my problem with branding … to my knowledge, no one has any specific case studies or levels of measured ROI. Because you don’t make money from a logo.

Which is why it’s pointless for start ups and micro companies – at least in the early stages.

My business shot to success with no brand – no logo, no comprehensive colour structure … just me. And now that I have plenty of resources and don’t have to worry so much about stuff I put things together – but I still don’t spend a lot of money or worry about it too much.

Because sales, marketing and the VALUE I provide is what people buy from me – not my “look”.

“Brand exposure” and “brand awareness” are lies sold to business owners with no marketing savvy by advertising agencies.

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Apparently we don’t have to worry as branding is dead?

http://brandhabits.net/2009/09/27/branding-is-d-e-a-d/#more-83

[Reply]

Andy Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Thanks Thor – from the perspective in the post I believe it is

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

You are outrageous! lol
You can’t say stuff like that, 50 posts later they will still be screaming!

Justin Roff-Marsh Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Here’s some more fuel for the fire: http://www.salesprocessengineering.net/2008/07/07/the-myth-of-branding/

[Reply]

FUN!

You’re wrong because I am a shonky designer and you’re stopping me from unethically getting cash strapped small business’s with no idea to spend hundreds if not thousands on my business instead of getting much needed sales training.

You’re wrong because everyone ELSE seems to be selling “the big easy” at the moment and telling SME’s if they just throw money at advertising and branding all will be well.

You’re wrong because as an unethical web designer I want to wow you with pretty effects, bells whistles and graphics rather than talk to you about things like copywriting and calls to actions, optin boxes to grab peoples details and what sort of CONVERSION to sales this will give you.

I could go on. But I have some SALES TO MAKE.

[Reply]

You spelt McDonald’s wrong in Reason #1.

[Reply]

Paul Ryan Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:50 am

Thanks for the heads-up. Corrected now.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:51 am

Guess their branding isn’t working so well then, if they can’t get it right on $200,000,000,000,000.00 a year – what are your chances G. Fulbrook?

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:51 am

… it’s not spelled wrong … just errant apostrophes. They are something of a sore point.

[Reply]

Leela, guess it depends what one defines as marketing vs. brand vs. branding.

to me “brand” is what the company stands for (like you say; niche and uniqueness).

with “branding” being the way the brand is dressed up to be more attractive to the niche i.e. should it look corporate, fun, alternative etc. logo falls into this i think.

with “marketing” being everything said and done by the business.

but i agree if a company has the fundamentals of niche and uniqueness well underway, then the branding should be made much easier but i dont think branding (i.e. dressing up) makes the brand. just like the way i dress doesn’t make me (but does give a perception. not very flattering in my case

[Reply]

You confuse “Branding” as the act of creating the logo, etc. Branding is this:

1. Sorting out your micro niche, and

Marketing is simply communicating your Unique Value Proposition to your Micro Niche. Everything else is details – tactics – and even those tactics rely on having these two things in place.

Of course – being sure that your message aligns with and accurately presents your story is critical to success. And the packaging, well that’s just part of the “getting it right” and it only stands for something if there is a “there” there.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

I don’t know that I’m the one who is confused, Barry.

Here’s the thing – the word branding comes from the old practice of literally burning a logo into animals and human slaves to show ownership.

BRANDING something is literally putting a logo on it.

Sorting out your micro niche and developing your UVP is business and marketing fundamentals … not branding.

[Reply]

Olivia Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Actually, a logo is part of brand identity, and brand identity is an integral part of a brand – not the entire thing. A brand is much more than a logo.

[Reply]

I would argue that business is all about your brand (which incidently is made up of much more than a logo). The logo and visual identity represents your brand – the personality of your business which sets you aside from others. In terms of ROI a brand can be valued on the balance sheet as an intangible asset.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

“Intangible” means there IS no ROI. Tangibility = being able to touch it. ROI = money. Money is able to be touched. Hence is tangible. Hence is NOT intangible. Hence an intangible asset does not denote ROI.

I disagree business has anything to do with your brand.

I don’t have one and I’m very successful. I didn’t have a logo or any kind of branding for the first 4 years of my business and then it took off. Now the logo I do have is pretty crappy – something thrown together O/S for next to nothing because I wanted to put something on my business card. It certainly doesn’t follow the so-called “rules” of branding.

The reason we’ve been successful is because we’ve distinguished ourselves in the market by being unique …

Not with a logo.

Or a picture.

Or colours.

Or a comprehensive brand look.

But with pre-eminence, sales, marketing and the value we provide our clients.

If more people focused on THIS stuff rather than how their brand “looks” they’d be way more successful.

[Reply]

Emily Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Hi there,
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself properly.
I agree with you that people get very caught up in the the look of their logo as opposed to developing their sales proposition.
However as I said before your pre-eminance, sales, marketing and the value you provide your clients are all part of your brand and its subsequent personality.
In terms of valuable brands I can recommend looking at Interbrand’s methodology on valuing brands as an example and you will see that it has nothing to do with logos. http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx
Cheers

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Again … this is an opinion – and one I don’t necessarily agree with. Especially since it comes from a company who has a vested interest in making “brand” mean more.

I like to separate brand and sales and marketing. Because sales and marketing has a hard, tangible ROI and the fluffy branding stuff does not. I also, FYI, separate sales and marketing – not one and the same thing …

Emily Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Hi Leela, I responded to your opinion from a postgraduate marketing student perspective not a company perspective. Cheers.

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Actually, you posted a link of 100 brands … from a company that says

“We now have nearly 40 offices and are the world’s largest brand consultancy.”

Which was what I meant about the company who has a vested interest in making brand mean more … in fact, they claim to be THE Company who got people to think of “brand” as being more than logo …

So it’s not an intellectual argument that brand means more than logo – it’s an argument from a company that has a vested interest in people making more money from branding than just doing a logo.

GREAT marketing campaign on their behalf and TOTALLY what I recommend my clients do – educate the market to see you as the preeminent source of information on a topic – change the way people see things.

I give them FULL credit for an outstanding marketing campaign.

But I don’t have to believe them …

(Ribena also claims to be healthy … and did you know Peanut Butter has NO sugar? And Jam has NO oil?)

David Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Your ‘brand’ can only be included as an intangible asset on your balance sheet if it was acquired. It can then be recorded only at the lower of book value or market value (i.e. you cannot include additional value created internally, only impairment to the brand). Thus, there is a demonstrated ROI for ‘brands’ only at the time the business is sold and the value thus becomes tangible. This value represents the ‘total’ brand which is more than the logo, and represents the goodwill that the company has generated with its customers and the market in general.

(Disclaimer: Does not constitute financial advice)

[Reply]

Leela, got a question for ya.

if a product or service has potentially mass appeal, even on a global basis, do you think that changes the way a business should focus on branding issues such as; design, colours, name, logo etc? if so how?

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

To me, it’s less about whether the product or service has potentially mass appeal and more about the financial position of the company.

If you HAVE plenty of cashflow – if your financial position is fine, everyone is getting paid, you’re not in debt to your suppliers and you’re making a nice profit – then do the branding thing. Make it look good. Appeal to the visuals.

If you’re not – if you’re bootstrapping your business (or are under the watchful eye of venture capitalists) and you have to watch every cent, then there are better ways to do things. Focus on sales. Focus on no cost marketing. Focus on developing a unique value proposition and communicating it so well that the deal becomes a no brainer.

I believe in the sustainable business model – one in which things pay for themselves and achieve ROI.

Branding doesn’t fit within this framework – but as I’ve said – if you’ve got the spare cash to do it, then do … as long as you can still eat …

It’s just not a top priority.

[Reply]

Some good reading for you: http://www.lync.com.au/creative/IdWorks/Brand_vs_Identity.html

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

That’s merely someone’s opinion … branding, to me, is logo, look – it’s a purely visual thing …

People who are selling branding would love you to believe otherwise – they know it has no ROI or real tangible benefits in a business, so they’ve been working on how to make it more valuable to people – which is smart.

[Reply]

Leela,
You are wrong.

I am with some of the other correspondents who say that a brand is far more than the visual identity. But even if we accept your semantic defintion of branding as being simply the visual identity or logo it is still important.

Take a look at the 2007 Stanford University study which found that wrapping food (even food they don’t usually sell) in a McDonalds wrapper changed kid’s perception of the taste and their preferences. For example, the kids in the study thought carrots in a McDonalds wrapper tasted better than the same carrots without. It is one of the most recent studies but there are dozens of others. Have a look at the Coke vs. Pepsi wars in the 70s and 80s. Pepsi always won on a blind taste test but always lost in a branded one. Or the landmark study on beers in 1964. Even avowed brand loyalists couldn’t pick their regular beer in a blind taste test and certainly didn’t believe it tasted better than others. But wrap it in its label and all the taste perceptions and ratings changed.

Brands alter consumers perceptions, including perceptions of value.

But if you want more conrete ROI how about these examples. Fosters sold it’s British brewing operations (factories, distribution assets and so on – i.e. cold hard assets) a decade or so ago for more than $1bn but retained the brand and licensed it to the new owners. A few years ago they sold the brand to them as well for $750m. The brand was worth almost as much in cold, hard cash as all the tangible hard assets. Closer to home, and on a smaller scale, how about the sale of 42 Below to Barcardi. The 6 year old business was sold for $118m despite the fact that it had never made a profit. In it’s final independent year of operation it turned over about less than $20m and made the biggest loss it had ever made of more than $5m. What was Barcardi buying then? The brand.

Lest we run away with the belief that these examples only illustrate big business, mainstream brands have value, consider the example provided by the brand I started – nudie. Less than 3 years after launch from the front room of my house we had licensed the brand to Nestle to allow them to make and distribute ice creams. The royalty stream was large and immediately profitable.

A brand (and when I talk about a brand I see the logo and even the name as being only one part of an overall brand personality and promise) helps package and distinguish an offering and creates value in its own right. Any business owner who ignores it as a fundamental business building block is missing potential opportunity.

I DO AGREE that a focus on just the logo is a waste of time, effort and money. Effective branding involves creating an entire branded experience. Big businesses generally get this wrong and have a disproportionate focus on the logo or name. ANZ is making the mistake right now. They are wasting $15m of shareholder funds if they believe that a new, softer ‘people’ logo is an effective re-branding. If my customer expereince with ANZ doesn’t change there has been no re-branding.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

SMALL businesses often do the same thing … all the focus is on logo and design.

I know SO many businesses that have gone broke spending thousands of dollars on branding and not on sales, marketing, etc and so forth.

Okay, I accept your argument to a point – when you’re in an area as commoditised as fruit juice you need to have a point of difference and branding is probably just about the only way you can do it … you’re using the same ingredients and basically have exactly the same product as everyone else – so how you package and brand is going to make ALL of the difference.

Fair enough – I wasn’t really thinking about high level commodity businesses when I wrote this – so I’ll give that there’s perhaps a small area in which you’re right …

But most service businesses and those with unique product offerings need to get the sales, marketing, unique message communication right … not their logo.

I think we need a better word than “branding” for the overall feel of a business.

Apart from the obvious aforementioned connotations, there’s also the concept that a “brand” is something inflicted upon the world – whereas the values of a business, what it stands for – it’s PERSONALITY is an inner beauty … not necessarily the outward representation.

[Reply]

I do have to wonder if any of you have actually READ the article …

I have mainly talked about logos … when I talk “branding” I say “brand look and feel”.

It’s look and feel I have a problem with … logos, colours, blah blah blah.

Sales, marketing, unique value – I don’t consider these things branding, but even if you do, I’ve specifically pointed out now several times that I don’t … so when I’m having a go at “branding” (which, again, is rare – I’m mainly talking about why I hate logos) I obviously don’t mean these things …

One too many graphic designers jumping at shadows, methinks!

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

And the silence was deafening…

[Reply]

Steve Sherlock Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

lol.

i reckon the conversation in these things, becomes more interesting than the article.

so on that note, what a successful post! good stuff

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

YAY LEELA!

“Sorting out your micro niche and developing your UVP is business and marketing fundamentals” – Absolutely! And then communicating your POSITION to your clearly focused target market via your language, colours, images, offers, services, pricing, staff – every touch point with your customers – is branding.

The decisions you have made Leela in naming your business conveyes a very distinct position for your business – that hopefully connects with your ideal customers.

The choices you have made with regard to telemarketing are part of conveying your brand, your values, your personality.

Your choice of having a text heavy site in Black & White and Red (“Read”) all over is part of conveying your position as an expert in text/writing. Language that you have selected – such as centreing No Bull in the middle of your home page – reinforces the straight forward style of how you communicate.

Whether or not you hired a designer and spent money you have made decisions on how to convey your position to your ideal customer – that is branding. IMHO.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am

“The choices you have made with regard to telemarketing are part of conveying your brand, your values, your personality.”

Ummm – not really. It conveys that I’m married to a telemarketing expert who’ll get on the phone and sell for me.

“Your choice of having a text heavy site in Black & White and Red (”Read”) all over is part of conveying your position as an expert in text/writing.”

Urrr … no. There wasn’t a choice, I didn’t even think about – we just threw it up to get something up … it’s a holding page while a website that was supposed to have been finished 6 months ago was being designed … unfortunately, it’s been up WAY longer than I ever anticipated.

“Language that you have selected – such as centreing No Bull in the middle of your home page – reinforces the straight forward style of how you communicate.”

Again … not really … it just looked crap all left justified … and the copywriter did a couple of things with it … like I say, there was little to no planning of this site, it was supposed to be a short-term holding site …

[Reply]

Leela, this is really interesting. And Steve, yes I got more out of the comments It does seem somewhat to be an argument on semantics.

Being in sales and marketing (consulting) also working with hundreds of small businesses, and previously owning a design business, it is interesting how people get hung up on the concept of brand and people’s perception of brand, logo design, look and feel, whatever you want to call it. I love the strategy v design argument probably as old as cattle branding itself I used to have many stoushes with my designers over this.

Lets face it consistency is the key – you can have the best look, be inconsistent and you will not go too far with your market. And unfortunately smaller businesses struggle here.

And the key to consistency? Being happy with who you are and where you are meant to be (as a business – which in a smaller business quite often reflected in the stability and direction of its owner). This means being comfortable with your offering, comfortable with your overall business and of course comfortable with your strategy.

This consistency comes first from a good solid understanding of your market (research), your value proposition (as you have said) and then in your presentation to that market (some of which is the visual identity) . Too many companies rush out and get a logo and think they are branded – problem is they have not given any thought to what people will or do think of that brand. Money wasted 85% of the time.

However a well thought out business with a well invested visual identity leading to a great “brand experience” – which I think does carry some value and grows with time, is a good investment.

[Reply]

Logo’s or the value of the brand (essence, look n feel,identity etc) are put on the P&L in the UK. Accounting standards differ hence the lapse in ROI in Australia. Semantics are not the issue per se. The subject matter is. Imagine if someone else had already conceptualised and started trading under a ‘brand’ (logo if you wish) that was perfect for you and you didn’t have it? It’s also about demonstrating investment in your business. I agree with not paying a truckload but the average graphic designer will do the right thing by a micro or SME business. My husband drew his own logo – the designer fixed it up and it was printed on all the things he need incl stationery and an email signature – under $500. The ROI? Turnover of $200K in 1st year. Its not just about one thing… Plus what’s the point in being in your own business if you can’t enjoy the creative process and have some fun?

[Reply]

Brand is what you believe and what your actions show – NOT just your logo (or any of the other tactics people try to attach it to). Every business has a brand – deliberate or not. Understood or not. Engaged or not. It is there. The cavalier use of the term brand by marketing, advertising and other “experts” undermines its’ inherent value to the business as a horizontal entity of equal importance to strategy.

When the time is taken to build the brand and understand its value, it becomes the central organising principle for the business, providing a guide for decision-making, offering competitive advantage and most importantly acting as a cohesive unifying force for all stakeholders (internal and external). These are not trivial things and they have little or nothing to do with your logo.

As far as logos go. I couldn’t agree more that they are not really the most important thing for a new business to be worrying about, and by and large the most famous and revered logos were not “designed” to be iconic or even designed to stand out. They became iconic and memorable because of their association with businesses and brands that were doing iconic and memorable things.

[Reply]

Here’s one of my favourite statements on the matter from one of the world’s most recognisable brands, Starbucks:

“In the early days we were so busy selling coffee one cup at a time, opening stores and educating people about dark-roasted coffee that we never thought much about ‘branding strategy’.” Howard Schultz, Starbucks Chairman

Read the book “Tribal Knowledge” for more on this …

[Reply]

I agree that a logo and name should not be a precursor or substitute for a unique value proposition (your words) or a sound business plan. But let’s not confuse a logo and a name with a brand or branding.

You ask “What’s way better than branding” and then go on to describe two of the key elements of branding: defining your market and your offering.

It’s interesting that you use the term “unique value proposition.” Over the years the terminology for what is now called “branding” has changed, but the basic concept remains the same. Selling. Marketing. Unique selling proposition. Unique value proposition. Positioning. Integrated marketing communication. And now it’s branding. What will the buzz word be tomorrow? Your guess is as good as mine. But rest assured that somebody will repackage the same proven concepts, wrap them in a new term, publish it in a book, and hit the lecture circuit.

“No one remembers your logo”? (At least you didn’t say “brand.”) Visuals are more memorable and have a greater impact than words, which makes logos important as one part of branding. You’re right that people need to see something seven times. That’s why you need a logo surrogate for your product – it can count as some of those seven.

“Branding doesn’t sell..?” Agree. It reduces the cost of selling.

“Investors don’t invest because of your logo” True. But your example doesn’t track. Of course investors aren’t looking for logos; they’re looking for companies that money. Logos can help make that happen. Even without a logo, your example company had their branding nailed down, and, presumably, their cash flow.

“Your business is going to change…” The details of your business may change daily, but your core values (brand) shouldn’t. And if your logo reflects that, it doesn’t need to change either.

“Branding is important.” OK, marketing decisions precede marketing communications decisions. But if you don’t have your branding figured out, don’t bother taking your company out of the garage; it’s not going anywhere.

Back to my earlier point, a logo isn’t a brand. A brand is the sum total of all your customers’ and potential customers’ impressions of your company and/or product(s). Branding is simply everything you do to increase the value of your brand, which may well be your most valuable asset.

[Reply]

Bambi Gordon Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:41 am

YES!

[Reply]

Okay, while I MIGHT buy that perhaps branding is more than a logo – defining your target market and your UVP IS NOT BRANDING.

Sure, you might need to UNDERSTAND this before you can “brand” properly – but to call something as essential to your core business as your target market and UVP “branding” is to trivialise it’s importance. I shudder at the thought.

A quick flick through definitions gives me:

brand – mark with a brand or trademark
branded – (of goods and merchandise) marked or labeled by a distinctive word or symbol indicating exclusive rights
brand – trade name: a name given to a product or service
Corporate branding is the practice of using a company’s name as a product brand name

Branding = naming, logos, look and feel.

Target market, UVP – these things are basic business concepts. You can ABSOLUTELY have these things and have NO BRAND.

You can have a BRAND and NOT have these things.

This push to change the concept of branding into a larger picture is simply graphic designers, web designers, advertising agencies who have realised (and rightly so) that they need to be positioned as marketers – so rather than trying and changing what people think of them, they’re now trying to pretend that this is what they’ve always done …

[Reply]

Andy Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am

I’m afraid I couldn’t agree less with your definition of brand. There are a number of well-known business experts who I think would back me up:

A few quotes below:

“What is the single most important objective of the marketing process? … We believe it’s the process of branding. Marketing is building a brand in the mind of the prospect. If you can build a powerful brand, you will have a powerful marketing program. If you can’t then all the advertising, fancy packaging, sales promotion and public relations in the world won’t help you achieve your objective.” – Al Ries And Laura Ries

“Brand equity is formed through brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand associations.” David A. Aaker

“Branding becomes the “advantage” when it identifies and exploits operational excellence,customer intimacy or product leadership in the experiential lens of the consumer.” Michael Porter

This might all be semantics. But, if you do have a successful business you actually will have a successful brand. That brand is you, the way you do things, the service you deliver to customers, what people think of you and what they expect when you walk into the room or pick up the telephone.

It is so much more than just a logo. The target audience and UVP is all part of building your brand. Are you talking to the right people, what are you saying influences expectations of peoples’ opinions of your brand.

Enjoying the debate…Andy

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:25 am

I guess the distinction I am experiencing is that it appears to me if I focus on the basics I will build a brand “organically”.
What I also see is people who have a lack of the basics that focus on “brand” whose business withers and dies “organically”.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 11:43 am

Agreed Thor! This was my point …

If your brand grows organically from you knowing who you are and living that – fine.

What I dislike is people (especially “marketing consultants” and “business coaches”) who tell people the first thing they need to do is get a logo …

Can I – ONCE AGAIN – point out that the title of this article is about WHY I HATE LOGOS … not branding …

Anyone who would like to argue with Leela in person should attend http://www.productiseordie.com this weekend. Call in and mention Australian Anthill for a complimentary seat valued at $97. Be quick, seats are limited.

[Reply]

I find the rant against brands to be an overly dogmatic generalisation from personal experience. It’s trivial to say that investing heavily in formal branding is not a high priority for most small businesses. In varying degrees the same goes for websites, HR processes, security, business cards and even insurance. It’s all relative.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Yeah I dunno, I think it’s trivial if you’re not the one who is bootstrapping it with your super and home tied up in the bargain and in your naivete spend a TON on logos and web design soaking up limited cashflow that could have been allocated to lead generation or sales and marketing activity.

[Reply]

And did anyone spot the irony that someone who confesses “penchant for tattoos” should be averse to business branding?

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

No dude thats PERSONAL branding!

Lol

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Incredibly personal … apparently, they don’t come off …

[Reply]

Andy Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Ouch..

Jen Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

They don’t come off?? F*$&…..

I actually agree with you!
Yes, branding is extremely important.
However, my 1st business I spent oodles on Branding, design blah blah blah
but in the end it didn’t get me $$$ in the bank.

This time with my new business I decided to go the other way! To build MY BRAND, find my niche and discover exactly where I sit and build a following THEN get a logo and think about “branding” it made sense to me because I knew my position I have spent 10 months tweaking it so now I have a clear direction in which I want to go and it has saved me $$$ so I can put it to use in other areas (like productise or die

[Reply]

Vote in the great branding debate

http://twtpoll.com/r/43mf51

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Yah, polling your friends is not really a scientific way to make a decision on something – If you want to get real results you need to get a cross-section of the business community … now we know what your friends think – and OHMYGOD … they think like you. That’s a surprise.

[Reply]

Bambi Gordon Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Settle Petal. I thought that a poll with a smiley face and a fairly silly name only available for a few hours yesterday was just a bit of fun. And I didn’t suggest in any way that it was scientific/market research/proof of anything.

[Reply]

Leela, you shout: “Can I – ONCE AGAIN – point out that the title of this article is about WHY I HATE LOGOS … not branding …”

You might be frustrated by people misunderstanding your message, but you haven’t been terribly clear. Your original post prominently featured “5 reasons branding is a waste of your time”. So what is it, branding or logos?

Or something else altogether? Lots of people resent consultants and “business coaches” telling them that the “first thing they need to do is get [insert the consultant's offering here]“. But hey, that’s business. In a free marketplace we can expect all sorts of experts to be seeing the world through their own lenses, and trying to argue the merits of what they specialise in: logo design, business planning, security (that’s me), insurance, advertising, mentoring, platinum credit cards, Sarbanes Oxley compliance, aluminum siding etc. None of these things are utterly without merit; if they were they’d have disappeared altogether.

The degree of fit between any one consultant’s pet offering X and all their potential customers probably follows a bell curve. THere is very good fit at one end of the curve (where customers will have already got X and don’t need to be sold) and very poor fit at the other (where target customers will never actually need X). Good sales people aim their wares at targets somewhere in the middle. In expanding their base, some sales people and consultants will always push towards the poor fit end of the curve. Sometimes they will win unexpected new customers, by alerting them to needs they didn’t know they had (and that’s heroin to sales people), but at other times pissing people off. It’s the nature of sales.

I’m a small business myself … with a very modest logo … and I reckon 90% of what people try to sell me is just not applicable. I probably can’t afford it, no matter what it is.

Cheers,

Steve.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

UVP DOES come before logo or branding.
Or even sales
We sell that.
So yeah.
This does annoy us.

[Reply]

Without weighing in too much on the topic, it seems to me that some people may have (deliberately or subconsciously) ignored/overlooked the intention of the post and picked on a difference of word-definition just so they could argue. Not that I’m complaining, because I love an argument, but, just sayin’….

*grabs popcorn and settles in*

[Reply]

to me, this topic seems to reveal that business and branding is more art than a science. maybe the “proof of the pudding” is in the exit.

i reckon i’d like to have a few beers with all those who had contributed to this post. would make for a pretty robust convo.

though somehow when people meet face to face, everyone seems to act so polite.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Bullshit! We are awful in person as well sherlock!

You coming on Saturday?

[Reply]

Steve Sherlock Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

guess it depends if i get lucky or not.

or are you talking about something else?

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

We would love to meet you in person you filthy minded little boy

We have an event on Saturday which deals with Nano Niche and Unique Value Proposition, Information Productisation.

Starts at 9 – we are serving a networking breakfast for an hour then Leela kicks off at 10am goes till 1.30pm

You are guaranteed to walk away with that tag line your offering a grand for…

ok sounds good. got details from your link.

so as long as i say “i saw it on anthill” i get in for free?

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 8:41 am

Pop me an email at gulliver@businesswritersanonymous.com.au confirming yourself and guest,
And please confine any heckling to the breakfast session
of course no hooting from the audience

[Reply]

This debate is everywhere. Love it! I did not read the “5 reasons branding is a waste of you time” because that and this is soooo wrong:
“Branding is a “nice to have”, not a must have…”

I am currently working on banning the word branding. It is much more than a verb thing. Why? People who say branding mean something else and think it is this part of marketing or something. Brand is everything…not a nice to have. Logo, names, etc. represent the brand and far too many marketing people do not know what a brand stands for or what a brand manager does. Agency or creatives for hire should be positioning, marketing, communicating, etc. a brand and know what that brand is first. In their defense, most companies don’t know how to lead them with brand strategy and vision…why we need to fix brand understanding to fix business!

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

if you can afford a “brand manager” chances are you aren’t an SME.

If you can afford an agency I agree it should be about ROI around knowing WHO they are so they can communicate it.

Creatives who have no ROI need to be a tad more ethical about telling people they are THE first step to ROI.

Emerging business – Small and Solopreneur business – Are being told spend on logos, business cards, web design, internet marketing, when they don’t have the basics.

ITS NOT SUSTAINABLE – ITS CRIMINAL.

Sadly a lot of SME customers are people don’t know who they target (everyone is not a niche!) and what the real value is to that market or how to sell them god forbid they actually get an enquiry.

But a freaking logo is going to help them?

SURE retrospectively every great brand has a recognisable logo which plays a part in their current strategy – it’s as old as Heraldry.

But every Knight who wins renown on the field started as a squire, with no colors.

When you start winning tournaments people recognizing whats on your shield.

Until then you are just another bloke in armor on a crowded field.

Deeds win battles, not heraldry.

[Reply]

TerryB Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Thor: Deeds do win battles, but people can see who is riding the horse better when they can see it’s colors to identify it. Both winning battles and imagery are important aren’t they. Without colors you don’t have any signature or anything for people to become loyal to, do you. Brand is everything and if you ain’t got one, you got nothing grow into have you?

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Tell that to the Ninja terry.

David Sandusky Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

brilliant:
“But every Knight who wins renown on the field started as a squire, with no colors.

When you start winning tournaments people recognizing whats on your shield.

Until then you are just another bloke in armor on a crowded field.

Deeds win battles, not heraldry.”

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

I just think its ass about to create a fantastic “symbol” before you have DONE anything symbolic.

Sure after 100 years of building the best cars on the planet we recognise mercedes logo.

But they had to build a freaking auto and SELL it to a few people before we recognised it.

Unique Value – Best German luxury car on the road.

Sales – Sold a few.

Brand

Create a symbol for the hood.

Sales – Sell 100 years worth of them.

Now we look at them and say “what an Iconic brand”.

But back in the day when they had 500 deutchmark to spend on building an internal combustion engine or a logo thank GOD some little jumped up designer didn’t talk them into building a LOGO!

David Sandusky Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Exactly! Somewhere a great brand is being build right now. They will worry about what we call it and what image to use later…besides, letting the market hijack the brand is a brilliant strategy.

I like your product focus. If you are ever in Denver, CO, look me up to speak with our students at the Center for Innovation. you might like that the challenges that will be solved are focus on just that, solving problems. no logos, just people attracting people around a problem.

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I didn’t bother reading your post David, because I just assumed it was wrong. *rolls eyes*

You’re one of those people, aren’t you, who just reads the headlines of the newspapers and then gets all bent out of shape about something – because of course, the headline tells you EVERYTHING you need to know … and is never even kind of purposefully misleading in order to get people’s attention. Never.

Come back to me when you’ve actually read what I’ve written. Including Reason #5: Branding is important.

[Reply]

David Sandusky Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

You are right and I am sorry. I did not realize there was a marketing trick. Thing is, I was referred here from a post on my site about another “debate” about brand-branding-logo, etc. I was intrigued by your post title because I agree with you there. People/companies that approach us for marketing collateral are quickly annoyed to learn they need brand strategy and perhaps recruiting first and will not even do logos, etc. They say, takes too long. I’ll just wing it with clever marketing. Duh! Failure!

“5 reasons branding is a waste of your time” is where I lost it, so I did read past the headline with intent to enjoy. I just went back to read the 5 points you made.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

I like you David, you are obviously a man of some great knowledge but to also be humble and apologise if you see yourself being hasty is a HUGE strength.

One we could all learn more from.

I think it’s interesting that 90% of the people who are arguing for branding are self-confessed “brand experts” who have a vested interest in businesses using branding.

I have no stake, one way or another, if people choose to focus on branding. It doesn’t make or lose me any money.

Just wanted to make that REALLY clear – because a lot of these comments are clearly more about serving people’s businesses than they are about what’s best for the people they ought to be serving …

[Reply]

Stephen wilson Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

Careful! What significance do you see in the fact that most people defending branding are brand experts? Sure they might be self-interested, and so we might have to discount their views, or test their claims a bit more. But in this forum, I don’t think anyone is really trying to sell us anything, so the vested interest criticism is moot. I actually think brand experts here are debating genuinely the merits of their specialist services.

One shouldn’t reject an expert’s views in their pet subject *because* they’re expert! And you shouldn’t be surprised in a free market that people who are expert in a specialist field try to make money out of that expertise. Yes they’re trying to sell their services, but it’s generally because their experience tells them that some people truly need their services. As I said in an ealier post, it’s often the case that consultants oversell, and yes that’s irritating, but I don’t think you should take a set against all consultants arguing their case and defending their field.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Urrr … that’s not what I said. And if you bother to read above you’ll note that I actually said that I don’t have a problem with branding experts being pro-branding and educating the market on the same – in fact, it’s EXACTLY what I would tell them to do …

I never said to discount their theories.

But they are also NEVER going to be able to have an unbiased view. They can never admit that there may be flaw with what they do. They back it passionately because it’s their thang.

Again, nothing wrong with that – I’ll argue for the value of information products with all and sundry – but it’s INTERESTING that most ordinary folk don’t seem to really care. The most impassioned responses to this article have been from branding experts. Everyone else is like … meh. Whatevs.

[Reply]

Stephen wilson Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

You did say “I think it’s interesting that 90% of the people who are arguing for branding are self-confessed ‘brand experts’ who have a vested interest in businesses using branding.” I took that as a passive-aggressive dismissal of what the 90% had to say. Sorry but how else was I intended to interpret your observation? Was it a throw-away line? It seemed clear to me that you were negating what that 90% had to say because of their attachment to their field.

If you think people are misinterpreting your real message, why not take more care with what you write? Why lead so provocatively with “5 reasons branding is a waste of your time” when you really mean “SMEs might have better things to spend their money on than developing a logo”. I doubt that a single person on this thread would have objected to that sort of mundane advice.

Okay guys – QUESTION:

If branding is more than the logo … if it’s the values and personality of the company … how on EARTH do you do a REBRAND? CAn that word even exist?(ANZ certainly see to think so … http://www.anz.com/personal/ )

Seems to me that branding is MORE than a logo when it suits you and NOT when it doesn’t …

[Reply]

David Sandusky Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

A rebrand is when a company needs to refocus values. Maybe they don’t know what they stand for anymore as times change. Painful. Often the soul left with the reason the founder created the product or service.

Long time and patient process.

A brand with a new logo is a new logo
A brand by an different name is a different name

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

I think like a lot of major banks post the GFC they are all having a crisis of identity.
A very expensive one.
For their customers.
Again, deeds not heraldry…

[Reply]

Stephen wilson Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

The idea of re-branding isn’t intrinsically illogical. While most seem to agree that a lot of branding is related to culture, and that’s organic and epiphenomenal, by the same token, organisational culture to a degree can be led. People follow great leaders. So leaders influence culture. Surely that’s not controversial. So … it follows that in theory one can certainly re-brand an organisation (or its products), usually as a marker of an orchestrated re-invention or culture sea change. None of that is illogical or even hard to grasp is it?

Having said that, I do reckon most re-branding (and most marketing and even most leadership) is actually a crock. But my point is to defend the possibility and reasonableness of many of the things Leela is apparently attacking as being baseless. Done right, branding and logos may be very effective. So the useful debate may be about execution more than the principle of the thing.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Possibilities are not the same as probabilities.

Defend probability all you like.

Done right as far as it pertains to “branding” might very well mean done AFTER you have reached a target to make a certain predictable baseline of money selling the product or service and have cash to throw around.

?

[Reply]

Stephen wilson Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

What on earth was that all about? “Possibilities are not the same as probabilities”? Actually they are.

Exactly what sort of “writers” are you lot? Not just “anonymous”, but mostly opaque to boot! And what does “Intellectual Property Creation” entail? What makes you “#1″?

The advice you and Leela dole out in his thread keeps switching all the time. If I were to ask for advice, like “Do I need a logo?” I get the impression that the Business Writers Anonymous answer might be “Maybe. Do you think you need one?”

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Sigh. I really do wonder if ANYONE has read what I’ve written.

I will repost, from the original article, for the 5th time …

Okay, maybe that’s a tad on the dramatic side. (What, Leela? You? Dramatic? Just to get attention? Never!) I did just get a new logo designed for a new venture. So, it’s not exactly logos that I hate.

Reason #5: Branding is important. Okay, so I don’t mean to say that there is no importance at all around branding. I do get how a cohesive brand appearance can communicate a message to prospects and clients.

I’m arguing AGAINST under very specific circumstances.

I work not with corporates but with small businesses – most of whom are bootstrapping.

Logo = not core business.

Therefore Logo = not something to spend money on. Period.

[Reply]

Sarah Mitchell Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

I disagree with your conclusion “Logo = not something to spend money on. Period.”

I’m a small business owner. I launched in October 2008 just as the GFC really got going. I did it without loans or start-up capital. I developed my own business card and website. In other words, it was an honest-to-goodness bootstrap operation.

It wasn’t until I had a professionally designed website, letterhead, business cards along with the maligned logo that I started to see results. I was presenting more professionally so other businesses were more comfortable doing business with me. I was more confident in how I promoted myself.

I suppose it does depend on what business you’re in and who your target prospects are. My products are B2B and I’m working with corporate clients.

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

That’s one persons experience – I work B2B and I had no logo or corporate branding for 4 years and my business was very successful …

It sounds to me as though your logo was more about YOUR confidence as opposed to ROI … and that’s cool – if you need to do it for you, that’s a whole different thing. My problem is people who tell small businesses they have to do a logo first – when those same people can’t sell, don’t understand marketing and are having cash issues.

If you’re doing it for YOU … because you need it to be able to be comfortable … I think that’s a little bit different. You need to do what makes you happy and what makes it easier for you to sell … and if that’s getting a logo then I say go for it …

Sarah Mitchell Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:12 pm

Hi Leela,

I’m afraid you misunderstood what I was saying. Believe me, confidence was not a problem for me. It wasn’t then and it’s not now. It did NOT make me happy to invest in an exercise to get my marketing collateral looking consistent and professional. It sort of bugged me that I had to do it.

I have a direct sales background where I regularly met or exceeded multi-million dollar quotas. I did this in the international arena and had a clear idea how I wanted to market my company, sell my services and represent myself.

My problem was that my homemade, bootstrap business cards and website made me look like small potatoes. Once I fixed that problem, everything fell into place.

Having said that, an unexpected side-effect was that my confidence in my new venture increased. That, by the way, is one of the benefits of going through a branding exercise. When done properly, it should generate a very quick return.

No amount of branding is going to make a business work. My experience is that it certainly enhances a business when all the other necessary elements for success are in place.

Hi Leela,

I venture into this discussion with trepidation but here goes, anyway. Disclaimer: I’m not a brand expert and don’t make money in the branding arena.

Your brand is really nothing more than what we used to call image or reputation. It’s a combination of both, really. Whether you like it or not, whether it’s planned or not, you have a brand. Your brand many not be contrived but you’ve got one.

Secondly, your brand isn’t so much what you say it is. It’s what your customers say it is. Mary Neumeier discusses this, at length, in his book The Brand Gap.

Third, value exists, absolutely in a brand. It’s why big conglomerate by companies and pay more, sometimes way more, than their asset value. They extra money is brand value and for large companies like a McDonalds or a Haagen Daaz, it can be worth a tidy package.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

Your reputation / what customers say about you / is created by the value you communicate in your marketing and the trust you develop in sales and maintain in the quality of your product or service.

YOU DON’T NEED A LOGO TO DO THAT!

[Reply]

Sarah Mitchell Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

Hi Thor,

Who would disagree? No where in my comment did I mention logos. A logo is just one component of a brand. In the book I mentioned, The Brand Gap by Marty Neumeier, he debates the necessity of a logo and considers that it’s probably past it’s sell-by date.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Did I get defensive and assume you were just another out of the 100 posters wanting to give Leela a brand lesson without reading her post?

I do apologise – some people are getting a touch rude, and we should let it die a natural death.

Sorry if I came across snippy.

I guess my issue was and has been throughout the ENTIRE post that everyone puts an example of successful branding it seems to come back to McDonalds, Haagen Daaz, or another massive corporate who can afford to spend crazy amounts on “brand”.

In SME land business’s turnover less than 5 million per annum at best and under 100k at worst.

And, there is a lot more worst than best out there.

And these are the people who I feel for.

I guess there is an overwhelming urge of people to define brand among the hundred odd posts here, and at no point did we CONCLUDE brand was bad.

Headlines maketh not the article.

Brand sure – when appropriate.

But it may be less than effective spend in the first 1 – 3 year period where most business’s collapse.

Leela, you are so slippery!

One day you’re railing against logos, instructing SMEs in no uncertain terms that “Logo = not something to spend money on” (I haven’t misinterpreted that have I?)

But the next day you’re sweetly reassuring Sarah Mitchell that “You need to do what makes you happy and what makes it easier for you to sell … and if that’s getting a logo then I say go for it”.

Will the real Business Writer Anonymous please stand up?

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

There’s nothing slippery about it.

Everyone is sitting here screaming about what “businesses” should do.

Sarah told me what she did for HER.

My first value, above all others, is to know who you are, own that and live that. If she needs a logo for HER … good. She should do it.

Branding experts telling small businesses that they should go and get a logo rather than investing in the knowledge that would actually make their businesses work … that’s a whole different thing.

*rolls eyes*

I mean puh-lease.

How stupid do you think I am?

[Reply]

Your rudeness is absolutely astounding.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

I’m only rude to people who personally attack me. Even then, I NEVER attack the person – only ever the argument.

Which isn’t rude.

It’s called debating.

There are several people on here who haven’t been quite so politic and who have gone after me personally …

But I’M rude?

Interesting point of view.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Whose Lisa?

[Reply]

i should have mentioned this earlier (sorry about that), but I’d like to see a bit more nuance and responsibility in the language being used.

for example:

“i think…”
“in my view”
“it seems”
“I’ve found”
“apparently”

let me give you an example by rephrasing this sentence:

original sentence: There are several people on here who haven’t been quite so politic and who have gone after me personally …

responsible sentence: There are several people on here who “i think” haven’t been quite so politic and who “i feel” have gone after me personally …

so that’s just an example. but i think if you go through the conversation and pick out the sentences that use “absolutes” you’d be surprised how irresponsible we can be when our ego kicks in or we don’t appreciate the other person’s point of view or the way they’ve expressed it.

like: “you are so slippery!” (change it to: “in my view you are so slippery!”

same point being made, but author is not saying it as a “fact” but a point of view.

ok you might call it semantics, and maybe it is, though i think the big correlation between responsible language &more constructive the conversation as opposed to more irresponsible language leads to more arguments.

well that’s at least how i try to live my life.

any feedback appreciated regardless of it being responsibly expressed or not.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

I think semantics are incredibly important – I see your point … as a writer I’ve had it beaten into my head to eradicate softening phrases and make absolute statements.

I do try to use “in my opinion” – and I think you’ll find I’ve used it several times …

There are no absolutes – only opinions …

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

I absolutely agree!

[Reply]

Andy Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Not sure if I should jump back in, but was hoping just to summarise:

We’re agreed that if you’re an SME:

1) Investing heavily in a logo, business cards, letter head before understanding your customers, UVP, price point is not a good idea.

2) There are companies offering services like this at fees disproportionate to the overall investment that an SME should be willing to make.

3) These companies are perhaps too self-interested and not offering a fair evaluation of what’s best for someone’s business.

4) Still, while launching and conducting business as an SME you are ‘building a brand’. You’re building expectations and creating perceptions in the minds of your customers. All a result of your customer service strategy, UVP, price point etc.

And if you’re a larger corporate brand it’s ok – and you should be investing – in ‘brand’. I also think we’ll find that, for many the investment in identity is a very small proportion (despite agency fees and expertise) in relation to turnover or even profit.

Is that fair?

I understand the provocative title and writing…it got us all talking and debating!!

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Totally fair, Andy.

I think we might have a consensus …

CASE STUDY

Here’s a real-life case study from personal experience. I’ll keep this simple with some stats from google analytics:

Company 1 (not really branded)
Name: http://www.carhire.com.au
Visits/month “car hire” search terms: 15,821
Revenue/month “car hire” search term: A$21,915.90

Company 2 (branded)
Name: http://www.vroomvroomvroom.com.au
Visits/month “vroom” search terms: 10,005
Revenue/month “vroom” search terms: A$35,944.40

From these results, it can be argued that a brand name is trusted more than twice as much as a generic name. I’ve found that this becomes more true the older a company becomes. So, in my opinion, unless you plan on dumping your company pretty quickly, you definitaly need a brand.

On a side note, what a great discussion so far. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks Leela. By the way, I think I went to high school with you!

[Reply]

Richard Eastes Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 3:08 pm

By the way, to support the scientific method, both companies are identical in technology, usability and product offering. Only the branding and name is different.

[Reply]

Leela Cosgrove Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Indeed – we did go to high school together … which just goes to prove everything that Bill Gate’s Speech says – be nice to the geeks now, you’ll be working for them in 10 years time …

I don’t disagree with growing a brand – but as discussed previously – it should happen organically rather than going out and spending a tonne of cash on it …

I’d also be interested in knowing if the only difference between these two companies was branding?

It’s easy to ASSUME that that’s whats going on – but it’s important to test variables (thank you Mrs Hancock) – difference in target markets, marketing, sales, copywriting …

[Reply]

Richard Eastes Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Ha ha. Funny stuff. Yes, your points are valid. Yes, the only difference between these companies is that one has a brand name and one is generic, look is different, logo is different, sales text is different.

Technology, content, prices, rental cars, functionality, usability, customer service is all the same.

yo Rickster

that’s a good example i think. we see similar conversion metrics between generic search terms vs. brand name searches (i.e.5% vs 15%). though not nearly at your volumes

however i reckon a closer apples-with-apples comparison, would be to compare searches for carhire.com.au (the full name). then you know people were actually looking for the site, given a lot ‘car hire’ are probably just generic searches.

but valid point still made – that brand searches convert much higher and most likely better repeat user rates due to memorability etc..

[Reply]

Leela, I don’t think you were overly dramatic just strategically dramatic with the title of this post.

I’d add regarding logos that customers don’t form last relationships with logos they form relationships around their experience of a company’s performance.

Brands behave their way to greatness they don’t talk their way to greatness.

But another way, branding is a more a performance art than a graphic art.

Love this conversation; thanks for stirring things up.

Keep creating…a brand worth raving about,
Mike

[Reply]

As someone who works in design, the world is going to come crashing down because you know I actually absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you.

People are deluded if they think that they right shade of pink or a cheap logo from 99designs is going to make ANY difference to their business success.

A brand is built over time. It’s not instant.

Brands and logos are different things, though. A logo and colour scheme is not important. Branding is – but that is something that is built long term.

[Reply]

Thor Reply:
November 16th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Brand is a symptom of effective marketing and sales. Not a logo.

[Reply]

By the way, to support the scientific method, both companies are identical in technology, usability and product offering. Only the branding and name is different.

[Reply]