The Value of Branding
Bruce Turkel
“Bruce speaks with confidence and competence, triggering the audience to build solutions.” Grey Goose Vodka
Value of branding.
While I try to maintain this discussion on the powerful value of branding, some days I simply don’t have anything to write about. It doesn’t happen often, mind you. But now that I’ve religiously posted at least one blog post every week since 2007 (778 posts, btw) I must admit there are times when there’s not much to say.
There are a number of things I do to keep this from happening. I voraciously consume media – three daily newspapers, lots of magazines, and a number of websites and blogs – to keep up-to-date on our industry and the world around us. I think about what I want to talk about when I run my miles in the morning and when I’m out and about. And I constantly look for illustrations of good and bad branding examples to share with you. I also review a number of search engine protocols to see where people’s interests lie. It all creates a simple online focus group of sorts.
I’m also lucky that I’m so interested and involved in the subject that I always have a thought or opinion about what’s going on. Because of this, stories on diverse subjects such as increased travel to Cuba or the design of Marcel Breuer’s 1928 Cresca chair can be compelling inspiration for a post. Truth be told, my fingers often take over the writing when my brain can’t. That is, sometimes I just put my fingers on the keyboard and start typing and the thoughts flow out in an oddly coordinated way that results in a cogent post about the value of branding.
But perhaps the best inspiration for new ideas to write about the value of branding is the intersection of the business sector’s need for proven, hands-on branding advice and the vast selection of real world examples swirling around us.
For example, economist Paul Krugman wrote an editorial in The New York Timestitled A Tale Of Two Parties. Krugman opined on the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic and Republican establishments. Granted Krugman wrote a political column and you may or may not agree with his opinions, but what is interesting to me is that his op-ed on presidential positioning is really an insightful article on branding.
Krugman writes about Donald Trump’s primary success this way: “Donald Trump’s taunts about “low-energy” Jeb Bush and “little Marco” Rubio worked because they contained a large element of truth. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio dutifully repeated the usual conservative clichés, you could see that there was no sense of conviction behind their recitations. All it took was (Trump’s) huffing and puffing …to blow their houses down.”
Politics? Surely. But what Krugman is really writing about is how Trump’s attacks defined the brands for both Bush and Rubio. Why? Because as we’ve said so many times before, the number one rule of both politics AND branding is to define yourself before your competition does. As Krugman noted, both candidates failed to create their own authentic brands and therefore paid the politician’s ultimate price.
These types of real world, real time brand stories are all around us. Whether you like or dislike the circumstances, the branding lessons you can find in these situations are always valuable. All it takes is an open and interested eye to see them. More importantly, it takes a bit of discipline and initiative to use what you observe to improve your business and your life.
At the end of the day, that is where the real value of branding lies – its proven ability to improve your business and make you money. Because when there’s a clear alignment between your company’s authentic truth and your customers’ aspirations, and when your brand can truly make your customers feel good about themselves, the value of branding becomes invaluable.
__________________________________________________________________________
If you’re looking for more proven ways to brand yourself and your business, you must be one of the first to get my new book, All About Them. It’s available now for pre-order in hardcover, Kindle, or audio on Amazon, Apple, Barnes & Noble, 800-CEO-Read, and IndieBound.
Regional Director at FRLA Broward; Tourism Consultant & Speaker
8 年I agree with Randy's comments but in the context of politics "brand value" can be tricky. There are similarities when it comes to any brand that is based on the negative. For some reason people seem to be drawn to extremes: bad news, outrageous behavior in celebrities or politicians, even to an annoying commercial or song that you just can't get out of your mind. But my point is even though it may stick in their mind, at the end of the day do the majority of people really respond positively to a negative (buy if or vote for) I may not be a big fan of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio but Trumps negative comments towards his own party made me dislike him even more. They say any publicity is good publicity but is it really??
I have to run out the door to a meeting with a client in reference to their holiday mailing and when I saw an email with your latest blog link I thought I'd get some inspiration. However, after reading it, I have to take a moment to take exception to Krugman's premise and the argument you are proposing that " ... both candidates [Marco (TM) and Jeb! (TM)] failed to create their own authentic brands and therefore paid the politician’s ultimate price." Not exactly. The problem was not that they (their campaigns actually) didn't create a brand for them, it's that, #1 their brands were not authentic, they were stage sets at best. Bush tried to obscure the fact that he was a Bush. And disguise that (yes) he was "low-energy" with the exclamation point. Marco's puppet-like performances, callous disregard for the people he represents and fiction-based claims proved not worthy of any brand loyalty. Consumers (primary voters) were not as gullible as both campaigns had supposed. #2, neither campaign couldn't stand-up to an aggressive, untraditional and innovative (even if racist, misogynist and fact-challenged) branding campaign. Simply put they lost in the marketplace because the competition was better. Were their other factors and conditions at play such as populism and a desire to overturn the status quo? Sure. And the superior brand (Trump in this case) won the day. I could probably make a better case for this argument, but right now, it's off to that meeting, where at the very least I will advise the client that for branding to be effective, the #1 rule is it must be authentic.