Canada’s Financial Post says successful branding is difficult work, and suggests “the cost of getting this wrong is usually much higher than the expense of doing it right.”

We agree.

So much so that this principle becomes our latest Law of Branding.

Here’s more of the story appearing in the Financial Post:

Last week Hewlett-Packard Canada unveiled a survey of 1,225 small and medium-sized business owners in which 55% defined “brand” as their product or company name, and 29% said they thought it was their logo.

In reality, branding is everything you do… It’s not just a logo or a line of shampoos — it’s the entire experience.

Canada’s entrepreneurs may not know what branding is, but they do know they’re not good at it. Only 45% of business owners polled by HP Canada say they are “very satisfied” with their company’s current brand. Yet, 59% of them say they consider branding a priority! Sadly, such disconnects are not rare…

As with any good discussion of the topic, the Financial Post offers this definition of branding:

“…[D]efining why you are, so that you become the only logical choice for what you offer.”

A definition with which we also agree.

[More posts about Branding Definition | More posts about Brand Definition | More posts about Laws Of Branding | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Own The Conversation® Strategy | More blogs about Branding Definitions]

Beware the committee approach in creating a breakthrough brand.

For our latest Law of Branding, we turn to this from Karen Post:

A by-product of brands “for the people” is the committee that compromises and kills potential brand home runs. That is why you never see statues of committees in parks; you see brave leaders.

Adam Hanft, author of Dictionary of the Future, notes, “There is no question that multiple levels of government, etc. militate against a successful branding campaign. When the strategy and advertising become dumbed down so that it satisfies bureaucrats and ends up as self-serving pabulum, it’s destined to die.”

The way around this is for leadership to take control and say, “Listen, while some issues demand creating a consensus, this is one area where a consensus will fail.” What might be helpful is to show resistors the kind of advertising that works in today’s culture and how a city that wants to brand itself as cool must rise to that level.

The same is true, of course, for committees in any organization. Including a Fortune 500.

Successful branding begs for insightful leadership.

It also often requires expert support skilled in the brand development process, and in process discipline.

Otherwise, any branding effort devolves to this, or this, or this.

[More posts about Laws Of Branding | More posts about Destination Branding | More posts about Place Branding | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Own The Conversation® Strategy | More posts about Government Strategy | More blogs about Laws of Branding]

With brand defined here, let’s revisit the cut to the chase definition of branding.

Rather than the often bewildering definitions and schematics offered by design shops, ad agencies and PR firms, the answer is much simpler, and essential to grasp. For any organization, product or place, branding is all about:

Defining why you are, so that you become the only logical choice for what you offer.

It is an organizing principle to demonstrate why you matter in a competitive marketplace.

Talk with us when ready to learn more.

[More posts about Branding Definition | More posts about Brand Definition | More posts about Laws Of Branding | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Own The Conversation® Strategy | More blogs about Branding Definitions]

Robert Stephens, founder and chief inspector of The Geek Squad, contends “Marketing is a tax you pay for being unremarkable.”

We agree.

We take it a step further — Advertising and other forms of marketing is the tax you pay for an ineffective brand.

For organization leaders who rush to an advertising or PR campaign without an understanding of the value of branding — including the brand name and narrative — the price they pay is steep.

[More posts about Branding Definition | More posts about Brand Definition | More posts about Laws Of Branding | More posts about Branding vs Marketing | More posts about Branding vs Advertising | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Brand Simplicity | More blogs about Branding Definitions]

With brand defined here, what is the cut to the chase definition of branding?

Rather than the often bewildering definitions offered by ad agencies and PR firms, the answer is much simpler, and essential to grasp. For any product, place or organization brand, branding is:

Defining why you are, so that you become the only logical choice for what you offer.

Talk with us when ready to learn more.

[More posts about Branding Definition | More posts about Brand Definition | More posts about Laws Of Branding | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Own The Conversation® Strategy | More posts about Brand Simplicity | More blogs about Branding Definitions]

In storytelling, the surprise ending is remembered over the predictable finish.

In movie making, the surprise beginning engages the viewer to watch a two-hour film.

In brand strategy, the unexpected wins out over the expected when an audience is exposed to a brand name and brand narrative.

Use of the unexpected creates attraction, a door opener, through which real conversation may begin with an audience any brand seeks to attract and convert. Understanding our Law of the Unexpected and putting it to use works to ensure a brand name or narrative is not forgotten among the 3,500 advertising messages individuals are exposed to daily.

The New York Times reported on the work of Barbara Kahn of the Wharton School and Elizabeth Gelfand Miller of Boston College, and the effect names of colors and flavors have on consumers:

…[U]nusual names were more popular…the unexpected won out when subjects were given the opportunity to think about it, as a shopper at a cosmetics counter generally does… [T]he key seemed to be unexpectedness itself, which essentially engages the consumer in an attempt to solve the puzzle of the name. This rapid, essentially unconscious cognitive process, Kahn and Miller wrote recently in The Journal of Consumer Research, ‘’results in additional (positive) attributions about the product and thus, a more favorable response.'’ This seems to affect not only whether a person chooses to buy something but also, oddly, how much she enjoys it.

People will mentally stop and invest their time to fill-in-the-blanks when they see an unexpected name or message for a product. Again, from the New York Times:

Kahn and Miller cite two theories of mental processing that may be at work. In the case of ‘’unexpected descriptive'’ names, we may be able to solve the puzzle to our satisfaction. With the more logic-defying names, we essentially conclude that there must be some reason for it, and given the circumstances (it’s a product for sale in a market society), the reason must be positive.

As our sister brand naming group Igor describes it:

It comes down to making sure the puzzle we create is not too easy nor too difficult to solve. It’s about making the gap wide enough for your audience to lean forward and make the leap, but not so wide they have nowhere to land. If it is too short a jump it’s not interesting, too long and no one will even attempt the journey. And it is all about making sure that puzzle is multi-layered and contextual.

The Law of the Unexpected is about creating a brief mystery in product name or brand narrative to create attraction. Consumers will often stop and invest their time and mental effort to hear a thought expressed in an unexpected way.

Famous examples of organizations relying upon the Law of the Unexpected in naming themselves and later, in their brand narratives, include Apple and Virgin.

Use of the Law of the Unexpected also led to the unique and memorable name of a professional services firm engaged on behalf of brands internationally. This one.

[More posts about Brand Naming | More posts about Law of the Unexpected | More posts about Laws of Branding | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Brand Narrative | More blogs about Brand Naming]

In the 1930s, Harvard linguist George Kingsley Zipf found that “the” — the most-used English word — occurred about twice as often as “of” (second place), about three times as often as “and” (third) and so on.

All well and good, but how does Zipf’s Law apply to the discipline of branding? A recent study in Australia illustrates the power of branding in developing consumer preference and market share. From the New York Times:

Jan H. Hofmeyr, an expert on consumer behavior at Synovate…said he recently discovered that Zipf’s law also applied to the brand preferences of consumers and their spending habits.

“Marketers have always known it’s better to be No. 1 than No. 2, but now you can attach a revenue consequence to that,” Mr. Hofmeyr said.

Before being adopted by Synovate, Mr. Hofmeyr’s ideas were tested in Australia on two product categories: toilet paper and instant coffee. Consumers were asked to identify the brands they used and to rank them in order of preference.

According to his model, consumers who used four brands of toilet paper might have been expected to spend about 53 percent of their toilet paper budget on the top choice, 27 percent on the second brand, 13 percent on the third and 7 percent on the fourth.

In the Australian test case, consumers actually spent 50 percent on the top choice, 33 percent on the second, 9 percent on the third and 8 percent on the fourth. Averaged over hundreds of consumers, Mr. Hofmeyr said, the study showed an unusually high correlation between stated preferences and actual purchase decisions.

Zipf’s law…demonstrates the relative benefits of moving up in the rankings, Mr. Hofmeyr said. A product that leaps from second to first in a category can…affect a company’s bottom line, he said, while the advantage of moving up to, say, No. 5 from No. 6 is much smaller.

“With this approach, the moment you determine a brand’s ranking, you can predict the market share,” he said.

A real world understanding of Zipf’s Law is found in the Number One Number Two strategy initiated by Jack Welch early in his tenure as CEO of GE. If a GE business wasn’t first or second in its markets worldwide, or couldn’t be made so, it would be sold.

And how might any brand become number one or number two in its industry? By use of an own the conversation® strategy.

[More posts about Brand Equity | More posts about Laws of Branding | More posts about Zipf’s Law | More posts about George Kingsley Zipf | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Own The Conversation® Strategy | More posts about Brand Management | More posts about Jack Welch | More posts about GE | More blogs about Brand Equity]

“The only corporate asset that can appreciate is your brand.”

This sage advice was offered by Bill Kupper, President of Business Week. Mr. Kupper was part of a panel appearing at The CEO Forum, hosted in Beijing earlier this month.

We agree. Contrary to the depreciation experienced by every other balance sheet asset, a brand is the sole asset capable of appreciating in value.

Thanks to Mr. Kupper, our latest addition to the Laws of Branding.

[More posts about Brand Management | More posts about Brand Equity | More posts about Laws of Branding | More posts about Business Week | More posts about Brand Strategy | More posts about Beijing | More posts about China | More blogs about Brand Equity]

Addressing the question examined months ago by Business Week, what is the cut to the chase definition of the word brand?

Rather than the often bewildering and verbose definitions offered by trendy ad agencies and PR firms, the answer is much simpler, and essential to grasp:

Your brand is your promise. How you keep it means everything.

We trust Leonardo would be proud.

Talk with us when ready to learn more.

Borrowed equity is the label applied to one strategy used to grow the value of a brand. Here’s how it works - borrow the reputation of another, often more established, brand to gain consideration in the mind of the consumer to drive trial and repeat, and/or to move up the value chain to command a higher margin. Use of this borrowed brand equity reflects upon and adds value to yours.

Here’s an example.

Occam’s Razor is a principle attributed to the 14th-century Franciscan friar William of Occam [or Ockham]. Also referred to as the principle of parsimony or law of economy, the Razor is of value when considering brand strategy.

Stated in its original Latin as numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate, the Razor is often translated as given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler and alternatively, the simplest answer is usually correct.

In branding the simplest answer is usually correct. The reason is that branding is a search for the obvious.

The obvious are the easiest concepts to communicate and remember because they make the most sense to the recipient of the message. However, for companies in need of brand strategy, experience reveals that obvious concepts are often the most difficult to recognize, as the human mind tends to admire the complicated and dismiss the obvious as too simplistic.

We take our cue from Leonardo da Vinci, who lived after Occam’s time and developed a variant of Occam’s Razor: [in branding] Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication.

Many corporate and organizational leaders fall into the trap of relying upon public relations experts for brand strategy. The difference between experts in brand strategy and those practiced in public relations is sizable. Each profession performs far different functions. Some executives recognize the difference.

Branding differentiates one brand from all others. Public relations communicates that difference.

Branding demonstrates the answer to Why Should We Care About You? Public relations assumes a reason exists.

Branding is the mental short cut to identifying the first choice. Public relations is the long road.

Branding is the point scorer. Public relations is the cheerleader.

Here’s an example.

Branding is demonstrating, advertising is explaining. What you fail to demonstrate, you are left to explain.

The most effective brands demonstrate their value, knowledge and understanding of consumer wants and needs rather than explaining themselves.

Brand strategy demonstrates consumer relevancy in contrast to, for example, adulatory advertising explanations.

Branding engages your customer to lean forward and pursue you. Advertising pleads with and chases after customers.

Branding is a seduction. Advertising is a television spot bleating Get More.

Creation of a brand to which your audience is drawn rather than chased is of material dollar impact to any organization.

Brand strategy decreases and eliminates advertising expense. Advertising strategy institutionalizes long-term advertising spends into the P&L.

It bears repeating:

Branding is demonstrating, advertising is explaining. What you fail to demonstrate, you are left to explain.

Branding engages your customer to lean forward and pursue you. Advertising pleads with and chases after customers.

Branding is a seduction. Advertising is stalking.

Advertising is a shout. Branding is a whisper.

Brand strategy works even when the brand is not advertising.

Branding. Smarter than Advertising.

All the best names and taglines are provocations: Virgin, Yahoo, Caterpillar, Fannie Mae, GAP, Banana Republic, Crossfire. To qualify as a provocation, a name or tagline must contain what most would call “negative messages” for the goods and services the name is to represent. Get the full scoop on the power of negativity in company names from Igor’s Theory of Negativity.

The more a brand relies upon an adulatory message – We Are Better, We Offer More, We Cost Less, We Make A Difference – the higher the advertising expense.

Adulatory claims are an advertising strategy.

Anyone can make an adulatory claim. And, anyone can top the last one.

Adulatory claims require a constant and expensive media presence. Which may be okay if an organization has the annual advertising budget of a Fortune 500.

Adulatory claims, and cousin the cheerleader message, gain credibility among those on the inside responsible for the brand – executives, members of the Board, administration, brand managers, other organizational leaders. They feel great about cheerleader messaging in their advertising because the message is so darn POSITIVE. But each of these insiders is already convinced - they are paid to pay attention - while the consumer they wish to influence is not. Instead, the consumer has to pay, literally, when they pay attention – they pay with their time and mental effort, neither of which consumers are likely to invest when a brand shouts in self flattery.

Cheerleader advertising claims have equal application to ANY brand – Get More from T-Mobile, the Leap Ahead campaign of Intel, or any late night TV advertising for a car dealership – which is why they are so numbingly unmemorable, and irrelevant.