Comments on: Long Live Branding

By: “Last Exit to Nowhere” | Carrotrope

“Last Exit to Nowhere” | Carrotrope — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:32:01 +0000

[...] did this have to do with the MacLeod/Doctorow/Fawkes/Godin dialectic of whether branding is dead or not or is or not, kinda? No one disputes that “people who like using the word ‘Brand’ [...]

By: Fred Sudancher

Fred Sudancher — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Like your thinkin’ PSFK. Keep up the agit!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I disagree with your assessment of the original article. One thing that is clear a strong brand cannot make up for a bad product. Now your theory is that a good brand infuses everything they do with a philosophy that makes it successful. So where did Nokia, et.al go wrong? These are modern companies with professionally managed brands implemented with the best talent money can buy. But the brand is not the answer for them.
A significant inconsistiency between the original article and your response is your selection of case studies. Your focus on the service industy suits your argument well and successfully. However Surowiecki's focus on product-oriented companies is equally appropriate to his theorem.
Looked at as a whole I propose that there is a time and place for brands and it is not a universal truth. A good consultant should be able to help their client understand the level of investment in brand vs. product for maximum success, not just promote the promise of brand that won't consistiently deliver in all situations.

By: Karenann

Karenann — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I was equally puzzled by Surowiedki's comments. While some of his points are interesting, I am wary of people who use diparate bits and pieces of data strung together to justify an argument.

Yes, the information age has produced a more savvy, sophisticated consumer. But this does not necessarily lead to the 'decline of brands.' Surowiecki makes the mistake of interchanging thoughts from economic trends, technology trends, and brands to come up with a confusing arguement.

Yes, five years ago, Sony charaged 44 percent more for its DVD players than the average manufacturer, compared to 16 percent today. Is this really a problem with the brand or the reality of technology and economics? I found it amazing that Sony even got a 16% premium. DVD's are commodities--like sugar. Get it?
Kudos to Sony for still hanging in on the DVD front. Sony, being the great brand as it, will most likely be releasing innovative products in its current category and in new categories that it will create. Remember the Walkman? The same phenomena occurred then, and that didn't result in the demise of the Sony brand.

And, as for the CyberHome $50 DVD's...again, this does not invalidate the Sony brand at all. And perhaps there is room for both. There are probably plenty of poor college students who now own DVDs who couldn't otherwise afford them. Or, plenty of households that have a Sony in the living room and now have a CyberHome in the kid's room. (Remember, Americans are uber consumers who will always want more) This may not be the case all of the time, but again, Surowiecki's argument is so absolute that it is important to poing out the nuances that he ignores.

And as for Zara and H&M (and I will through Target in there too), they are innovators in their own right: Cool looks and cool prices. Wow. (unfortunatley, we have never had a Top Shop in the US) But again, this does not negate the success of brands like Coach and Burberry who have been reinventing themselves. Neither does it humble Prada and Louis Vuitton (acknowledged by Surowiecki). While all in the fashion category, these brands have fundamentally different propositions: all fashionable, but varying degrees of quality (do you know how long Zara pants last?), service (see posting above), and the overall consumer experience. Finally, in the spirit of DVD players, take it from a spendthrift in New York: Three years ago I would only buy a new pair of Prada shoes at the beginning of every season. Now, I buy new a pair of Prada shoes, a pair of Prada slacks (salary increase), as well as a few pairs pants and some shirts from Zara and H&M thrown in for good measure.

Long live brands.

By: Chris Garrett

Chris Garrett — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Perhaps if people used other terms other than “brand” and “branding” then there would not be a debate to be had? It seems there are many valid points but people are talking about different things or at least coming from very different viewpoints. I have a feeling that some people would just like brands to be dead even if they do not believe they really are ;O)

By: fredd

fredd — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

again…..brands are not logos or logos or name plates. Branding is not the act of sticking a logo or a label on a product or service. Brands are about the total sum of experiences that anyone has with your product,your service or your company.Seen in this light, branding is a fact of life. Neither good or bad. It just it is. As long as people have any kind of experience with your product,service,or company, your brand will exist.The real question is whether it will have a succesful life or not.

By: Actualités Aurel Leven Nextstage

Actualités Aurel Leven Nextstage — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

La valeur d’une marque

Un article récent de Wired (The Decline of Branding) remet en cause nombre d’idées reçues sur l’importance des marques, et des stratégies de branding. Je suggère ici que si des consommateurs plus informés sont aujourd’hui moins influencés par les

By: Actualités Aurel Leven Nextstage

Actualités Aurel Leven Nextstage — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

La valeur d’une marque

By: PSFK

PSFK — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Brand Experience Is The New Marketing Imperative

Mark Beeching and Jeff Flemings, global executive director-creative and vice president/director – creative planning respectively at Digitas, despite their super-long job titles have produced a very insightful piece on branding as an organizational mis…