by: John Caddell
I recently saw a to-do list on the wall at a company's marketing department. At the top of the list was "re-branding." And I've been thinking about that for some days. What is re-branding?
The outward characteristics of a brand don't mean much if they don't reflect the intrinsic characteristics of the company and its offerings. An old, staid company with a sleek modern logo hasn't added anything to its brand except perhaps confusion. It's hard to put into a formula, but I'd say something like
Brand = Company History + Customer Perceptions + Noncustomer Perceptions + Impact of (Advertising & Publicity)
The re-branding exercise most directly affects the latter, and, over time, noncustomer perceptions as well. It can't contradict company history or customer perceptions, so a complete reinvention of the brand is not possible.
Assuming equal weight to each, "re-branding" as it's understood by marketing people can alter your brand image up to 25%. It, of course, has the advantage that it can be executed by the marketing department--without the challenge of rewriting history and changing customers' perceptions.
So don't call it "re-branding." Call it "new logo," perhaps, or "new look." And be careful that your re-branding exercise doesn't distract you from the long, hard work of truly strengthening your brand. That takes more than the marketing department to do.
It takes everybody.
Original Post: http://shoptalkmarketing.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-branding-oxymoron.html
The Brand is the promise. Stating the promise is Marketing. Getting value for the promise is Sales. Delivering the promise is Customer Service. Keeping the promise is Customer Satisfaction.
Thanks for this post John. The confusion of branding with housestyle & advertising campaigns is too widespread for comfort. It relates to the elusive character of brands. Even an agreed, solid academic definition of the concept is missing. The best definition I've heard so far is: 'brands are promises'.