Discussion:
Use and Misuse of Branding
(too old to reply)
Mail Man Bob
2007-08-10 16:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Who came up with the concept of "branding"? I know it has been around for a
long time, but now it has permeated every business -- large and small --
whether they need it or not.

For example, what could a small multi-disciplinary professional organization
composed of dues-paying members need with branding? The purpose of the
organization is to provide certain types of professions with the services
and products to help them improve, the way I look at it.

Sticking with the professional organization, branding seems to be more for
attracting new members. This is fine, but in the organization I am thinking
of (nameless) they are ignoring their member base and going after what some
top people perceive as a "booming market". This booming market is only
remotely related to the existing base.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone is reading this, so I'll pause to see if
anyone chimes in.

Bob
NC
2007-08-10 21:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mail Man Bob
Who came up with the concept of "branding"?
James Walter Thompson, if I remember correctly...
Post by Mail Man Bob
it has permeated every business -- large and small -- whether
they need it or not.
As basic economic theory suggests, branding is necessary, unless you
are able and willing to compete purely on price.
Post by Mail Man Bob
For example, what could a small multi-disciplinary
professional organization composed of dues-paying
members need with branding? The purpose of the
organization is to provide certain types of professions
with the services and products to help them improve,
the way I look at it.
Well, the way you look at it is not the only way to look at it.
Alternatives to your view include increasing the visibility of your
members through increasing the visibility of the organization, raising
the public awareness of the profession(s) the organization represents,
and all that jazz.
Post by Mail Man Bob
Sticking with the professional organization, branding
seems to be more for attracting new members.
Maybe, but if done well, it will also lead to improved business and/or
employment prospects for current members.
Post by Mail Man Bob
This is fine, but in the organization I am thinking of
(nameless) they are ignoring their member base and going
after what some top people perceive as a "booming market".
This booming market is only remotely related to the
existing base.
Well, you're a member, aren't you? Get it added to the agenda of the
next annual meeting. Circulate a letter explaining your views on the
matter (you do have a copy of membership directory, don't you?);
better yet, get at least a few more members (the more prominent, the
better) to co-sign it. Start soliciting proxies to vote down the
policy you don't like. In plain terms, if you want something changed,
work towards it...

Cheers,
NC
Mail Man Bob
2007-08-11 17:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by NC
Post by Mail Man Bob
Who came up with the concept of "branding"?
James Walter Thompson, if I remember correctly...
Post by Mail Man Bob
it has permeated every business -- large and small -- whether
they need it or not.
As basic economic theory suggests, branding is necessary, unless you
are able and willing to compete purely on price.
Post by Mail Man Bob
For example, what could a small multi-disciplinary
professional organization composed of dues-paying
members need with branding? The purpose of the
organization is to provide certain types of professions
with the services and products to help them improve,
the way I look at it.
Well, the way you look at it is not the only way to look at it.
Alternatives to your view include increasing the visibility of your
members through increasing the visibility of the organization, raising
the public awareness of the profession(s) the organization represents,
and all that jazz.
Post by Mail Man Bob
Sticking with the professional organization, branding
seems to be more for attracting new members.
Maybe, but if done well, it will also lead to improved business and/or
employment prospects for current members.
Post by Mail Man Bob
This is fine, but in the organization I am thinking of
(nameless) they are ignoring their member base and going
after what some top people perceive as a "booming market".
This booming market is only remotely related to the
existing base.
Well, you're a member, aren't you? Get it added to the agenda of the
next annual meeting. Circulate a letter explaining your views on the
matter (you do have a copy of membership directory, don't you?);
better yet, get at least a few more members (the more prominent, the
better) to co-sign it. Start soliciting proxies to vote down the
policy you don't like. In plain terms, if you want something changed,
work towards it...
Cheers,
NC
I appreciate your posting. Some excellent points and I agree with just
about. What I was trying to say was that branding is not good or bad -- it
depends on the purpose and who's doing the branding.

In the case of this prof society, the branding seems to be trying to take
the direction away from the long-time member base needs and attract people
of different professions.

This is a highly specialized assoc and not familiar to the general public,
so I'll substitute something easier to identify with...

Let's say the organization is the National Assoc of Air Conditioning
Engineers (NAACE). Membership has been declining over the years but the
leadership does not realize that it is because the society is not focused on
that profession. Instead, they call in a consultant who says that the AC
Engr market is maxed out and that in order to grow they need to expand into
related areas. So the leadership decides to go after "Green Construction",
thinking that the AC folks will be happy as a sub-section of the new
organization. The effect of this is that new members in loosely-related
industries join, but an even greater number of old AC members start to
drop-out.

Also, they decide to change the name from National Assoc of AC Engrs to
International Assoc of Green Building Engrs. This gains members in India
and China and S American, but repels more members in the US.

Anyway, this is pretty much the situation we have here.

Yes, going to meetings and gathering support is fine, but the members will
be over-ruled by the Exec Committee -- who are also members, but are a part
of this conspiracy.

The motivating force behind this attempted hijacking of the organization is
those who stand to gain monetarily -- that is, those on the exec board (who
are also exec in green construction companies) and those hired by the board
to increase membership (the pay is linked to membership increases).

So, you see, in this case any kind of grass root movement will have no
effect.

Also, I ran across this basic page about brands in general...
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Brand/id/1937664
Tech 22 22
2007-08-12 20:22:10 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 10, 9:56 am, "Mail Man Bob" <***@where.com> wrote:
Who came up with the concept of "branding"?
James Walter Thompson, if I remember correctly...
it has permeated every business -- large and small -- whether
they need it or not.....

.. what could a small multi-disciplinary professional organization
composed of dues-paying members need with branding?


In the case of this prof society, the branding seems to be trying to
take the direction away from the long-time member base needs and attract
people of different professions.
This is a highly specialized assoc and not familiar to the general
public, so I'll substitute something easier to identify with...
Let's say the organization is the National Assoc of Air Conditioning
Engineers (NAACE). Membership has been declining over the years but the
leadership does not realize that it is because the society is not
focused on that profession. Instead, they call in a consultant who says
that the AC Engr market is maxed out and that in order to grow they need
to expand into related areas. So the leadership decides to go after
"Green Construction"...

=====================
More then a few thoughts to sit with...

Firstly, you are speaking if visual branding, also known as a LABEL.
Also, you are inadvertently making an argument FOR visual branding
(Labels).

By essentially stating that in reality the market focus has changed for
the product, and that the brand (label) represents this shift in focus
in an honest way, you are making an argument for the effectiveness of
authentic branding (Labeling that says whats inside the box, and does
not lie).

And yes, you are stating that the corporation is broadcasting their
intentions. This is the essence of ethical branding lol. Could what you
mean to say be that the branding is honest, but painfully true?


Think of a brand as a promise plus pride personified together. Think of
the name as "what we do". Think of the visuals as "who we are". And
think of the slogan as "who we do it for". When done well, a brand can
be a VERY motivational and inspirational tool for the org itself! It
should literally EMOTE all by itself.

As time goes by, a brand is much more than these elements, so this is
oversimplified some, but makes a key point - bear with me.

So, in the label thus you have your arms around an explicit promise of
things to come... what you'll get, from whom, and who you likely are if
you need this particular thing.

Since the brain can processes symbols more readily and with more
sophistication than words... (a picture is worth a thousand words), the
brand can speak very quickly. Since you can adjust the elements of it
(color, size, etc.) people can quickly identify your goods if they want
to find it in a group.

Thus, for the company, it becomes a tool. By tinkering with this
promise, this statement in symbols and words, you can now use this icon
to quickly speak your intentions to a large amount of people and
capture/ maintain interest according to promises kept.

Moving along, I feel there is deceptive branding and authentic branding,
with a gap. The narrower the gap, the closer what's promised on the
label reflects what's "in the box". The branding promise, like so many
other things in this culture has been somewhat watered down with quests
for higher upfront profits even at the expense of quality. Thus the new
twist on branding is becoming further from the old way of authenticity.

James Walter Thompson came up with the concept of branding -- NOT. It
proceeds him by at least a thousand years. Branding is rooted in the
"Namesake", more specifically the family mark. It shows who "owns" the
entity, and this implies the aforementioned promise by virtue of a clan
reputation.

As a concept it Appears in virtually all cultures independent of the
others, though more brazenly presented in some. The flag on the side of
a gunship is essentially a brand, thinking of a brand as a promised
intent plus pride personified together. War paint in tribal cultures
often was a version of the same idea. Promise and pride.

The family/ clan mark was similar to what you see in a coat of arms or
totem pole, and told a story. As things evolved, the trades also began
to develop their own marks which designated them as professionals in
their areas of expertise. Normally, each family/ clan would have a key
trade in which it excelled, and would hope to represent the family as
well as the profession. The symbolization of the profession and the
family together made up the Service- Mark, label, or "brand". This told
what service was promised and at what quality at a glance.

Now that we have that out of the way, you might see how your point shows
the effective and authentic labeling of the company in question. So, the
problem is not the branding. As a matter of fact, please congratulate
them for me, they've "done good" in branding, attaining a very narrow
authenticity gap.

So, what's really the problem? Perhaps it falls under one of these two
sets of things -

A1) Either the corporation is in violation of it's own charter in which
case legal action can be taken by members to get back monies expended -
because they have promised to do (a) but really did (b) (Illegal). You
could file a complain with the state.

A2) They did it by quickly recruiting new members and controlling the
direction of the org with votes - to gain income for the Org. and
benefit themselves and the majority of members. (Legal... but you can
always cast the green vote$ - cancel your memberships or bring in more
members yourselves and take it back over).
Other alternatives may apply - I'm a recovering Marketaholic not an atty
:)

OR

B1) They recognized the opportunity to grow into new areas and did so to
protect the long range viability of the organization (Most likely
guessing from your example).

B2) Such growth represented the dynamic changes of emerging markets and
change comes with a price. It inconveniences the "old guard" and those
who have become settled into the velvet trap of what's "always been". In
other words, they had to change or perish - better to switch ships than
go down with the old.

But alas everything is changing now... consolidation, diversification,
acceleration. Please don't feel too bad. We're all in this together.
Feeling the sting (or joy) of change right about now, It's tough,
depending on which side of fate you fall on.

Hopefully you'll get on it's good side in another area, and it'll all
sort of average out.

In closing, there is something called Unbranding which is closely tied
to the culture jamming movement. It's more of a political statement than
a good way to market or aquire wares. The problem is, as with most
Direct Action strategies, it does not answer the new problem set created
by the pseudo solution it poses.

Save the world! Yellow let it mellow - homespun labels with a rubber
stamp. Soho cafes, Outdoor P.J.s - duct tape sandals as designer shoes.

But don't cry for me, Argentina.
I'll be an Ethan Allen convert by 40. For even if the Money and the
Matrix miss me, the Midlife Crises shall not fail.


~zion~
Mail Man Bob
2007-08-14 01:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Interesting. Thanks for the info.

There are individuals at the top in this organization who are trying to
increase the "profit" for this assoc at the expense of the existing members,
who are finding their organization being steered away. Unfortunately, all
the screaming, voting, letter-writing won't affect anything. Those who are
in control have already re-written the constitution and bylaws, so that the
members essentially have no say so any more.
Tech 22 22
2007-08-14 16:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Hmmm. This "Org." would not happen to be called the "U.S. Gov" would
it? ;).

Are you sure there is adequate demand for the original organizational
services? If so, best way to deal with things now, if you are serious,
is break away. Then put your best troops in charge, create your own
brand, and compete. Do this in the name of ethical management and a more
focused agenda closer to the original program of services.

Best of Luck!

~zion
Old Nikko
2007-08-14 16:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mail Man Bob
There are individuals at the top in this organization who are trying to
increase the "profit" for this assoc at the expense of the existing members,
who are finding their organization being steered away. Unfortunately, all
the screaming, voting, letter-writing won't affect anything. Those who are
in control have already re-written the constitution and bylaws, so that the
members essentially have no say so any more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the cow quits giving milk, you sell the cow to Mickey-D's to make
Big-Mac's - and bring in the freshened calf. -- You DO have a
freshened calf or two waiting their turn, don't you?

With a strong, but badly mislead group already waiting for real
leadership, take the bull by the horns and lead. Take what the
majority already wants and build a new organization based on that...
and BTW, make it a fairly "exclusive group"... tightly focused and
reasonably hard to get into. Then, heavily recruit the new membership
candidates your group really wants to reach.

Oh yeah, keep the promises the "old group" failed to keep.
Learn the lessons of failure, and work from there.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. ~ Thom. Jefferson (1787)

Now, go refresh that tree...

Nick
GM, The Entrepreneur Community Network (tm)
Tech 22 22
2007-08-20 16:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Re: Take the bully by the horns and send it to McDonald's.

- I'd agree but Well, I read the flow of posts, and the only way to do
this now is if the older members have more voting rights than the new
members who've come on board. I doubt that's the case, it's probably one
person = one vote as in the majority of service type corporations. It
would be nice if the OP could state if they sell shares.

He's stated that the new members agree with the new direction, and also
outnumber the old in voting power. This seems to indicate that the
market forces are at play (a demand being met by a provision). This is
further highlighted by the example he used, which points to the rapidly
emerging Green market (Environmentally friendly goods and processes),
which is turning the building industry and trades on it's heels.

So I think what' going on here is a matter of some comfy old
organization finally meeting with the natural transitions that come with
the corporate life cycle. To produce a seed, something has to die first.
Such is the nature of life.


~zion
Gerald Abrahamson
2007-08-14 16:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:25:14 -0000, "Mail Man Bob"
Post by Mail Man Bob
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
There are individuals at the top in this organization who are trying to
increase the "profit" for this assoc at the expense of the existing members,
who are finding their organization being steered away. Unfortunately, all
the screaming, voting, letter-writing won't affect anything. Those who are
in control have already re-written the constitution and bylaws, so that the
members essentially have no say so any more.
Sounds like AARP.
Mail Man Bob
2007-08-11 17:41:17 UTC
Permalink
I see the advantages of proper branding, but in this specific case, I am
more concerned with how this misuse of branding has the potential to harm
the health of a thriving organization. Here is one article with a view
similar to mine...


http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Brand/id/1937664

Brand - Criticisms of branding
Criticism has been leveled against the concept and implementation of brands,
much of it associated with the "antiglobalization" movement. One of the
better known criticisms of branding is found in Naomi Klein's book, No Logo.
The book claims that corporations' brands serve as structures for
corporations to hide behind, and that such global problems as sweatshop
labor and environmental degradation have been permitted and exacerbated by
branding.

Criticism of branding also comes from within corporations, with some
employees becoming frustrated by being limited by overall brand strategies
that restrict what they can say, how they say it, and what Pantone colour to
say it in. Some shareholders also have concerns about the amount of money
invested in branding.

Skepticism toward branding has also grown in parts of the marketing
community since the end of the dotcom boom, though for a very different
reason: in many ways, branding has failed to live up to its promise.
Tech 22 22
2007-08-20 16:06:51 UTC
Permalink
re: Employees feeling limited by branding

I've not read that book, but some books just aren't worth a tree dying
for. A book author can always find the "animals" they seek in the market
place. (To make a cheap point for a book).

"There was one prospect" the author will say, "who promised two hundred
orders if the vendor would rip the logo off the box before shipping the
boxes out. The Sales person agreed to personally rip it off in front of
the CEO, and the order was received and paid for without a hitch".

*Yawn*.

Listen folks. The "Sanguine" or "Excitement Motivated" personality
archetype as an employee makes up approximately 25% of the work force
but soaks up much of the managers time. The manager has to constantly
redirect this animals creativity or it will bleed all over everything
and ruin any clarity, definition, consistency, and clarity the
organization has established.

Such a person can always think of new ideas. They will tell the
hospitality manager, with great flair, how a thin film of reflective
material will conserve body heat as well as a blanket or comforter, and
save the hotel millions of dollars in bedding costs. They will tell how
a bed suspended from the ceiling with chains can rock the person to
sleep AND be raised out of the way in the daytime. How scantily clad
dancers, funnels, and double expressos can bring triple attendance to
the morning continental breakfast in the main lobby.

These animals quickly tire of the corporate (pantone) colors, and are
quick to take a paintbrush and add their OWN corporate slogan to their
company tee-shirt, showing it off at the company picnic.

These animals will always be amongst us (indeed their brilliance
sometimes has it's place).

But Gentlemen, business must be conducted in the real world, not some
captain marvel cartoon. The job of management is partly to make sure
that what's NOT broken is not being fixed, and the company certainly NOT
rebranded nor UNbranded just because a few of these animals became bored
again.

~zion
creativechaos
2007-08-14 16:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Branding is the use of a hot iron to mark a horse or cow with a mark of
ownership...

In marketing, the brand can be viewed as a mark representing a promise... A
promise of quality, a promise of cutting edge innovation, a promise of
reliability, a promise of what you make it...

A brand is very useful if you have a lot of competition... If you don't have
a lot of competition then it basically doesn't mean very much...

Think Apple Computer, Virgin airlines... McDonald's hamburgers or Tico Taco
Mexican fast food in Santa Cruz California...

Branding is nothing more than a symbol for a promise... You will need to
establish the promise before a brand becomes valuable...

J.P.
Post by Mail Man Bob
Who came up with the concept of "branding"? I know it has been around for a
long time, but now it has permeated every business -- large and small --
whether they need it or not.
For example, what could a small multi-disciplinary professional organization
composed of dues-paying members need with branding? The purpose of the
organization is to provide certain types of professions with the services
and products to help them improve, the way I look at it.
Sticking with the professional organization, branding seems to be more for
attracting new members. This is fine, but in the organization I am thinking
of (nameless) they are ignoring their member base and going after what some
top people perceive as a "booming market". This booming market is only
remotely related to the existing base.
Anyway, I don't know if anyone is reading this, so I'll pause to see if
anyone chimes in.
Bob
Tech 22 22
2007-08-20 16:07:08 UTC
Permalink
re: Branding is meaningless where there is little competition.

Disagreed (!)

That's a lot like saying "a flag is useless once a country is
established".

~zion

Loading...