Comments on: Let’s get it right, your brand & “your brand” aren’t the same http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/ Life between form & meaning. Adventures in the transformation of marketing by communications, design & technology, meandering from theory to practice. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:25:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Uri http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-167 Uri Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:57:27 +0000 http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/#comment-167 Good points Asi, although a little out of the scope of this post I hope to address them with time. At the moment: a. yes, I'm familiar with the brands/branding are/is dead meme, and had i blogged when this discussion was on, I'd probably answer something similar to what Jennifer Rice said at the time. http://brand.blogs.com/mantra/2004/11/rebranding_the_.html Branding as what it grew to be became too focused on dressing up intentions and ambitions, and too little on authentic communication with the market (too focused on "the brand"). there are other comments on the articles, but for time being I'll just say the concept of the brand is still incredibly useful to describe the "short-hand in the mind of the customer". b. I partially disagree with your second point. At least where I come from, while meaning can be created in the places you mention, it "exists" when there is an interpreting mind giving it meaning. Yes, there are various dialectical spaces contributing to the process, but it's helpful to boil it down to a simpler level before we bring them into consideration. (i believe we had a narratologist vs. anthropologist moment there :-) ) c. I do agree with the general sentiment, and believe this post actually points in that direction - When a company realises that its branding efforts are just defining an intention, an ambition, a communication of their side of the conversation, it then forces them to see what the other side of the dialogue perceives and communicates back. Only then they can truly start thinking about bi-directional communications. And yes, all companies need to "stand for something already!!!!1!!1!", and so do individuals in the work-marketplace, but to me that just emphasises a bigger need for focused and meticulous planning, designing, plotting, architecture... and all those other words that signify the marriage of form & meaning. Good points Asi, although a little out of the scope of this post I hope to address them with time. At the moment:
a. yes, I’m familiar with the brands/branding are/is dead meme, and had i blogged when this discussion was on, I’d probably answer something similar to what Jennifer Rice said at the time.
http://brand.blogs.com/mantra/2004/11/rebranding_the_.html

Branding as what it grew to be became too focused on dressing up intentions and ambitions, and too little on authentic communication with the market (too focused on “the brand”). there are other comments on the articles, but for time being I’ll just say the concept of the brand is still incredibly useful to describe the “short-hand in the mind of the customer”.

b. I partially disagree with your second point. At least where I come from, while meaning can be created in the places you mention, it “exists” when there is an interpreting mind giving it meaning. Yes, there are various dialectical spaces contributing to the process, but it’s helpful to boil it down to a simpler level before we bring them into consideration. (i believe we had a narratologist vs. anthropologist moment there :-) )

c. I do agree with the general sentiment, and believe this post actually points in that direction – When a company realises that its branding efforts are just defining an intention, an ambition, a communication of their side of the conversation, it then forces them to see what the other side of the dialogue perceives and communicates back.
Only then they can truly start thinking about bi-directional communications.
And yes, all companies need to “stand for something already!!!!1!!1!”, and so do individuals in the work-marketplace, but to me that just emphasises a bigger need for focused and meticulous planning, designing, plotting, architecture… and all those other words that signify the marriage of form & meaning.

]]> By: Asi http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-166 Asi Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:07:12 +0000 http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/#comment-166 Apology for the double-comment, but after my commenting I went on with my morning blogworm routine and found this very interesting post from Brian, which i thought is relevant to the point you're making: http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2006/08/03/brand-space-and-the-creation-of-new-markets/ Apology for the double-comment, but after my commenting I went on with my morning blogworm routine and found this very interesting post from Brian, which i thought is relevant to the point you’re making:
http://tenayagroup.com/blog/2006/08/03/brand-space-and-the-creation-of-new-markets/

]]> By: Asi http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Asi Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:28:29 +0000 http://www.marketingbabylon.com/2006/08/03/marketing/brand-confusion/#comment-165 Uri, Its been quite a long time since i've read a post about "branding". For some reasons I had the feeling that the branding discourse is something of the past...just a few examples: http://occultdesign.blogspot.com/2005/09/brand-is-dead.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/brands.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/themes/brand.html One point i want to make in relation to "It’s not about branding, it’s about meaning". The brand does not exist in the minds of people - the meaning of a brand exist in the communicative spaces between people, media, stakeholders, marketing comms, touch points etc. What i'm trying to say is that meaning is dialogical and relational and is constructed BETWEEN people as they talk to each other, read the papers (or blogs) and in the various touch points where they actually interact with the brand whatever it is. In times of cause/narrative/new/conversational(pick up your buzz word..) marketing, a brand is supposed to stand for something…..so stand for something already! Uri,

Its been quite a long time since i’ve read a post about “branding”. For some reasons I had the feeling that the branding discourse is something of the past…just a few examples:

http://occultdesign.blogspot.com/2005/09/brand-is-dead.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/brands.html?tw=wn_tophead_5
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/themes/brand.html

One point i want to make in relation to “It’s not about branding, it’s about meaning”.

The brand does not exist in the minds of people – the meaning of a brand exist in the communicative spaces between people, media, stakeholders, marketing comms, touch points etc.

What i’m trying to say is that meaning is dialogical and relational and is constructed BETWEEN people as they talk to each other, read the papers (or blogs) and in the various touch points where they actually interact with the brand whatever it is.

In times of cause/narrative/new/conversational(pick up your buzz word..) marketing, a brand is supposed to stand for something…..so stand for something already!

]]>