Skip to main content

Branding As A Force for Good

Lately I’ve been kind of critical of branding, pointing to some of the evils it supports, like:

 

  • The tendency to treat other human beings as objects to be exploited for our own gratification
  • The tendency to cut costs in unethical ways while profiting from an image of superior quality

We could add many more things to this list, no doubt.

 

But amid all the furor about how “brands are bad for you,” I think one thing is getting lost: brands are created to fulfill a few needs that are very, very important and very human. Without brands our world would be a lesser place.

 

Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

 

First, at the most basic level, brands make decent-quality products available to masses of people at an affordable cost.

 

  • McDonald’s has the dollar menu.
  • Bounty paper towels come in a more affordable version.
  • Coca-Cola refreshes consumers in rich and poor countries alike.
  • Wal-Mart really does make good on its promise to supply Americans with the basic goods they need to survive.

By virtue of becoming a brand, brands open themselves up to quality control not internally but by a social media-savvy audience that keeps them accountable for their promises. When brands mess up, it’s all over the Internet.

 

When you think about food brands alone, this situation is hugely beneficial to the financially disadvantaged. If you want to eat but don’t have money to be choosey, you are easily at risk for food poisoning and worse when you go with unbranded food that carries no promise of quality whatsoever. Now, is it great that Kraft Macaroni and Cheese advertises itself as a good value for feeding kids at a price of 3 for $1? From a nutritional perspective – obviously not. And you wouldn’t want your kids to eat that at every meal. But certainly eating Kraft is better than starving or getting sick.

 

On a broader level, and still in the realm of the functional, brands enable people to know what they are buying before they buy it. They set expectations so the customer has no surprises. I know what I am getting when I get a Starbucks coffee versus a coffee from somewhere else. They actually do taste different. Is Starbucks worth more than $2 a cup? Probably not. But it is a service to me that I can relax once I choose to spend that money, knowing that the coffee will taste the way I expect it to.

 

Moving a bit higher, into the realm of the social-psychological, brands provide a shortcut to creating an identity, and to changing it once it does not work anymore.

 

Building on that, brands enable strangers to find community around the identities that they provide. So buyers of Timberland boots or Birkenstock sandals immediately have a bond with one another, just as do drivers of Harley Davidson motorcycles and wearers of Donna Karan business suits.

 

Some people blame marketers for creating illusions that people don’t want or need, but I think that people demand those illusions and appreciate it when brands provide them.

 

Finally and most importantly for some people, brands fulfill the human need to escape from an existence that is less than ideal. The brilliance and the true public service of a marketer, from my perspective, is to transport the consumer from painful reality into a world where they can literally be whoever they want to be, just by partaking in the experience that a brand provides. This is why shopping, for so many people, is literally a high.

 

I’m not saying that encouraging consumer debt is a good thing, or that people should just go off and be irresponsible about their spending. But I do think that adults are old enough to know their responsibilities and their boundaries and should be given the choice to exercise their freedom as much as possible. Brands provide that choice and that freedom.
 
So while consumers need to be savvy about the reality behind the promise, marketers are also doing them a favor by giving them the permission to temporarily “let go,” relax, and enjoy their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via email from Think Brand First

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …