Brands in Decay?
- Started
- Last post
- 21 Responses
- madirish
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com…
discuss at your leisure....
- Corvo0
One of the reasons i think is that they rely too much on logos and "concepts" - or "laboured puns" as Spooks would say. It just exhausted itself into boredom and nothing distinguishes them anymore. And that's also the main problem with design.
- Sidenote: how come some days your English is very broken, and then other days it's bang on.czawada
- My guess if your point isn't intelligent or important it does not have to be communicated in that manner.JKilla77
- copy/paste?Point5
- That, or pushing too much drinks down my throat. I've been doing that lately.Corvo
- Also, I actually clicked that link before posting a reply.Corvo
- Now really, JKilla77 is right - I have thought about this brand decay issue before so maybe I was more articulate with it...Corvo
- .. my main job (apart fr. web) is to brand people, so I guess I take a different approach to product evaluation.Corvo
- czawada0
Nice find Matt!
- molo0
branding doesn't have to mean spending money on traditional ads. does it?
- ninjasavant0
Google doesn't advertise? Seriously? No they don't have a 30 second spot on Prime Time but all they do is advertise. They built it in as free advertising by building their name into the advertising widget they plaster all over the web with other peoples advertising. Not to mention establishing their brand as a verb to replace the word "search" and adding their search to just about every browser you download. Seems to me they advertise pretty effectively.
- morilla0
he sounds like one big contradiction.
- molo0
"how has Google’s built the world’s most powerful brand in less than a decade? – has to do directly with Google’s refusal to invest in orthodox advertising." this is why i was confused he didn't answer the damn question.
- "Next week, we’re gonna square the circle, by understanding that the answer to the question I’ve raised this week ..."molo
- JKilla770
I think that the reason the older brands are decaying is because the mediums they are using for advertising is decaying or rather it's definition is changing. I mean attaching your product to a browser isn't really a viable option for allot of brands. Could you image'n having a search bar with with coke branding or mountain dew? "Search Fueled By Dew?".
The reason that this would be rejected would be obviously be because of most brands trends to be over the top, "hey look at me" in nature. Maybe Google's success is in the simplicity and minimal approach to it's branding that allows it to be easily integrated into the everyday life of it's target audience.
- elee0
JKilla77, I don't think that traditional mediums themselves are decaying, but people are become more cynical of the messages that the mediums deliver. Something like "search powered by dew" wouldn't work because web savvy people know that internet searches and soft drinks have nothing to do with one another. I think that google's branding is exceptional because google is more effective than anyone else at reaching their target market where they are, any providing services that are beyond what they expect.
- JKilla770
The other thing that does sort of bother me is that we're comparing a need and a want. We need a search engine not want it. So is it fair to compare a want product to a need product?
- Invalid0
I don't think this is necessarily a new concept. I think over time, the "brand landscape" has been diluted so much that consumers (or conzuumers) are now blind to blatant branding. As a result, businesses can no longer promote goods and services as just brands. They need to reach out to the consumers and sell a lifestyle. Any good marketing campaign is based on this theory. Knowing your demographic and relating to their lifestyle, not just telling them that they need to buy your product.
The internet has only polluted the market further. Google may not have a 30 second spot on TV but that doesn't mean they don't advertise. They promote themselves heavily in the online arena. That's where their audience is.
These days with targeted advertising on the internet, advertising is even easier. Based on the sites you visit, your interests, memberships etc. you get ads served to your IP address. There are currently debates about breach of privacy with this sort of ad targeting but it seems to be the emerging standard for online advertising.
Search, which is currently the most powerful online tool, is slowly becoming redundant as companies pay to have their sites appear at the top of search results. The rest of the page is then filled up with nonsense from people’s bogs and Wikipedia links. So slowly the reputable sources of information are lost amongst the sea of garbage being served online.
The company I work for is a direct competitor to Google and we do a lot of user research. Approx. 9% of users see ads online. Even less click on them. The rest instinctively scroll passed them.
A vast majority of people use Google. Google has in fact replaced the team "search".Do people click on paid search results? Absolutely not. Again a miniscule amount of users click on paid results, and even then it is only if they were actually looking for that site. Almost all our users complain that it's almost impossible to find what you want sometimes.
So is the internet really the future for successful brand promotion?
I don't think so. In the end it will always come down to a great IDEA with a mixture of online and offline media as part of the campaign.Is brand decaying?
Absolutely not. Companies / businesses just need to promote them more cleverly.- nice points.
i think you might have meant "diluted" instead of "polluted", howevermadirish
- nice points.
- Corvo0
I think you need to trace a clear line between branding as the effort to sell products that are copies of an idea (like selling 2 different shampoos brands), and then you need to search for potential consumer expectations, etc - from branding an idea itself, which usually needs no branding. Google doesn't trade in copies; it delivers new tech niches and inventions in an innovation-craving market; it works mostly in idea-engineering with top-notch tech developers, more than it relies in the problems of marketing the product itself.
- AndyRoss0
I think this is all a bunch of academic bullshit. Comparing P&G and Coke to Google is ridiculous, since their products, distribution in the marketplace, and competitors within their spaces is very, very different. It's a false analogy. It's like comparing Justin Timberlake, as a singer, to Vida Blue, as a baseball player.
Google has a product that is technically very sophisticated, and is nearly unique. If you want to search the web very well, and be thorough, you have to go to Google.
But anybody can make a product similar to Coke, and hundreds of companies around the world do. And anyone can make many of the products P&G do--hundreds of companies around the world make laundry detergent.
A lot of Google's success is technical in nature, and is not related to marketing prowess. On the other hand, there have been hundreds of soda makers in the world, and Coke's relative domination of that field is strongly related to their marketing acumen.
- jteore0
Google did well. They branded themselves properly as the "On Stop Shop For All Your Information". He seems to have bought into that idea. There is no "Next." Im sure someone a ready came out out it.
- AndyRoss0
And Google could lose their place in the market pretty rapidly, if someone comes along with something better. Remember AOL? It's possible to have dramatic reverses in the internet business.
On the other hand, what could happen to unseat Coke? What would it take to push Tide out of every supermarket in North America?
- madirish0
yeah, i really did enjoy the idea of what he puts forth. dude definitely is smart and has a unique read on 'state of things' if you will. i do not agree 100% with him by any means, but as for the thought leader in a very dedicated group with many, many orgs/companies/decision makers listening; these items need to be critiqued as much as taken as word, IMO.
I also would say, that while google does currently make a real tactical effort to 'market' the brand, this is by way of years and years of not doing so. no one here can make the argument google has been consciously working on a marketing plan since their inception. Hell, they didn't do this for the first 8 years they existed, I would argue.
- linearch0
i have to agree with invalid. the brand is not decaying, the playing field is changing....and along with that must come a redefining of terms, rules, etc. to decay would imply an erosion or loss of importance......i believe that branding will be just as important, if not more, in the future...it will just take a different form than it does today. probably a shift from companies telling consumers what they are to actual customers defining the brand (via a company designed conduit :))
- madirish0
possibly the authors' use of 'decay' is in reference to the definition of brand, and not aimed at 'brand' as a noun?
- Spookytim0
I think this is horse shit. Google isn't a brand, google is a utility. It just happens to be a privately created and operated utility. We don't make an aspirational or informed consumer choice with Google, we just take it for granted. This whole POV is like saying "National Transportation Infrastructure is the greatest brand in the world becuase of how many people use it".
I think. Maybe.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I should read the article I guess.
- Randd0
the sun is the greatest brand in the world