A recent book review caught my attention. The book being reviewed, OBD: Obsessive Branding Disorder, was authored by Lucas Conley. With a title like this, I figured the author would have plenty of controversial statements to make. Talk about an understatement.
In all fairness, I have not read the book in question. Still, it raises several important points that bear discussion.
The review states: “‘OBD’ embraces an anti-commercialism argument that people are overexposed to commercial messages and impart too much meaning to the clothes they wear and the cars they drive. . .Branding promotes sizzle over the steak, Conley argues, and the time and money spent on branding could be spent on other pursuits–notably R&D and Innovation.”
In a nutshell, Conley’s problem with branding arises from the fact that companies spend billions of dollars to carefully craft images and messages that are often at odds with the quality of the very products and services under the brand umbrella.
In essence, he believes that branding helps marketers to deliver style over substance… and to push the boundaries more and more for the sake of ingraining their brands over their competitors’ brands, even if it means “cheating” to do so. Conley gives these kinds of examples to prove his points:
* While Ford branding itself as the company “Driving American Innovation,” while the company’s 2007 vehicles got “worse gas mileage than its 1908 Model T.”
* AT&T’s ‘Your World. Delivered.’ This was its 23rd major branding campaign over the past 25 years. . .at a billion dollar price tag.
* Christina Aguilera’s efforts to extend her personal brand in consumer products from A to Z.
* Slick branding campaign portraying post-Katrina New Orleans as still being a party destination of choice in spite of the elevated crime plaguing the city after the devastating hurricane.
* Sony’s Columbia Pictures division’s creation of a fake movie critic who wrote glowing reviews about films the studio received, countering other critics’ panning of those same films.
* Procter & Gamble’s network of WOM teens and moms. Conley claims that 1% of American teens and 7% of American moms are actively pitching P&G products to friends and family in an innocent manner.
Conley’s conclusions:
* Branding does serve a useful purpose, helping consumers to zero in on products and services in a cluttered marketplace. . .but. . .
* Constant rebranding constitutes wasteful spending.
* Branding is increasingly being used to motivate consumers with lifestyle and emotive cues, “jumping the tracks, barreling through popular culture unchecked”, in the author’s own words.
* Companies ought to be concerned first about the quality of their products and services and spend money on that before entertaining the idea of constantly rebranding.
* Companies might be using more “insidious” branding M.O.s to get consumer buy-in, even being a bit or very disingenuous to do it.
* Consumer cynicism and disillusionment are bound to increase when branding represents ideas that are less than honest, authentic and transparent.
While seeming to be an anti-branding book, Conley raises some important questions and points here. Ones that all business owners, executives and marketers need to pay attention to. In the end, honesty, authenticity and transparency are extremely important to company credibility. Reputation and consumer trust are all, and once lost, it can devastate a company, and even put it out of business.
Questions:
* Can you cite examples of companies that have branded themselves authentically, so that they’ve gained your trust as a consumer?
* Which companies over-hype themselves with branding campaigns in your view?
* Are there any specific marketing tactics that you don’t like or respect as a consumer? That disillusion you?
I’d love to hear from you.
Ted — you mightlike:
From the Boston Globe: Lucas Conley’s 10 Most Overrated Brands, including Southwest Airlines, Apple and Dunkin Donuts:
http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/overratedbrands/
Thanks for the heads up on this, Ann. I’ll definitely take a look when I catch a minute. Appreciate it.
Ted, many of your examples in this post reminded me of what Stephen Denny wrote up on Memorex and the power of their tagline, “Is it live or is it Memorex”. His entire post is here: http://note-to-cmo.blogspot.com/2008/09/note-to-cmo-powerlines-and-when-to-keep.html
I responded that in most instances there isn’t enough money in the world to build out a new position in the minds of consumers–especially if a company is attempting to change their tagline or positioning for the 25th time…
I’ll agree that billions of dollars–every year are flushed down the toilet in the name of branding or rebranding, when instead those dollars could be plowed into noteworthy innovation. I’m not convinced companies should “take a year off” from marketing, but perhaps scale back to the essentials and put the difference into a more compelling bet.
“I responded that in most instances there isn’t enough money in the world to build out a new position in the minds of consumers–especially if a company is attempting to change their tagline or positioning for the 25th time…” Exactly, Paul. Doing this represents a huge waste of time and money. As you say, these monies are better spent elsewhere.
The benefit of a book like Conley’s, I believe, is that it gets marketers really thinking about what they’re doing and whether or not they’re investing in the right things. . .
Thanks for weighing in, Paul. And thanks for the reference to Stephen’s post. It will be interesting to check out.
OBD is not an anti-branding book. At least that wasn’t my takeaway from reading it. Instead, Lucas makes the case businesses should focus more on delivering better products/services rather than better promotions/commercials.
A quote that wasn’t included in OBD but was included the Fast Company article that spawned OBD sums up Conley’s position:
“Run a good business and your brand will follow.” — Lucas Conley (Fast Company, Oct. 2005)
For those who haven’t read OBD, you can read this super-short summary:
http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2008/06/obsessive-brand.html
I have recently reviewed a company that has a brilliant product and perfected customer service but no one knows about it because the branding is weak. I wonder how far a good product with excellent service will go in a branded world?
John,
Thanks for commenting on this since you have read the book. Everyone has a different perspective, so some marketers will consider this an anti-branding book, while others see it as raising some provocative issues. . .and the latter is important in my book.
Thanks for weighing in, John.
Levon,
Every company needs to strongly position and brand its products or services. . .otherwise, to your point, it probably isn’t going to make it in today’s highly competitive business environments. What Conley is exasperated with in his book, are companies that spend exorbitant amounts of money constantly rebranding themselves. He calls that a waste–and rightfully so. Thanks for adding to the conversation, Levon.
As a brand strategist and marketer, I can say there are actually many points to agree with in this book. Now, obviously I might take issue with the contention that branding is wasteful; however, I think the author is really getting to something deeper … just using the wrong words and misunderstanding the distinction between brands and products.
Brands are powerful and important in our society. They not only elicit psychological identification and pleasure but they can also serve as the basis for community – the concept in sociology of brands as ‘totem.’ Moreover, brands are an important construct for thinking about what we build, promote and sell as commercial entities. I would, therefore, caution the author about marginalizing brands or the people who build and promote them.
But I would also remind us that brands are more than a product. They a holistic entity, and you cannot separate product/service from its promotion or delivery.
What the author is really railing against is communication strategies meant to position a brand as something it’s not, but what he misses is that the customer already ‘gets’ this. When we make this mistake as brand builders and promoters, we may sell some incremental widgets in the short term, but it comes back to bite us in the a$$ over the longer term, and harms the brand.
So I would say that my reaction to this book and line of discussion is to remind us as brand builders and promoters that when we position a brand, we must pay attention to the ‘whole package,’ and we must ensure that we are recommending positioning and messaging strategies that are aligned with the real value that a customer will identify in our products and services. We must keep the ‘holistic’ brand in mind.
Good dialogue! Thanks.
One other comment.
Valeria Maltoni has some interesting things to say on her Conversation Agent blog re: what it takes to be a ‘leading’ brand.
Link at:
http://www.conversationagent.com/2008/03/leading-brands.html
I thought she makes some good points.
I think the best sort of branding is at the intersection of marketing and actually providing content to your market. A company blog will sell the product best if it provides useful information for your customers. For instance, the company I worked for this summer makes business planning software and one of their biggest traffic generators is a site they run that offers free sample plans.
You’ve made some good points, Adam, but then again you’re talking about a scenario in which branding is effectively executed and managed, aren’t you? I believe that Conley’s point is that the compulsion some companies have to rebrand themselves over and over again is wasteful, and likely leads to confusion for their employees, customers and stakeholders. In that constant rebranding, there is likely a loss of true identity, as well. And to your point: a loss of authenticity. And all of those things lead to an erosion of a brand’s true identity and image, and how about customer trust?
Thanks for adding to this conversation, Adam. I appreciate it.
Megan,
All product and service brands should deliver real and perceived value for their customers.
Adam stated: “But I would also remind us that brands are more than a product. They a holistic entity, and you cannot separate product/service from its promotion or delivery.” To that I would add, nor can they be separated from companies’ internal processes, web sites, employees and every other customer touch point out there. . .something that Lewis Green speaks very articulately about, BTW.
The key to branding is consistency, hence I found this really disturbing:
AT&T’s ‘Your World. Delivered.’ This was its 23rd major branding campaign over the past 25 years. Wow!
Let us not forget AT&T’s monumentally stupid move to merge with Cingular only to then call themselves Cingular, hence “AT&T is now Cingular”.
Then less than two years later to greet already weary tv-commercial viewers with “Cingular is now AT&T.” What the hell? Now that’s what I call obsessive compulsive.
I know plenty of people who had AT&T who were miserable with the service, including my dad. Dropped calls, no signals, etc. So this marketing sleight-of-hand wasn’t going to fix the problem.
Get the product/service right and the brand will sell itself! This is what I get into the most heated discussions with my clients about. They want big, flashy marketing strategies and advertising, yet they don’t realize the big, flashy ad campaigns will bring them in once. But keeping em’ happy and coming back for more is the goal. The only way to achieve that is by giving them a good REASON to keep coming back.
Trying to rebrand a bad product is like putting a bandaid on a broken leg–it ain’t gonna fix a damned thing!!!
Exactly, Dawn. That seems to be one of Conley’s big bones of contention with companies’ obsession with branding and rebranding themselves over and over again. That’s why, as I stated earlier in my reply to Megan, branding comes down to much more than trying to build a slick image. Every customer touch point goes to what the brand truly is, and that is what should be assessed and fixed when necessary. If products or services are not living up to the brand promise, fix them. If customer service is failing, fix it. If the web site isn’t meeting customers’ needs, or responsive to inquiries, fix it. If the packaging leaves much to be desired, redesign it. If employees don’t understand their crucial role in delivering the brand to the customer, work on it.
If companies spent more time and effort doing that, it would be much more effective than pouring endless resources into advertising their newest–often concocted–brand positioning. It’s confusing for all concerned. Worse: it is generally not authentic in the least, as you pointed out.
Good stuff, Dawn. Thanks for adding a great deal to the conversation.
“If companies spent more time and effort doing that [delivering better products and services], it would be much more effective than pouring endless resources into advertising their newest–often concocted–brand positioning”
Ted, that’s the crux of Conley’s OBD book. However, those areas are more difficult to fix/solve/change than to fix/solve/change a company’s logo/tagline.
Since fixing, solving, changing the veneer of a company’s image is easier than doing the same for its innards, many companies choose the easier path. And Conley argues that’s why companies suffer from OBD.
Exactly, John. I believe Dawn did a great job of explaining this, as well. As she stated, “Trying to rebrand a bad product is like putting a bandaid on a broken leg–it ain’t gonna fix a damned thing!!!”
Avoiding doing the hard work when it comes to branding doesn’t get marketers anywhere, does it? Putting a bandaid on a festering wound, or a lovely veneer over rotting wood, only masks a problem. But only for a short time. Actually, it might not even do that well come to think of it. Savvy customers know a problem when they see one.
Thanks, John, for weighing in. Your comments are always spot on and much appreciated.
Ted,
Thanks for the book review. I look forward to this OBD….
You’re welcome, James. I’d love to have you add your comments/insights once you’ve read the book. They’d be appreciated.