I would like to invite you to participate in this event that, instead of talking about branding, will talk about us. We are moving towards a new society, a semantic society, the one that enhances our humanity. By participating in this site and using it as a true communal medium, we will create a new kind of network of people and business.
Some days ago, in the Brand 3.0 Club at LinkedIn, Ian West from One-Marketing (Rochester, UK) did this "looks so simple question".
Up today, he has received more than 40 answers (including mine). Those answers have certain differences and some issues in common:
The main difference is that that group is from "expert people" in the branding, marketing, communication, design,... arenas. So each answer looks like a definition. We could develop some clusters of definitions, however, the real issue is that all of them have the bias of the person who wrote it... a professional bias!
The issues in common could be summarized as follow:
Few people agreed on other colleague definition (the "bullet who killed Hitler" effect)
Almost none of the answers is simple; actually, some of them are enough complex
Almost all of them consider people as a subject that are not necessary part of the definition
After reading them, I thought, the best definition is not the one that is comming from an expert (or under that point of view and/or bias) but the one that is comming from the people who are living the experience... It's simple, don't you think?
When I opened this community, my idea was (and continue being) that branding is a people issue, so the focus should be on the dialogue. Perhaps, this is one of those moments that a huge dialogue is needed...
So... What the hell is a brand for you?... Let see if we can arrive to something valuable!
Probably you will remember the regional brand, Formentera. Probably, you will hum the song... But, almost certainly, after five minutes you'll forget the brand of the beer.
Once upon a time, there was a world in which some people thought that announcing the functional characteristics of a product / service was sufficient.
"You can buy a Ford T if it is black, with black leather upholstery... with one kind of engine and no further features". This worked so good at the beginning of last century.
With the time, things changed and now, a good number of "great theorists" have had no better idea than to do the opposite... "No features, it's time for emotions and feelings, to tell stories and metaphors"... And this is true, but to much love will kill you!
Neither one thing nor the other, or rather, something of both would be better...
The utility of the offer is still as important as when Adam nicely accepted the apple (he bought the "original iSin")...
Emotions, however, in the right dose are welcome... and this translates into:
Transmit emotions that are associated with what the company promises
Emotions are easily decoded by target audiences
A story that has a certain livelihood, nice to hear, but true (there are few exceptions that may have the taste of fantasy... e.g.: Ferran Adriá)
A valuable metaphor when needed by the company, the offer and the buyer ... No one has to be metaphorical to sell toilet paper (even though any excitement could be generated)
What I'm saying... Does it make any sense? Or am I in the state of "Lost in Translation"?
Do Advertisers (the great pretenders only... not all of them) realize that if there are emotions everywhere, all emotions would become futiles, and we'd finally wear our armor and helmet and filtrate everything?