Before Nike, there were sneakers

That's right. As obvious as it seems, people often forget how and why branding works. Branding is what turns mere commodities into name brands infused with value-the kind of value consumers are willing to pay for. "Yeah," you could say, "but that's different. Your product needs a unique angle to succeed...."

Let's look at history. Before there was Coca-cola, there were soft drinks. Before Godiva, there was chocolate (and before chocolate, sweets). Before Starbucks, there was coffee (although some would beg to differ).

Let's get even more fundamental and look again at Nike. Before Nike, there were simply sneakers or sports shoes. Underneath that, there was an undefined need and desire, and that was to excel. That was truly the need that Nike fulfilled and why people buy Nike. They are not buying a "sneaker." They are buying the emotional ties that align with them-being winners like the athletes who endorse them-whether walking or running, playing or competing.

What does Chanel offer? The better perfume? Maybe. What it really offers is the desire to feel, and smell, attractive-essentially fulfilling the desire to be likeable and admirable.

Ragu does not sell spaghetti sauce. It sells convenience in an overly inconvenient world, just like Kellogg's in the breakfast category. Gourmet pasta sauces offer the same convenience, but their angle is this: convenience without any compromise in taste and quality.

Turning commodities into brands

This is the ultimate acid test: Does your brand really create the necessary ties with your consumers and potential consumers to rise above an overstimulated marketplace? Very few brands do, and the smarter (not necessarily bigger) brands take full advantage of this weakness.

For those following the technology markets, Iomega, the manufacturer of the zip and jaz removable media drives, has done a brilliant job of branding-so good in fact, that SyQuest, the former category leader, is about to close its doors and file for bankruptcy. If you'd seen SyQuest's most recent ads, you'd understand. Their only angle was offering a cheaper "me-too" comeback of a product, the SparQ. Besides violating nearly every principle of branding and positioning, how should it be pronounced: spark or spar-cue? We couldn't figure it out.

The key here is that every world-class brand today started out as a commodity and became, through specific and planned marketing activities, the name associated with that category.

The law of branding Al Ries forgot

Al Ries, the Grandfather of Positioning, just came out with "The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding." While there are some very good points contained in his text, there are some opinion-based concepts that shouldn't have made their way into such a work. Furthermore, Mr. Ries failed to include the most rudimentary, and abused, law in branding: The Law of the Common Denominator.

Every marketing and design decision that finds its way into the marketplace creates the brand. All of the elements of design, language, imagery, presentation as well as the consistency, style, color palette, etc. work together to create that brand. If all branding efforts are based on an intelligent analysis of the marketplace, performed in a planned and coordinated way, while adhering to the eight key principles of branding (as codified by our firm, but not outlined here), a company can create its own world-class brand.

But what if this isn't done? What if the brand, and its various soldiers (identity, marketing materials, packaging, etc.), are all marching to different drummers? Did you know that you would still create a brand? Granted it would be poor, cost a lot to "maintain," waste endless promotional dollars and invariably result in minimal presence and value-but it would be a brand. It is not an issue of should I have a brand or not. As Scott Bedbury of Starbucks and Nike fame (he's the guy behind Nike's "Just Do It" branding campaign) stated in Fast Companymagazine, "In an age of accelerated product proliferation, enormous customer choice, and growing clutter and clamor in the marketplace, a great brand is a necessity, not a luxury." You've got one-it's simply a question of how good it is.

We ask our clients one simple question that tends to bring this point home: "Did your brand make a difference today?" The point is this (which, by the way, is the law): If no exact efforts are made to create, define and manage a brand, the most common and consistent elements to a brand's market presence will become the brand.

Example: a major paper company in the US produces very expensive paper promotions. Each piece is different from the other with numerous messages, benefits and offers. The outcome is a brand tied together only by the overlapping, hence common, elements. In this case, their brand has become the name, a confused incoherent company image(which in this industry equals less value and less sales) and not anything more. How did this come to be? Their various promotions always include the company name (which we'll leave out here) and the names of the various paper lines accompanied by a battery of inconsistent messages with cartoon images one time, photo images another, corny copy another time, "meaningful" copy another, ad infinitum. By default, they attempted to be everything and, from a brand equity standpoint, became nothing whatsoever.

Strong examples of great brands who use this law to their advantage are Absolut, BMW, FedEx, Campbell's Soup, Heinz Ketchup, Harley Davidson, Intel, Levi's, Lexus, McDonald's, Microsoft, Sprint, and Macintosh (with its breakthrough "Think different" campaign and the iMac). All these brands stand for something, have very strong messages, are consistent, have high design standards and control their marketplace. They leave nothing to chance and don't allow their brand to occur by default, that being the lowest common denominator between all their various media messages.

Demand only original branding - accept no substitutes

Does branding really make a difference? Look at Absolut Vodka. In 1981, before the famous campaign began promoting the Swedish import, Absolut was selling 20,000 cases annually in the US. In 1996, sales were over 3 million cases annually resulting in an increase of 14,900%. That's going from 384 cases per week to 57,692 cases per week. All this while leaving Stolichnaya, the Russian vodka, in the dust.

May the brand be with you.

DBD International, Ltd.
406 Technology Drive West
Menomonie, WI 54751
715.235.9040
www.risingabovethenoise.com

©2008 DBD International, Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this site, its images or its content, can be used or replicated in any way, electronically, print or otherwise, without the written permission and authorization of DBD International, Ltd.