Is Branding Important in a web 2.0 world

Ok, so I entered my first essay contest since....well this is the first essay contest I've ever entered :-)

The question was:

"Why should a legitimate business need to worry about branding?"

In the internet age, 'legitimate" incorporates a much broader scope of businesses than ever before...Coke to Jones Soda.   Budwieser to Local Microbrew. 

In the old days, branding was enough to carry the entire relationship.  In the old mass marketing world of TV, Radio, Bill Boards & Print media, you could establish a sense of differentionan through old fashioned reach & frequency.  Pound on people hard enough and they would succomb to your Brand Message and marketers enforce loyalty.

We all know that model is broken...so does that mean branding is over...unessary?

What it means is that Branding takes on a new role.  The role as a key component in a multi-channel, multi-touch strategey.  Branding as permission to continue the relationship.  The tip of the spear.

Branding is that slight edge that gives legitimate companies the edge.  In a world that is increasingly driven by search, people know what they want to accomplish.  They research, the get opinions..then they search.  For the most part they will find lots of choices, similar prices and the slight differentiator will be the brand.

I always love the dating analogy.  Guy walks up to a girl at a bar.  "hey, can I buy you a drink?"   Fat Chance.

Same guy, same girl, same bar:  This time a friend tells the girl; "You see that guy over there?"  "He owns his own business and is really nice."  He's branded.  Bingo. 

That's why branding is still relevant.

Comments

[Tanmoy]

Interesting dating analogy to Branding.
Continuing on this analogy, would you imagine that in the old marketing scheme of things the guy in the bar would probably have a colorful board hanging around his neck (and back) and would be distributing free giveaways to all in the bar, and even maybe announcing his name using a megaphone and telling everybody all about himself!
Whereas now, in the new world its all done through referrals and networking.

Makes sense?

[Robert Payne]

Brand is what the customer perceives, and perception is dictated to a certain degree by how we present ourselves. This could be in the form of an ad, a blog post, an email, a product produced, or in an employee that is sent into a client meeting.

It is the sum of all the parts that make up the customer experience and in turn the brand.

In today's business environment, considering user-generated media and web 2.0 technologies, I think it is even more important for a legitimate business to be concerned about their brand. It takes more brand management and concern, not less.

[Dave]

I agree with you Chris. I've tried to adapt the brand that I manage, Nando's Peri-Peri Sauces, into web2.0 and it's definitely been interesting.
Check out my 'corporate' blog at www.NandosBlog.com

All the best,

Dave

[Ryan Warren]

I would argue that branding is more than just the tip of the spear. Late management consultant Peter Druker referred to business as only two things: Marketing and Innovation. I feel that brand is too closely associated with it's relationship to the marketing aspect of this statement. It is really a combination of the two with a heavier influence on the later: innovation.

The web in general has completely exposed the innovation side of branding that is only now being completely realized by the modern business. Today with the right tools anyone can create a totally immersive brand through the use of a great idea and technologies to support it. These technologies include tools such as blogging, 1-to-1 messaging techniques, RFID tags, and others such as knowledge management systems, etc.

The effect has been a migration of branding roles from the traditional practitioner functions such as graphic design and copy-writing to high level strategic thinkers. These thinkers use feedback loops from online/offline tools to make strategically sound decisions. They are executed through designing not only experiences, but also process and information to support it. I like to think of it as behavioral branding.

Let's face it, an abundance of choices has forced us to evolve our definition of what branding is. In the mid 1980's America had more schools than shopping centers. Today, shopping centers outnumber high schools two to one. Inside those shopping centers, super markets can stock as much as three times the number of products they did in during the Reagan years. With choices growing and the consumers increasing ability to "opt-out" the power in today's brand is the process to embrace the customer experience on their terms. Processes such as these are what get the supermarkets customers through the line in half the time they did in the 1980's.

So to me, brand is much more than just the initial perception itself, but rather the innovative measures used to influence those perceptions. The tip of the spear is just getting them in the store. The rest of it is giving them a reason to stay. Both are equally important and very much apart of the same mindset. Used together you can push a perception on to a feeling or a reaction. This can only happen if there is much more than a promise. This can only happen if you provide an experience.

In the spirit of looking at brand under this light I feel that I have somehow contributed to Chris' brand. Whether you think I am right or you think I am an outright lunatic, combining my rants to all the other contributers here is at the very least a little fun. Thanks Chris for having such a strong brand.

Cheers,
Ryan

[Robert Payne]

I actually found it rather amusing that he used "continue the relationship" and "tip of the spear" in corresponding sentences. Sounds sort of conquistadorish to me. ;~)