Some arguments and issues:
“Search doesn't operate in the language of colors and buzzwords, and it doesn't force consumers to think the things your branding has thrown at them”
-Search may not be sexy, but it has the power to extend the branded consistency that you have built elsewhere in the world.
-Search is just beginning. As more images, videos, interactive elements of search begin to be developed, it will be important to use all of these search elements for branding.
-Branding should never be about “forcing consumers to think” a certain way. Companies present their brands to the public in the way they would like to be received. If consumers find that this is not true, they’ll tell people, they’ll post about it, they’ll no longer value your brand. Consumers never liked having things “thrown at them” in the first place.
“It doesn't exist unless someone dips into it”
-Perfect! Some is going out of their way to look for what I have to offer! Now it’s my chance to show them that yes, I have what you want, I’ve presented it in a clear manner, and that I am trustworthy.
“Internet search has forever changed the way consumers behave. It shifts authority from the information-giver to the answer-seeker, and exposes every conceivable aspect of brand to scrutiny.”
-What’s wrong with change? Once upon a time television was one of the only dominant forms of connecting with large audiences, but now it seems there’s another new option everyday.
-To be good, your brand should be transparent. Exposing the brand online is part of the entire branding process. Listen to what people are saying, sharing, and feeling.
“The bad news is that this has nothing to do with branding. In fact, Internet search is the anti-brand.”
“People paid more for things because they didn't know better. They behaved certain ways because of routine. Branding didn't cause this phenomena as much as cover-up many of its true drivers.”
-Consumers didn’t know better? I think they do. They want to buy Coke rather than RC Cola. They actively choose to drive out of their way to go to Starbucks. Branding has placed value in these products and activities.
-Libby adds, "Here is where I start telling this article to fuck itself."
“I'd suggest that people don't search with questions about brands as much as generic terms about things or activities. They're not looking for answers from brands, but rather answers about products and services.”
-Yes, people don’t necessarily search for “cute shoes from Target”, but if they searched for “cute shoes”, why couldn’t Target, or another company, brand their search result? Consistent titles, descriptions, URLs should reflect the brand image and personality.
-And consumers will seek out those branded results from the unknowns. How often have you Google Mapped "gas station near 55409" and skipped CHEEP-O GAS for the SuperAmerica 2 miles farther, because you knew you could trust it?
“Web search undos these connections, and treats brands as words, just like in the Middle Ages...marks with no implicit meanings beyond those which an anonymous public of Internet users, and secret equations, choose to give to them. “
-When was branding not about words? Twitter? What the hell is a Twitter? Just words? Oh wait, with branding it now means something.
-You have 150 characters for your search result title. Why can’t you use it for branding?
-Last time I checked Twitter's big thing was about telling others what you are doing. Looks like a branded search result to me.
-Brands that have established themselves online are rewarded with more links in their result. And it's not just for the big brands, small local companies get site links like these all the time. People trust these results more because Google (a brand) has said so.
-Branding is about being prepared. Your links may not come up every time someone searches for what you've got to offer, but that's not reason to ignore the "secret equation" of search.
So a few short wrap up points:
1. Sorry for the ridiculously long post.
2. As the reliance on search continues to grow, so will it's importance in branding.
3. Branding in search doesn't have to be about having the most creative title or page description. Any company can be consistent and present their content in a reputable way. That's branding.
3 comments:
I totally appreciate the time you took to ponder my premise, and I really hope you check out my book, BRANDING ONLY WORKS ON CATTLE (http://tinyurl.com/5xunte) (the post you challenged was a snippet from it).
In my book, I consider a number of new ways to look at branding, including utilizing game design as a paradigm for envisioning brands; structuring an entire organization to engage with consumers, thereby spreading 'buzz' into and through the enterprise; and finding ways to talk about and measure brands that make sense to the statistical controls that the rest of the business uses.
My point on brands, ultimately, is that they were an artifact of a specific moment in history (i.e. the 20th century). It was in this time that the tech existed to tell people things, and the culture was receptive to being told (and led). There was no 'branding' prior to it; people relied on community, referral, and experience to make decisions.
Now, we have the tech...like search...to re-engage on community, referral, and experience, which makes the premise that you, I, or anybody can "brand' those behaviors as nothing more than wishful thinking. Those behaviors ARE the brand. It's real time.
We need a new definition, not just a more expansive and amorphous one ('branding' means nothing if its synonymous with thinking, feeling, awareness, knowledge, etc.). It's certainly much more than a label, or brand that you might burn into the hide of a cow.
The image of that brand is the old way. The new way is focusing on herding behavior?
I also think that the big change in branding, beyond search, is that it really isn't the responsibility of the marketers anymore. It belongs to (because it relies upon) the entire organization, and on its interface(s) with the rest of humanity. The language of these experiences -- whether search, chat, etc. -- is behavior, not image or words.
I think that branding from marketing might not be as much a strategy as a tactic. The strategy is now synonymous with the business.
Anyway, this is a really rich conversation, and I appreciate your willingness to debate. You can check out the contents of my book on my website, http://www.baskinbrand.com, and I also posted an inane video I shot to go along with it.
jsb
@JSB
I'm looking forward to reading your book! Especially because I still disagree with you.
Just because we're back to the fundamentals of communities, referrals, and experience doesn’t mean brands are dunzo. You're using "branding" to (incorrectly) mean "marketing.” Yes, old one-way communication is over. Even stupid viral content is on its way out. But branding continues.
My definition of "brand" is closer to "corporate identity" than the marketing aspects you're describing. A brand still has meaning. When I walk into a Target store, I am branded with red, a clean environment, great graphics, and fun in-house designers. I go home and see both an upbeat Target price point spot and a spot about their 5% donations to charitable causes. I Google “white bedspread” and Target comes up in the search results. And I click on it. Because I know the brand, I like the brand, and I trust the brand more than DISCOUNT BEDSPREAD WAREHOUZ.
And I still believe that brand can help drive the community, referrals, and experiences around them:
Community: Brand a Facebook group and make the content good. Give away gift cards, encourage contests, give users a Target badge for their profile. Google your brand and interact with people who are talking about it. Be part of, and facilitate, the community.
Referral: Incentives, obviously, but more importantly, give consumers a reason to refer you. Provide a great product and a great…
Experience: Again, this is something that can be branded and controlled. When customers walk into Target, the building just exudes the Target brand. And when the experience is branded, the consumer will seek out that brand again and again, whether it’s in search results, in referrals, or just in the choice to turn left or right into different parking lots.
“Branding” gives your products enough identity and meaning attached that your consumers seek them out.
the feeling is mutual...about being wrong, but i can't wait to get your reaction to my book.
'brand' as defined by any sort of communications conceit is 1) limited, and 2) irrelevant. the target example you site gets blown up entirely when fellow customers post their experiences, ngos reveal how their mfgs in china use slaves, that 5% donation is just a ruse (and 75% of it goes to marketing anyway), etc. the 'branding' you cite -- which is really just marketing communications -- is a small bit of the overall 'experience.'
my definition of 'brand' encompasses the reality of that experience, and accepts the fact that the vast majority of the customer knowledge, feeling, and ultimate purchase intent is guided by forces outside the control of those who wish they could 'control' the brand.
'brand' as clickable link is the same as a brand on cattle. an identifier, nothing more.
Post a Comment