-Andy

Are you directing this question to Alex or myself?

Cheers,

Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®

-Andy

Wow! This may be the first time we, or perhaps anyone, bored someone into responding.

Individual products may HAVE their own brands, however, those products ARE not the brand itself any more than I am my name. For example, I have a cousin named Mark Gallagher. Same name, different guy.

I believe Marcus Osborne's comment summed it up well "Certainly a product is not a brand when the consumer makes an initial purchase, how can it be when consumers define brands?"

Cheers,

Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®

The same could be said for Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max – according to my friend (an IT QA product mgr in her 40s) an avid Diet Pepsi drinker – she won't touch Pepsi Max, even though to me: a non Pepsi afficionado they seem exactly the same thing: a sugarless fizzy cola type drink – they are in fact TOTALLY different.

I hesitate to say it but surely this is an example of of individual products having their own brands (i.e. that intangible essence of an experience that lives at the intersection of promise and expectation?) No?

The initial purchase may be a result of a (very expensive) marketing activity but the development of the relationship with the prospect will be a result of the product delivering on promises made across all touchpoints and not just in communications. And also key are sustainability and customer profitability. These take investment in resources and time to establish. And, despite the huge acquisition costs, few companies invest enough here.

I agree that the first to market concept is not a strategy. Sadly, this is almost the holy grail for many companies despite the reality that few companies are ever the first to market and the resources spent on finding such a position would be better off invested in owning the customer experience, especially service.

I don't think brands should try to own a mindset, that is so mass economy and anyway, how many mindsets are empty in your mind?

According to Ernst & Youg, 80 – 90% of products fail to become brands, this despite US$1.5 trillion spent on marketing every year. This is because companies, advised by agencies continue to invest heavily in outdated models such as positioning that attempt to find space in consumer minds and plant the desire for the product there blah blah blah.

As you so rightly point out, you can be the cheapest, offer the best terms, get a product to market quicker but at some stage a competitor will do all of these better. What a competitor cannot duplicate is the relationship you have with the consumer.

Excellent article. Thanks

We decide emotionally and then defend that decision rationally. Why did you REALLY buy that car vs. what you tell people was the reason.

In fact, recent brain research suggests that we can't decide anything without emotional input. Thus it seems that brands play the role of triggering emotions and products focus on feature sets. So it might be said that brands are nothing more than an emotional shortcut to a decision. Apple attaches emotion to each of its product lines, hence creating a 'branded product.' Early mp3 players failed to find a way to stimulate emotions and focused on GBs and other factoids.

Maybe….
Products without emotions are a commodity.
Emotions without features can't be sold.

I understand that you believe that the brand and the product are one and the same, and you are entitled to your opinion. Clearly we disagree. I don't believe there is anything I could say that would change your mind. You've made up your mind, and this discussion is not adding value to the readers of this post. So, I'll leave you with this.

"A brand is not a product: it is the product's source, its meaning, and its direction, and defines its identity in time and space."—Jean-Noel Kapferer

Cheers,

Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®