Branding Logic

'Branding Logic' is an offshoot of comprehensive research on marketing approach and  models I am working on with the objective to evolve new perspectives, logic and techniques.

The articles in the series would critically analyze contemporary branding decisions through the branding process, across business segments. The articles are critical but would prove the comments with substantiated logic. Apart from relating the decisions with fundamentals and practices the articles would put forth new logic with convincing arguments.

Certain comments are date-relevant, though the underlying logic  remain valid. However, I find it quite satisfying to note that certain logic and explicit suggestions made out in the articles have achieved relevance by some later decisions.

Note:

The series was originally titled as 'Branding Mistakes'. It was renamed as 'Branding Logic' (from the 6th article) upon a feeling that the name 'Branding Mistakes' was by itself a branding mistake.

--   A Srinivasa Bhat

Excerpts:

The attribute - Unwise

... fourthly, even when such tricks yield short term sales, it happens at a high cost and at a huge brand loss. That's a lot to loose apart from the possible penalty the courts may decree - - all for the thrill of getting at your competitors with a wacky stuff. The brands that are hit with the nuisance can of course make more by seeking a ransom for sullying. The chances are good and sure if the brand loss is articulated right.

Zapak - - the new slang

Evolving brands, unlike established brands, can become difficult with just a few mistakes and rarely can even get ruined out of just one terrible mistake. Zapak, I believe, is in a spot to become a case to prove this point.

Mating Kingfisher

Low cost will click but not for Kingfisher, not even indirectly and not without loss of brand equity. The loss, mostly in terms of opportunity cost, in the misplaced opportunity would be very small compared to the loss in its brand equity in making good from opportunities that belong to it

The (brand) is within brackets

An article in Economic Times on the ‘Certainty’ campaign quoted a gossip in which an unnamed IBM Global Services staff was saying: “TCS had better people, better product but luckily (for IBM) they did not know how to market themselves”. I thought that was a mistaken pride. I believe, Indian IT companies will get their branding logic right in keeping that comment - - just that.

Your brand. Their underwear

..... the malpractice is gaining credence. Some time back, a couple of half-politicians called me for advice on naming a range of mattresses. After talking about their expertise in business they shot an objective brief at me - - choose the most appropriate - Onida or Philips. Sunk in an awkward spot I wished I knew the vanishing trick we see in the films ...

The emerging question is; what makes a name, a brand of proprietary value? The issues are; why should brands be offered protection and how? How to assess brand status? Incidental questions are; what are the implications of cross-category and cross-national imitations? How to curb name tweaking?...

Kingfisher airlines. Cropping feathers??

.. All else remaining common, name can make the task easy, hard or even impossible ...

... On an extension, the task is loaded with twin responsibilities. One, to effectively derive power of image and substance from the brand, and two, to ensure that the new business would gradually contribute to the equity of the brand extended - - or at least sustain it unblemished. Mutual transferability of values progressively is the essence of brand extension. Lack of meaningful fit can only peel precious equity off the brand ...

... The critical branding question is: when a powerful brand is extended, should the brand drive the business or the business the brand? As I see it, the bird which is already uncomfortable, would deliver only on its terms. It has already forced KAL to shift from low fare to value pricing. The conflict would continue. The result is predictable. Eventually, the bird would drive the business in its unique style - - for good. Or the business would strive to survive profitably - - hurting the bird also in the process ...

.... ADAG had a compelling need for not adopting Reliance. Sense of ownership, fear of loss of invaluable identity and brand power led to the christening of Anil's Reliance against the ignored possibility of creating a far superior and progressive brand power with a different name. Indian airlines didn't have a need to change its flawless name. Misplaced conviction that it could turn its image to one of being a 'smart aggressor' from that of a 'passive looser', by changing the name led to the retirement of a very worthy name for an inapt one ...

... As a rule, brand name change should be overwhelmingly justified. Most importantly, it should be understood that a need-to-change even on marketing consideration arises more as a compelling one and not as an option. A change, whatever the reason, should be proposed not on the worthiness of the new one but essentially on the deficiencies of present one ...

... It is however tough to tell - - to or not to change a brand name when it is contemplated entirely on marketing considerations - - without a compelling need to change. I believe brands that are not in tune with the market growth despite good fundamentals and good enough efforts do need a name review as part of brand analysis to check if the name is a drive or a drag ...

Branding Life Insurance

... Among the default brand names in India LIC happens to be most familiar owing to being a lone player for over 50 years. In comparison with the competing default brand names it wins over every other brand except of course Aviva. I am relating with the potential of the names in being able to deliver marketing (promotion) advantages in course of time. In defending its slowly but surely eroding market share the first thing LIC should ideally do is to herald being marketing savvy by formally projecting the letters L I C as its brand name within a classy design and use it and leverage on that as such ...

... The combi-names ride many risks. As business grows or runs into rough weather some of the Insurance partnerships can be expected to change out of relevance to their name ... 

... Brand-ability potential is about Brand Equity of a name when it is new. It refers to the sound, size and suitability of the name. In essence, brand equity of a yet-to-be-launched brand is essentially valued by its potential to be able to absorb values that would be built into it ...

... After all, what's in a Name? Nothing?? The Insurance names in India should prove something ... 

... And think of the slogans. Theory of probability seems to work perfectly right. Aviva got its name right and a slogan that's unbeatable. 'Kal par control'. Well, that speaks about the collective marketing maturity at Aviva. That's about identity and lack of it. Slogans of all the other companies sound silly in comparison with 'Kal Par Control'. Quite a few of them don't have one yet. It does make sense to take time to think out than to throw out a de-brander. With the best out there already it's going to be tough job beating it out ...