January 29th, 2009 @ 5:20 am
Earlier this week, I posted what I thought was a fairly innocuous poll “Do Your Marketers Produce Good Leads?“ Anyway, it elicited a fair number of angry responses from marketeers who objected to my long-held opinion that B2B marketing’s primary job should be lead generation. As usual, some people brought up the other “benefits” that are supposed to come from marketing activities that are not connected with lead generation. They’re dead wrong. Here’s why.
This Blog's Best Post: The Ultimate Cold Calling Tool |
Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS
saadath
i dont agree with this! this analysis is baseless!
A brand is the sum of the ''Product'' without a brand with defined vales and positioning, there can be no lead for the consumer on choices, its left to the consumer to conjure up his/her own imagination about a certain product, therefore marketing'' branding is is must to give a product a direction and defined picture.
A well positioned brand in consumers mind is easy to sell, without a known brand a consumer is wasting time searching what to buy, frustrated that he does not know whats this product there for, what it offers, what it promises.
teraines
Agreed. I've been selling enterprise product at Fortune 100 companies for years - Dell, EDS, HP... and frankly, the author is WAYYY off base. I respect my marketing peers because "brand" is who we are. With no disrespect to the author, he is thinking very small minded and the examples are the tactical results of marketing strategy. Some are bad, I agree but saying that branding is a waste of money is like telling a top athlete to know know who they are in every detail - their strengths, weaknesses, best approaches, etc. "Know Thyself" is as basic as it comes and THAT is good branding. It is alignment of your outward presence to your inner core being.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from teraines: I respect my marketing peers because "brand" is who we are.
Let me guess. You sell either sell Kool-Aid or have been drinking it in the marketing cubicles.
indizyne
Hmmm... I can understand where the author is coming from but I think the analysis is off. Yes there are established brands that need not do much in terms of marketing to retain their prestige. But, I tell you let a major scandal hit, like enron and what happened to arthur anderson (known as AA)??? they simply disappeared. Yes, a strong brand is not just a product of good marketing. Generally a good product can sell itself but marketing gets the message out on a larger scale,. If the product is crap, no amount of marketing can change that. It will grow out of usefulness.
However, it seems the author is considering the fact that brand recognition is a lifelong relationship that takes years to build, just like friendship. If a particular designer has been good to me in terms of styling, I knkow that if i walk in, i'll pretty much find something i like, than if i were generally unfamiliar with a new designer. It's that simnple!!
askcody
I think that both marketing and sales often overrate themselves. It really depends on the nature of the product as to which one is going to make a bigger difference. And, no matter what, both are dependent on a great product. Without a great product, both marketing and sales are going to struggle.
Let's imagine a company without a sales department or a marketing department, just some guy in a warehouse that makes a great widget. Even if you could pay him a few bucks for the widget if you happened upon his warehouse, the man would have to be very lucky to have the exact right person pass by his warehouse and buy the product, then have that guy tell all of his friends about it for the widget to be a success.
Now, let's imagine the same guy with a great widget but without a marketing department. He spends his time going door to door trying to get people to look at, try out, and use his product. Maybe he sells at county fairs or conferences because he can see that it allows him to get in front of more people. Unless he gets lucky and someone really likes the product and starts telling all of their friends, he's still only selling to whoever happens to pass by his booth or whose door he knocks on.
Now imagine a guy with a marketing department and only a website or a cashier to process orders. He publicizes his widget, gets the press interested, ends up on Oprah about it, and tons of people find out about his widget. He guest blogs about his product everywhere, puts ads up all over the place, and suddenly a ton of people recognize his product. Great. But when they actually show up to buy it and have any worries, they talk themselves out of the sale. No one is converting the leads and thus he gets a few sales, but not nearly as many as he could have.
The best companies always have sales and marketing that compliment each other. One without the other makes life incredibly difficult.
Here's a quick real life example: The Snuggie. It's a crazy wearable blanket that was promoted on infomercial television and has now started selling in a few stores. It's made $40 million since October. It was promoted with a tongue in cheek marketing strategy that got a ton of people talking about it. Now there are YouTube parodies, Facebook fan pages, and all kinds of media references. The question is simple: how did marketing affect the sales of Snuggie?
A couple of years ago a similar product was created by a college kid who thought it would be the next big thing. He packaged it and sold it online. He even put in the effort tying to sell it and got it on the shelves of a few stores. But he didn't make millions, it just sat there. Now, after Snuggie's marketing efforts, his company is getting some of the spillover and is making tons of money.
Ultimately, marketing and sales don't exist independent of each other except in rare cases. Some products can be marketed to success (Snuggie), others must be sold one relationship at a time (Bruce Brakenhoff). Paying tons of money ton an inefficient sales guy (your CEO?) or spending millions on an Edward Zwick promo piece are both major issues inside of ineffective companies. We just need to focus on the things that drive customers from "out there" into our business and then we need to turn those prospects into sales. In the same way that sales people have to focus on the daily actions that convert their lead lists into customers, marketing people have to focus on the actions that bring the most people in the door for the least amount of money.
R Grayson
Mr. James is trying to brand himself--like Bill O'Reilly, by being contrary. His examples are good, just twisted. He just doesn't understand the DNA of branding which I'll explain--if you don't have a brand, you can't differentiate, and then only price will sell.
michaelhamilton
Marketing is very important- when done well. Sales is of equal
importance, however the best ways to reduce expenditures and
add actual dollars to your firms bottom line are by eliminating
redundencies associated with having both departments. Think
about sales and cold calling is in effective alone and marketing
is ineffective unless performed by intelligent people that are
equally creative. Marketing professionals in general are neither.
The new paradigm is a dual role that optimizes analytics and
sector intelligence. Outsiorce the creative packaging for
deliverables.
sameer.muntode
What you say is right to some extent. Companies should not spend enormously just on branding & promotion activities.
How can a bad product or service be promoted as a good brand. A good product would always have an upperhand vs a bad one, whether you brand it or no.
But companies should take care not to switch to UMBRELLA BRANDING to sell even its not so good products. Today's customer / consumer is quite educated to make out the difference.
One should not be very fanatic about the corporate brand name.
JoeGreenz
I love this discussion. Mr James is correct, in my opinion. The issue isn't the importance of brands, but the concept of 'branding'. The Moxie illustration is spot on. There are plenty of well designed products out there - designed by designers (who, somewhere along the way, 'rebranded' themselves as brand specialists, rather than graphic designers).
I worked for a leading Australasian brewer as Creative Director for their brands online and it shocked me that all of their brands had product managers and brand managers - but none of them had any responsibility for sales - that was trade marketing's problem. What moved product was distribution and what got distribution was deals and relationships with the trade. Oddly enough slick advertising campaign launches usually resulted in a dip in sales. This was usually used as evidence of the fact that the budget needed to increase the following year.
Brand-ing as a verb is as stupid as creativity - brands are important and so is innovation but things have gone awry when we get introspective and precious - the job is to change or reinforce consumer behavior with great products at the right price in the right place. Advertising has a job to do too but it is not to occupy the marketing department in the business of making 'art'.
medialounge
Image & Branding can make a good product BRILLANT!!! Apple is a fine example of this. iPod isn?t the best MP3 player on the market. Nor are their computers. But wrap it all up with Apple?s branding and they?ll come running. How else can you justify spending hundreds of dollars more for an equivalent spec PC. Because it?s cool to have.
Apple uses product placement very effectively. How many movies, TV shows etc do you see with an apple computer placed on the desk and more recently the iPhone. This is probably what LG was trying accomplish. With brand placement alongside industry professionals.
steve@...
Okay everybody line up on your respective sides.
You can count on Mr. James tossing out this sales vs
marketing content on a regular basis. It always leads
to the same division of camps and passionate
rebuttles. This is the same tactic the CNET takes by
tossing out a Mac vs. Windows piece nearly weekly.
This trolling for discussion by Geoffrey is predictable
and at this point boring. Move along folks, there's
lots of smoke but there isn't any fire.
Shall we set our contact managers to check for the
same recycled crap on the 28th of February?
The Geofry James theme song
trollin', trollin', trollin'
Keep postin', postin', postin',
Though they're disapprovin', '
Keep them advertisers movin' Rawhide!
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from Steve: Must be time to bring readership numbers up
Au contraire. While my periodic screed against marketing do generate a fair number of comments, they don't generate much traffic. What generates most of the traffic on this blog is "6 way to sell" articles. I think of my exposes of marketing as something of a public service.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from R Grayson: if you don't have a brand, you can't differentiate, and then only price will sell.
There are many, many ways to differentiate that do not require pricey ad campaigns and various marketing boondogles. Example: I know of one supplier of commodity parts who gets a premium price simply because their warehouses are dispersed and they can guarantee delivery within 1/2 a day, while the competitors can only deliver overnight. Similarly, many companies differentiate by their sales process, making it easier to order and obtain their offerings. Along with great offerings, these are the things that create a "brand" -- silly exercises in marcom excess.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from medialounge: Image & Branding can make a good product BRILLANT!!! Apple is a fine example of this. iPod isn?t the best MP3 player on the market. Nor are their computers.
No, it can't. No, they're not. Yes, it is. Yes, they are.
As for Apple's supposed ability to use its brand to foist a substandard product on the market, I have two words for you: Apple Newton.
michaelhamilton
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
In comment 13 above, I left out the all important word "not". It should have read "not silly exercises in marcom excess."
Man, I wish they'd put an editable comment feature on this blog.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Email from a reader:
I agree with much of what you say--but have you ever tasted Red Bull? Hard too image it tastes worse than Moxie, yet the $5.00 gulp was a huge success fueled by word of mouth and strategic sampling.
Operative phrase here is "word of mouth" -- the diametric opposite of a pricey "branding strategy." And Red Bull is an energy drink, isn't it? Moxie tastes like sour Coke with some cough syrup in it. Ugh. Apparently it still exists so that New Englanders can torture themselves.
steve@...
Blogs with more posts lead to higher ranking in search
results which lead to more traffic which justifies higher
rates for advertising. A google search on "marketing
vs. sales" brings up one of your other trolls as number
2 in organic listings.
It is so appropriate that you chose the word "screed" to
describe your post. Just for fun I ran a Google search
on "define: screed" it produces among others the oh so
accurate definition: "a long monotonous harangue"
You are a broken record, and like the same, utterly
predictable and annoying.
michaelhamilton
I see many great points made and do indeed agree
with many; however- what it boils down to is adding
dollars to the bottom line. the most effective way to
do this- in todays economy is by eliminating
redundancies associated with duplicate costs and
duplicate workflow. In both regards- albeit technology
or multiple departments- what happens is different
departments like different technologies don't always
hand shake. Both marketing and sales are dependent,
however as companies are now looking to cut costs-
they are looking outward firms like Bloomberg- to
leverage their internal consultants and fully integrated
platform every data feed one could imagine as well as
various management consultants- McKinsey, Deloitte
etc... that is if the firm is a household name with bond
holders etc...
Obviously- everyone is now looking to cut costs- so
the decision to implement the following paradigm will
trickle downward from the C-Level. Marketing
departments and sales departments are pretty much
******. as always- sales is first to go. this will
continue as the days of cold calling are now realized to
be totally ineffective. this is easy to gauge- due to
whatever CRM or ERP solution your firms uses.
Marketing people are going to be replaced by
Analytics.
The new paradigm will be less people, but greater
responsibility and dual roles and more money for the
new business development experts- most likely
brought in form the outside. basically this someone
(business development, account rep- whatever) will
meet with the prospect and then take any feedback
that prospect has back to R&D- for them to develop.
creative presentation of deliverables is advertising-
which is outsourced.
thanks my name is michael
oriondesign
Interesting piece. I completely
understand the author's frustration
with "branding" ideas that actually have
nothing whatsoever with the intrinsic
value proposition of the product (e.g.
the LG example). Branding works,
when it does, because the message
being sent out is consistent with the
real values of the organization.
Branding isn't a logo or a slick ad
campaign. Branding is truly knowing
who you are as a company, and
creating ways to show that to the world
in a way that's authentic, engaging,
and REAL. I recently wrote an article on
this for my newsletter that I think is in
keeping with the real spirit of branding: http://orioncreativegroup.com/articles
/branding-strategy-0109.php
usmanb17
I think that almost everyone on this forum is missing the point that it's B2B that the author is discussing not B2C which has a completely different dynamic. Although he is right for the most part (obviously if no one knows you exist no one is going to buy), if there were no marketing in both it would make the sales department's job much harder! Marketing actually sets the direction the company is heading in and they need to work very closly with the sales department to go there, simple as that!
ricmayer@...
As usual those people who have opinions which are extreme run the risk of losing credibility because of their lack of a balanced perspective. However I do plan to use the 'rant' in one of my marketing tutorials. This will be interesting particularly if students ask me who the author is? I will simply shrug my shoulders and give my own opinion. Now if there was a web site that I could point them to ---? No, no, because surely that would remotely suggest the author is developing a brand!!
elitetuner@...
I somewhat agrees with part of th earticle however; the important thing to realize is that when marketing in B2B arena; branding is more focused on sales, directed towards targeted audience and buit on trust (strong relationship) in addition to the general awareness.
In B2B environment nobody welcomes the idea of listening to sales pitch so the secret is NOT TO SELL, but to solve, provide and enable. Thus the relationship with B2B customers become extremely important to deliver a complete package of interaction and experience from your organization.
At the end what gets sold B2B-wise(product, service or solution) must align with the overall business objective in maximizing the marketing effort: to close the sale, get repeat business and receive word-of-mouth referral. Sales and marketing go hand in hand, it should enhance each other to generate brand equity and revenue.
ayomoses
GENTLEMAN, WHO WAS YOUR PROFESSOR AT SCHOOL? WHAT IS THIS:"Coke has a great BRAND not because of BRANDING but because it?s a great product with a flawless sales and distribution model". Do you truly believe in what you write or you simply dont understand the nitty gritty of what you write about. The flawless sales & distribution model,great product and alLl that is what sums up the persona;lity of a brand. You need to learn more about brand management. Everything that makes a product unique has brand communication implication. Please note that everything associated to a product or the producer can be used to communicate the brand value of that product. Get it boy....we PR prople understand this better.. Go back to school man. AYO
viola.gauci
Trying to change history are you? While I do agree that money allocated to Marketing is, more often than not, not used to the max, you have to admit that branding is not overrated.... you stated in one comment to a reader that price is not the only determinant left other than marketing, but high quality and distribution play an important role in the customer's choice too.. however these all boil down to increasing total costs don't they? with high total costs come high prices, which are higher than your competitors', so then you either have to lower them back down, or up the marketing again, to up the sales....
that's basically how it works... though if you want to believe you can understand something we don't.. I don't want to burst your bubble 
back2future
I DO AGREE WITH THIS ARTICLE. As my marketing professor was often saying: "GET REAL GUYS"
What means to get real? Getting real means exactly whats written in this article. With branding and huge marketing campaigns companies are trying to fool people about their product. Why would you need to advertise and brand your product if its good anyways and if you think that people need it then leave them find out by themselves.
On the other hand. If I go and buy a product which I see on bildboards and on TV and everywhere possible that I can imagine, but the product crap then every time I see this advertisement I will say to my friend walking with me on the street. Hey you see this ad, never buy this product, I got deceived once but do you ever buy it because its ****.
So sometimes marketing can be a double-edged knife and then why spend so much on marketing when you can simply charge less for your product and then people will be more tempted to buy it and if its quality they will buy it again and recommend it.
Devranjan
For most people the term "Branding" implies ads and only ads same is the view of Mr. Geoffrey James. The gross error that people like Geoffrey do is that they comment and discuss about those topics about which they have no idea and the worst is that they do not want to have an idea about it either.His idea and his comments about the ads of LG is also completely out of place because he has done no research about the customer segment geographic and demographic that ad is meant for?? Besides that he is talking about LG as a Brand because he is aware of the brand name LG while there are numerous Organisation which have a sales team in place but do not sell because they suffer from lack of awareness among potential customers thats exactly what "Branding" does.
dbeverly1@...
I look at Marketing with a big "M" as the four P's -- product, price, place (distribution) and promotion. There is also marketing small "m" that represents marketing communications (advertising, public relations, direct mail, etc.). Developing a meaningful brand requires success in both. Big "M" marketing's role is to define a product that addresses a need and to deliver it in a manner that satisfies the customer and consumer while making a profit and a reputation for the organization. This is the first essential level of "lead generation." Branding is a promise to customer and consumer as to the quality of the product, how it will be delivered, what the brand stands for, etc., that is accentuated by symbolism (logo, colors, etc.). A company's "brand," much the same as livestock is "branded," is a company's signature for that promise and should signify ownership of that promise that no one else can claim. This is a second level of "lead generation" that most companies never achieve and relies on marketing small "m" for delivery. Branding's content, however, is defined by big "M" marketing decisions. Once achieved, branding is the value added that allows customers to instantly believe in an organization's new products (iPOD and iPhone ... note that even the letter "i" has been branded by Apple) and to allow expansion into new categories (Ralph Lauren Home; the Hallmark Channel) by extrapolating the principles of its brand promise into new arenas with lower overall costs for entry. This is enormous profitable value that occurs only through establishing a brand. The above argument points to the brand Moxie and compares it to Coke. The large "M" marketing for Moxie differs from Coke's in that it is a targeted niche brand of beverage and Coke is one of the few brands that can successfully target almost everyone. By the way, Coke began as a niche brand, but over the years has expanded its reach through sold strategic marketing (both big "M" and small "m"), that includes branding down to the very shape of a bottle! Moxie's challenge then is to develop a special relationship with its customers (brokers, distributors and retailers) and consumers such that it fulfills on its own promise. As a brand, it would do poorly if it were promising to be the next Coke or that it is a Coke alternative, but can do quite well if it forwards a different promise -- one that is likely to position it as an "anti-Coke," actually, that takes "moxie" to enjoy! If it has limited distribution and a higher price point than Coke, Moxie can also promise to deliver greater ROI in a single facing (let's say) for a customer, without interfering with the retailer's Coke business helping to increase its overall profitability. Understanding that branding involves both marketing big "M" and marketing small "m" clarifies the question of branding and illustrates how establishing a brand involves every level of marketing to be successful.
Marketing VP
Mr James, you really are a penis.
stroebel
The problem here is that everyone, incl you Geoffrey, seems to equate 'marketing' to 'advertising and promotion' i.e. communications strategy. Marketing's real role has to do with driving sales, sure, as it has to cover the full spectrum of the business mix. The brand, then, also derives its equity from the full mix i.e. the way the punter experineces the brand at ALL levels. This is not a linear issue. And, of course, Moxie has to taste cool!!!
PowerFlite
All James has managed to say in this so-called article is
that BADLY MANAGED corporate branding can kill profits.
The same can be said of badly managed sales, badly
managed product design, etc. Really, this whole BNET
series on why branding and marketing efforts are bad,
but sales efforts are good is at best non-productive and
at worst destructive to companies trying to make a name
in the world. Either way, more often than not these have
been blatantly wrong. Maybe one day BNET will hire an
actual expert to write columns.
warmsoul
I totally agree on the huge effort needed to
convert a lead into a deal, but most arguments
against branding seem to me weak or, at least,
not universally applicable. We see lots of
opposite examples: Diesel or D&G jeans (why
should you pay extra 100$ vs exactly same
unbranded model manufactured by same asian
industry, with same materials?), or rebranded
laser printers sold by Epson at higher price
than OEM, or any licensed product... For sure
brand, product and distribution must align and
integrate. But brand - depending on market,
brand and customer - is often a value that
customer is willing to pay for. Not only in
B2C.
djftl
Yo marketing works period man, and good products can generate enough profits for the company to survive as going concern. But when a shareholder starts to nag your senior management for an increase on ROI what do they do? They run a marketing campaign and increase their sales work force (possibly) and look at ways of position their product in a better way than their competititors. If you need to grow your profits you need a good product - that will have good features, benefits and give value to your client, brand it, distribute and position it, send great sales team to spearhead the sales units directly while you are running a marketing campaign to drive your mass market to your store-shelves.
If you go out and develop a product that has no name, but has good features and benefits, few people will buy it and i doubt that the business will last a long time.
Your example of LG sounds like a sponsorship, which is a long term strategy to increase value of the brand. If they were running an ad campaign with no direct link to their product and expecting short term increase of profits on any of their products, I agree with you they must be STUPID!! But rest assured a company without any marketing strategy is doomed to make small profits if not break-even or failure.
craigsherrett
A brand is about trust and promises - does the consumer trust the promises of the brand? It is not about advertising. Advertising tries to convey to consumers that they can trust the brands promises. Only the product/service can create the brand and that comes in the form of perceived value from buyer.
Since everyone likes to use examples in these discussions, I'll join the lemming parade. Polaroid had a great brand (and still does to a certain extent). They promised instant pictures. They didn't say it was cheap, or that the pictures were good, or anything else other than 'push the button and in sixty seconds you get a picture". It was unique, and people trusted their promise because they delivered.
bschutt
Your analysis assumes that the product is separate from brand, and brand is limited to the marketing of the product. But good brands give both a clear promise to the consumer, then deliver on that promise. And, not all of that promise is around a superior product in the sense that you explained it. How would your analysis account for the likes of Red Bull, which fails most taste comparison studies and offers less quantity than competitors, but demands a premium price?
I do agree than there are bad marketing ideas. Your LG example for instance, might not work. But strategically speaking (and given your credentials, you're aware of this already) trying to align yourself with a celebrity that has a niche following can be a great way to change the perception of your product in the minds of consumers. Differentiation is key to both marketing and sales, and if LG is seeing itself commoditized, the strategy they are undertaking is not unfounded.
Avi Fertig
Are you right? Are you wrong? As with all marketing except direct marketing ... who the hell knows?
Here's what the smart people think:
?A good advertisement is one which sells the product without drawing attention to itself.? -- David Ogilvy
?A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it's bad.? -- Bill
Bernbach
?Doing business without advertising is like winking at a girl in the dark. You know what you are doing, but
nobody else does.? -- Steuart Henderson Brit
?I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I can never find out which half.? -- John
Wanamaker
smarter1
This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever seen on BNET.
Sounds like a personal rant of a failed (and possibly redundant) marketeer!
ron@...
I support your conclusions, Mr. James!
"Marketing" is (most simply put) positioning your product in front of your likely prospects in such a manner as is found appealing.
"Sales" is the actual exchange of goods or services for whatever medium you choose (usually cash).
Marketing makes the job of a sales person VASTLY easier, given the prospect already knows (IF the marketing is effective!) the basics of who you are.
The Sales staff must communicate the offer(s) to the customer in such a way the customer can't believe they've lived without the product all those years!
For example, our product (The Armadillo Dollar) requires an education on the latest technologies (RFID) and how people are stealing your information now ("RFID Hacking") prior to a sale taking place.
THAT job belongs to Marketing.
Our Sales Team handles the copy on the pages designed to generate the exchange.
Ron Hatton
Co-Founder
The Armadillo Dollar
www.ArmadilloDollar.com
schaffer.susan@...
Advertising is always the easy vilain because it's so public. Think about the wasteful, perhaps downright stupid decisions are made throughout the organizational hierarchy.
Good B:B selling requires pre and post sale customer support - BRANDING. The professionalism of the sales team - BRANDING. Products and services that exceed expectations - BRANDING. YES - B:B needs branding...and sometimes smart advertising.
Neither B:B or B:C businesses need fuzzy advertising where the objectives and messaging is overridden by someone's interpretation of cool and creative.
All businesses need branding... Real branding and Real Marketing need to be focused on consistent alignment with clear, meaningful objectives!
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from Marketing VP: Mr James, you really are a penis.
Indeed, that is my official brand image. Unfortunately, BNET won't let me put an appropriate logo on these posts.
Vise-Grip
Marketing VP wrote:
Mr James, you really are a penis.
Insightful comment that really contributes to the discussion. What company are you the VP of Marketing for?
ennyman
>>>>>>>I think that almost everyone on this forum is missing the point that it's B2B that the author is discussing not B2C which has a completely different dynamic.<<<<<
I agree with James's point on B2B... marketing needs to be generating leads, or more importantly, ROI. Most smaller companies get seduced into thinking they have to be like Coke and MacD's but THEY SHOULD NOT do that because it IS a huge cost and takes years if not decades.
I DISAGREE with James' illustration which did not apply to his point. >>>>Coke has a great brand not because of branding but because it?s a great product with a flawless sales and distribution model. Period.<<<< He confuses the readers by using a B2C example. Come on... Coulda done better. Furthermore, Coke vs. Moxie is also a bad example. There are other good colas. Product quality? Coca Cola? Oh please... It is a sweet liquid. In the Third World, whichever delivery truck arrives at the store first back in the jungle is the one who fills the shelves. I have seen it with my own eyes.
Have fun stirring the pot.
e.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from Steve: Blogs with more posts lead to higher ranking in search
results which lead to more traffic which justifies higher rates for advertising. A google search on "marketing vs. sales" brings up one of your other trolls as number 2 in organic listings.
Thanks for the explanation, but none of that gets on my radar screen. I have no idea how BNET works its ad sales, although I did meet with BNET's head of sales, for 30 seconds, once, during a quick tour of the facilities last time I was on the west coast.
I just post what I'm thinking and observing and what I think will amuse and inform. I get regular traffic reports which is why I know these marketing discussions are pretty much dead weight. Interesting for some of us, but certainly not a big traffic draw.
Sorry you find these posts monotonous, though. I realize now that I shouldn't have strapped you to your seat, propped your eyes open with toothpicks, and forced you to read them. My bad.
fmigacz@...
In 1887, another Atlanta pharmacist and businessman, Asa Candler bought the formula for Coca Cola from inventor John Pemberton for $2,300. By the late 1890s, Coca Cola was one of America's most popular fountain drinks, largely due to Candler's aggressive marketing of the product. With Asa Candler, now at the helm, the Coca Cola Company increased syrup sales by over 4000% between 1890 and 1900.
Advertising was an important factor in John Pemberton and Asa Candler's success and by the turn of the century, the drink was sold across the United States and Canada. Around the same time, the company began selling syrup to independent bottling companies licensed to sell the drink. Even today, the US soft drink industry is organized on this principle. (From the site http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/coca_cola.htm)
Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants and vending machines worldwide (The Coca-Cola Company claims that it is sold in over 200 countries [1]). It is produced by The Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta, Georgia and is often referred to simply as Coke or (in European and American countries) as Cola or Pop. Originally intended as a patent medicine when it was invented in the late 19th century by John Pemberton, Coca-Cola was bought out by businessman Asa Griggs Candler, whose marketing tactics led Coke to its dominance of the world soft drink market throughout the 20th century (From the wikipedia article Coca-Cola)
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from ennyman:Have fun stirring the pot.
Apparently it's more fun to be smokin' the pot, which is what I think some of the marketeers who've commented on this post have been doing.
fmigacz@...
Coca-Cola reveals a great importance in advertising and marketing, in the history of Coca-Cola: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/chronicle_the_candler_era.html
rvastar
The following comment from JoeGreenz sums it up perfectly:
Brand-ing as a verb is as stupid as creativity - brands are important and so is innovation but things have gone awry when we get introspective and precious - the job is to change or reinforce consumer behavior with great products at the right price in the right place. Advertising has a job to do too but it is not to occupy the marketing department in the business of making 'art'.
And while I often butt heads with Mr. James when his articles delve into the political arena, I see what he's getting at here. Simply put: no matter how nifty your logo...no matter how creative the sale sheets...no matter how "socially conscious" your business model...at the end of the day, a sh-t sandwich is still just a sh-t sandwich, and no one is going to buy one.
It's why, in the end, I've always thought that so-called "branding" efforts are more effective when they are internally focused - i.e. clearly defining who and what you are as company and culture to your employees first. Taking care of that is an immensely important step in reaching the real goal: offering the right product at the right price.
If your employees don't believe in your company, customers never will.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Email from a reader:
What a breath of fresh air! I couldn't agree more and am thrilled to finally see someone throw down the marketing gauntlet and challenge the real value of "corporate branding". I applaud your courage, Mr. James.
I am President of a small marketing and advertising firm. Our clients are mostly B2C, however, B2B's often ask for a consultation and the issue of "branding" comes up almost every time. Marketing and advertising is about getting the consumer to alter their perception, to know, like, and trust the product, change brand loyalty or buying habits, and persuade them to try the product or service. Our stance has always been that the product or service is what sells the company (or, as in your perfect example of Moxie (I'm a New Englander and know the product, personally) and if the advertising strategy does not create consumer awareness about the product in a way that stimulates curiosity and persuades them to try it, the ad budget, and our time, is wasted. Nothing irks us more than to see vague, artsy, meaningless images that have nothing to do with what a company produces and more imporantly, answers the consumer question of "Why?" Why should I pay attention to you? Why is your p roduct better? Why should I change?
I applaud your taking a brave stand in what others might see as "brand bashing". We've been saying it to our clients for years. It's about time someone said it to the world.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
fmigaczCoca-Cola reveals a great importance in advertising and marketing, in the history of Coca-Cola
Gee, a history of the company written by the marketing group concludes that marketing was Very Very Important. Who woulda thunk it?
marazzo
Thanks for posting such an opinionated article. I learned a lot from the great feedback 
Pammi
So Steve,
Is it a routine of yours to visit and comment on the blogs of those you consider to be "predictable and annoying"? I'm just curious.
*chuckle*
You must have a lot of time on your hands, eh? To disagree with someone's pov is one thing, but to consistently read that "predictable and annoying" person's blog posts, lashing out at them and making baseless accusations towards them is a little stupid don't you think?
But then again, that's just me...I personally don't read the articles of authors who I have such a strong, unflattering opinion about.
*eye roll*
bdelgall
My company makes a very tasty all-natural herb-based seasoning called chimichurri. It can be added to host of foods to season, spice, saute, simmer, marinate, condiment, and even can be used as a dip.
Since I'm a start up with a non-existent marketing budget people are not aware of the benefits of this product and do not know how revolutionary it is. Without marketing there is no brand awareness. Without brand awareness my sales team can go out there and sell tons of the stuff, but it will just sit on the shelfs as without branding the average consumer will walk right by it.
If and take your advice and do not invest in traditional marketing and branding, (and I don't go out of business), I may be able to count on the benefits of positive word-of-mouth and wait for that to tip the product.
But guess what even that grassroot tactic is a form of marketiing that leads to brand awareness - a critical component that influences the consumer at the purchase point -the point that directly determines brand profit by ending in a SALE.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from bdelgall: If and take your advice and do not invest in traditional marketing and branding, (and I don't go out of business)
Great question. I'll post some suggestions next week.
randym@...
Geoff,
This is definitely one of your most entertaining pieces yet. Love the back and forth banter. Very Bill O'Reilly indeed!
I think I read your articles for the same reason people listen to Howard Stern... Just to see what you'll say next. I have to admit, I did take you seriously for a couple months there though. You had me going.
Keep up the great infotainment!
oriole_in_ct
I worked for several years at BIC (shavers, wirting instruments, lighters) and they never advertised their brand. Their brand was the ability to deliver 1 to 1 million units at a fair price faster then their competitor could.
All the advertising brand awareness dollars were never inthe budget, that was money in the bank.
When is the last time you saw a BIC commercial? "Flick my BIC" is a 25 year old slogan. They learned a long time ago that delivery of a quality product is all the consumer requires. Get your product to the retailers and the consumer will buy on price and quality.
tcarpenter
The opinions that attack this point are missing
the point. Mr. James isn't advocating "No"
marketing. Just senseless branding. His
example is a valid example. LG is wasting
these ad dollars. No doubt these same dollars
could be used in a more effective marketing
campaign. Yes, the selling of a given product
or service becomes easier when the customer has
awareness of it's existence however, each
product/service is different. No amount of
Branding will sell a bad product or service
over the long period.
If anything, the flaw in this article is that
the author is thinking Long Term and is
assuming that the reader is thinking long term
as well. However, thinking short term is
pretty much a disease in this country.
malcolm@...
I think R. Grayson has it right about Geoffrey going for the Bill O'Reilly brand positioning. Either that or his salesman myopia has progressed to delusional.
Geoffrey is causing irreparable damage to BNET's brand.
paulmobley
Proposed Title Change:How ADVERTISING Can Kill Your Profit
Branding is much more than just advertising. It's more than a logo. It's more than the product or service offering.
Geoffrey's examples are more towards advertising than branding. I concede that many marketing professionals say they are selling "brand awareness" when they're really selling "advertising". However, branding shouldn't unfairly be minimized by advertising failures.
True brand professionals look at examples like Starbucks as examples of excellent branding. Only recently have they actually done any advertising and their logo is nothing special yet what set them apart was a relentless commitment to being consistent. As politicians say, it's always being "on message".
You would be right if you said that the job of ADVERTISING should be LEAD GENERATION. That statement get's my full support.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
HEADS UP: In the post
Seth Godin Deconstructs Marketing BS
http://blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=820
I provide a video of the world's top marketing guru (IMHO) that addresses some of the criticism in the comments to this post.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from paulmobley: Proposed Title Change:How ADVERTISING Can Kill Your Profit
There's something to that, I guess. Although, I have previously pointed out that other "branding" expenditures (such as logo redesigns and brochures) are often time and money wasters. Vide:
A Market Strategy to Copy
http://blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=210
Brochures are Total BS
http://blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=194
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Darn, forgot to close out the italics again. Grrrrr. There.
j.gies@...
Geoffrey,
Maybe things have changed and marketers have allowed it to happen. But when I went to school Marketing had it's hands in Price, Product,Place (Distribution) and promotion. Today most view marketing as just promotion of one form or another.
I would submitt that true marketing is the congruent management of all of the above to deliver a product/service in such a way as to grow the business profitably.
j.gies@...
When did Marketing just become promotion? When I went to school it had its hands in product, price, place (Distribution) and promotion. It was a wholistic approach to creating a product or service and managing its delivery in a profitable and sustainable manner designed to grow the business.
Perhaps the Marketing folks and others allowed themselves to get seduced by the sexy advertising and promotional aspect.
Successful marketing is all about the congruent management of all of these factors
Lorenzo H
Great discussion. I too think that "JoeGreenz" nails it. Brand-ing needs to stop being treated as a verb, and revert back to a noun. Make a good product, make a nice package, build a great distribution system...but you will always need the sales team out there building relationships, and closing sales. This applies to both B2B and B2C
Waldoemm
I want to say that this is without a doubt the most interesting "discussion" on a topic that I have read on BNET.
I'm not surprised to read so many conflicting opinions. The topic and Mr. James' position invites this.
All I can add is that the subject of marketing's objective related to profit is tricky and one's opinion is most likely closely linked to ones professional position and personal experience with the company and product which one is associated.
There's a lot of gray area here.
Brand is the result of marketing, sales, product, customer service and corporate mission all contributing to a defined message. Everyone needs to do their job to create and sustain brand.
My experience has been that many companies equate branding with advertising and promotions.(creating knowledge,interest, and demand by targeting a core demographic or industry need builds brand.)
What is Microsoft's brand? The software company that makes the world more productive by controlling your choices and limiting your control with a unstable,unreliable, and unsafe source code only Microsoft understand?
What about Mac? the software company that makes you more creative by controlling and limiting the options available?
Microsoft has a large population that hates the product, the company, and "Uncle Bill.", but they own the market.
Apple is beloved and has a very dedicated community of supporters, but they have 10% share.
Both have good products with considerable weaknesses. But both have good marketing programs that target their key user.
You might make the argument that both carved out their own niche and successfully dominate it. But both have very different views of what their brand should be and the consumer types it targets.
I'm from New England. I don't like Moxie but my father loves it. He says its different and unique. That's brand.
Like Moxie in New England, isn't branding success about identifying with the core of your target niche and "DIFFERENTIATING"?
The Pepsi challenge did it with controlled taste tests when it was realized a small amount of Pepsi left a better aftertaste than Coke. Burger King stood out with "Have it your way", and now we see McDonald's creating a new look and new designs for its food packaging aimed at fortifying the brand and staying ahead of obesity concerns, while not giving up on the Big Mac and french fries.
At the end of the day, brand is an evolving concept and is not limited to the marketers.
Successful companies find a balance between brand building costs and ROI to the bottom line.
After all, the bottom line is always "the Bottom Line"
Just my opinion.
Great topic and discussion everyone!
Special thanks to Mr. James for getting the ball rolling.
diveshcms
i think author is right up to some extent. as author told that branding can kill profit but this is only in the case of products which are already established in the market or for the products which are not delivering good quality, taste and so on according to customer's preference.
if we talk about the highly competitive market where all the produts are of nearly same quality, price or we can say produts for same target market, this concept of author is not applicable fully.
companies had to brand thier produt in order to get place in the mind of the customer.
it can be understand easily by an example.
if a new customer want to purchase a laptop.
customers needs matches with the facilities provided by the Dell.
and in case dell is not doing thier branding and customer purchases laptop of compaq because customer can not recall or have faith on dell due to less braning done by dell
then whose is this fault?
i think its the fault of company that they are not able to communicate with customer even customer needs matches by the companies offering.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Email from a reader:
Nice article.
I've had this same opinion for years and have argued this same point till I'm out of breath.
Don't let the marketers get you down. They bring some value to the team but not as much as they think. Selling and Closing a transaction is much more difficult than their ever know or understand.
And, keep breaching the truth. I find it refreshing.
Best Wishes,
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Email from a reader:
Geoffrey, I couldn't agree more with your article about how branding eats into profit...Thanks for your insightful take on reality. It is right on!
joel@...
I am getting into this kind of late ... but perhaps better than never. I do agree with the basic premise that in the B2B world, branding is much much much less important than in the consumer world. In economist jargon, price can go up as so called "utility" increases. In the consumer world utility is more likely to be based (at least in part) on emotion. I drive a BMW in part because I am a snob and I want everyone to know it. The BMW marketing department gets at least some of the credit for creating the reputation (or brand) which makes it appealing to snobs.
If we try to translate this kind of thinking into the B2B world, we might focus on risk. If I am a buyer of services in a company, what I might care most about is not getting fired. So I make a decision to buy services from the firm with the reputation (or brand) that makes me think they will not fail (and therefore, I will not get fired). Now, that brand is in part a result of the services firm's actual capabilities ... but if those capabilities had never been advertised or promoted, then there would be no brand ... and no sale to the guy worried about getting fired.
Joel Radford
Former VP, Marketing
Current Pontificator
kyousif
Lets break it down for you Geoff:
Branding = Quality of product + Benefits + Customer experience + Value Proposition + Corporate Values (Honesty, Trusting etc) + word of mouth + Uniqueness (differentiating factor)
All these contribute to achieve the perfect brand.
If brand were a house, these would be the pillars, any fault on any of the above and you will be soaking wet on your living room.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from kyousif: Branding = Quality of product + Benefits + Customer experience + Value Proposition + Corporate Values (Honesty, Trusting etc) + word of mouth + Uniqueness (differentiating factor)
All that you've done is taken the basic elements of running a business and stuck the term "branding" on it. Most of what you've listed is unmeasurable BS. So let's cut the nonsense and only talk about the elements of "branding" that marketing directly impacts and that can actually be measured. Otherwise, we're just having a discussion about meaningless abstractions like "corporate values."
dmedeiros1@...
Is a Brand based on the reputation it garners overtime based on the experiences of it's customer. Followed by their word of mouth endorsements.
Or is it the results of a magical marketer who knows all the right buttons to push telling you about how great their brand is?
The "Household Names" that reside in your house, no matter where your house may be, clearly illustrated its the first option.
Branding has turned to a instantly attainable grail, a buzz word, for something that in truth takes years to establish. A "REAL" brand delivers profit while the other will surely kill it.
clarkm
Maybe it's just me but it seems so many arguments against this post are simply reinforcing the point. Promoting one's products is one thing, corporate branding is another. I've been through the branding process with one of the largest companies in the world. It was truly worthless. Your brand is who you are as a company, it is all encompassing. No amount of marketing will truly change that, unless the change happens throughout the business. I said this earlier in a previous posting on the subject; "who you are speaks so loudly that I can't hear what you're saying". Companies can survive and prosper without expensive marketing or branding campaigns (see BIC example above). They will undoubtedly fail without a good product. These are simple facts.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from clarkm: Companies can survive and prosper without expensive marketing or branding campaigns (see BIC example above). They will undoubtedly fail without a good product. These are simple facts.
That's my point, in a nutshell. And it's also why I think that B2B marketing should focus almost entirely upon lead generation and reducing the cost of sales.
pc4media
This is SOOOOO right on. Thank you for saying this.
Marketing's customer, especially, in B2B companies, is the sales team. Period.
With the predictability, low cost and measurability of internet marketing, if a b2b marketing team isn't generating more demand than the sales team can handle, they should be fired.
B2B marketing = lead generation.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is still living in 1999.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Email from a reader:
Geoffrey, Thank you for the response to my post on "Does Branding Kill Your Profit". I was in the middle of responding to your original post, when I thought the conversation could be explored a bit further. Your blog always provides insight, and is a fresh take on the all to narrow minded marketing blog community.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
It really surprised me how many comments this post generated. I really didn't think the issue was all that controversial.
Nativechild
This exposition is largely on the use of endorsement in the arsenal of branding,the issue from my POV is less about "branding" but touches more on the flaws of execution..To broadbrushstroke the shortcomings of the executional campaign in question to "branding" is somewhat shortsighted.
jiking
I would like to reiterate what some have said about branding me so much more than just a logo and an advertisement. There needs to be a philosophy behind it and it is a holistic approach which handled properly should consider not only potential clients but the corporate culture itself. Brand is image as well as a way of saying how the company does business and how it perceives itself. I have seen re-branding in a company and it does effect everyone.
That said - branding as far as logos works. The other day in a car my 4 yr old pointed to a sign and said "That's a Hardee's!" We have never eaten at a Hardee's.
Superherox
It's too convenient to cite a pre-existing successful
brand like Coke. The operations and marketing has
been refined over decades. For Coke, it's about
dodging any brand tarnishing press and keeping Coke
as visible as possible with efforts in presence. Coke
doesn't need any branding because it's done- at least
for the time being. You are blind if you can't see the
happy marriage between operations and image. By the
way, I would never drink anything called "moxie" even
if it tasted like nectar.
Further, you're right- most branding, marketing,
advertising is wrong or just bad. You're right- who
gives about Edward Zwick. But just because bad
advertising exists, doesn't mean that all marketing is
irrelevant.
dmsilva1
Wow. I really hope Geoffrey does not get paid for this tripe. What an ill-conceived and badly developed argument.
First off, I do agree with some of the points others have made that marketing can be a waste, and that it takes time to develop a brand. I agree, Too many expect a brand to be built overnight.
Unfortunately Geoffrey takes a way too simplistic approach citing Coke as an example of wasted marketing. This just doesn't hold water.
His example hinges on Coke being a superior product vs. Moxie with taste being a key factor. The fact is that taste is a key factor of Coke's success, but it was proven scientifically in the 80s through blind taste tests that coke is not a superior product. After getting the results from the tests the Coca-Cola Corporation developed and launched "New Coke" with disastrous results. Why?
Because New Coke actually had to compete against their own brand, a brand that had been built up over 100 years and had a loyal following. And despite repeated blind taste tests that showed drinkers actually preferred new coke, and many efforts from sales and marketing the company decided to switch back and sales actually improved for the first time in years ultimately landing them on top of the cola wars- a position they had not enjoyed since 1983 (read more about the whole story on wikipedia: new coke)
Now, Geoffrey will likely miss the point entirely and say: "See, marketing doesn't work!" Did good sales and distribution created the brand??? No, that was there before and after. What created the brand was marketing over time. If Coke had taken a long term approach new coke might have succeeded in the end, but sales would have been poor in the short run, their brand would have suffered, and more marketing $$$ would have been required to rebuild what years and millions of marketing dollars had created. Why do that?
Marketing alone is not the solution, but to pretend that it isn't part of the solution is absurd.
A great brand = quality product/service + good sales + good marketing + consistency
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from David Silva: No, that was there before and after. What created the brand was marketing over time.
Even if I agreed with this point, which I don't, what possible relevance is it to any other company that Coke was able to develop a brand over a period of a hundred years. How does that justify wasting money on marketing activities that cannot be measured quantitatively and objectively, with the results tied to sales? Nothing.
Back when I was in marketing, we could get just about any marketing silliness approved by "waving the blue flag" -- pointing out that IBM was doing something of the same sort. The fact that IBM had a completely different market position, and 60 years of name recognition, was never considered. No. If IBM was spending $100 million on ads for dying products, why, we should be doing the same thing
Coke is the "blue flag" of consumer marketing. Marketers who are too lazy or too stupid or too sneaky to devise marketing campaigns that can be measured simply trot out Coke as the gold standard of brand building. It's horse manure, but it plays well in the brain-dead boardrooms, because of the fuzzing thinking that's encapsulated in the notion that "good marketing" is somehow comparable in importance to a good product or good service. Marketing -- even great marketing -- just simply isn't all that important. Marketing is lead generation. Period. Many companies survive and thrive without it, especially in B2B.
Shansen1005
How often does a salesperson call to "pitch" their ideas and the prospect says, "I've never heard of you." or "Send me something to review." You can down-play branding all you like, but if the company doesn't pay attention to it, their sales force will suffer, ultimately. I agree that marketing and branding activities should ultimately generate leads. Generating leads requires a brand that is recognizable and conveys value to customers. The brand is what makes the product what it is, not just great sales and distribution. And by the way, if you had ever taken a marketing class, you'd know that the marketing mix is the 4 ps- product, placement, price, and promotion. Distribution is a big part of marketing strategy.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from Shansen1005: How often does a salesperson call to "pitch" their ideas and the prospect says, "I've never heard of you." or "Send me something to review."
This statement shows that you only have the most rudimentary notions of what goes on during a cold call. Such ignorance is typical of marketing people who have never sold for a living.
Sales reps who attempt to "pitch" in a cold call quickly learn that the purpose of cold calling is to get the opportunity to pitch. And "send me info" is a simple objection that's easily overcome. You really should try selling something; it's a lot more useful than marketing classes, which are mostly collections of theoretical BS based upon meaningless case studies from the 1980s.
jon@...
Right on target Geoffrey James:-): Look at this short video on this page, to hear what the late David Ogilvy said a couple of years ago, but his comments on this is still as valid today as it was when he recorded this video...
http://www.targetbusinesssolutions.com/?page_id=36
roger_jolley@...
Geoffrey James clearly has a bone to pick with
marketing people yet he can't get past his
hidden bias.
Its clear to many of us readers his opinions
about branding has a emotional basis but it
seems to be based on a failure to know what a
business is doing in the first place and he has
a inflated and out of proportion idea about
what sales people do.
Without branding, no one knows you have
anything to sell.
Yes, you can just call it a can of peas, but we
don't buy just a can of peas, we buy the brand
we like or we buy the cheaper store-brand
because we just want peas, period. The store
brand is also a brand, known to millions of
shoppers.
Brand exists as cultural knowledge in people's
mind, even those who have never bought the
product. To denigrate branding just shows your
ignorance about the whole subject of Marketing.
But keep writing; the angry and/or thoughtful
replies to your articles are useful and
entertaining.
roger_jolley@...
Geoffrey, you say marketing is lead generating
period---B2B or otherwise--hogwash.
You don't have the first clue.
Do you read, study texts, or do you watch CNBC
and then run off another rant and call it an
essay on marketing or brand or whatever it is
you don't have time to study and understand.
I think its hilarious some readers believe
you're a marketeer, others assume you're in
sales. You don't seem to have much experience
in either.
To give you credit, you do kick up a storm of
replies, and for that I thank you.
roger_jolley@...
Quote from clarkm: Companies can survive and
prosper without expensive marketing or branding
campaigns (see BIC example above). They will
undoubtedly fail without a good product. These
are simple facts.
""That's my point, in a nutshell. And it's also
why I think that B2B marketing should focus
almost entirely upon lead generation and
reducing the cost of sales.""
Geoffrey, if your article was about what you
think instead of the ill-chosen and misleading
title, you would have made a better connection
and generated even better commentaries.
You think B2B marketing should focus on lead
generation. No problem, your opinion may well
have some valid basis. When you present
yourself as a marketing or sales expert and
then propose to preach to us heathens about our
failures, you bomb badly.
I guess as long as people reply you're
succeeding on your terms, but publishing
ignorant rants may well backfire and undermine
your brand and BNET's.
You may want to consult a college text on
marketing before you publish your next rant.
Marketing people work with engineers to create
the product salesman and women sell.If you
don't know this, then you should stop writing
about either marketing or sales.
Branding Visionary
You not only do not understand the distinction between Sales and Marketing, you clearly do not have a clue about Branding.
To illustrate my point, I will use an example of an integrated marketing and sales initiative in which I was involved. In 1986 Toyota told me, a long-time branding consultant, that they were launching a second line of distribution for their luxury line. They believed then, and stated their mission to become the number one selling luxury vehicle brand in the US market. That goal was achieved and Lexus continues to maintain that position.
I wrote the strategic branding plan and creative brief, which essentially designed the logo. The creative brief explained the strategy and why the logo must be in a dimensional oval; which was such a useless idea that it has been copied by countless automotive logos, and the oval must contain an L in motion. I won?t go into any deeper detail, as you wouldn?t understand it. The strategy was to capture unclaimed marketspace by offering a sales environment that was completely customer facing, as well as the tactics to support that vision.
Unless you have been fortunate enough to have been a part of the team that built the foundation for that mission through branding, then keep you ill-informed opinions to yourself. The entire advertising campaign for the first five years for Lexus was formulated to build the brand and the consumers will experience the value-added product and process. Just like Coke, but a whole hell of a lot faster!
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from Branding Visionary: The creative brief explained the strategy and why the logo must be in a dimensional oval; which was such a useless idea that it has been copied by countless automotive logos, and the oval must contain an L in motion.
Ah! I finally see the light! The reason people buy a $40,000 automobile is because it has a dimensional oval on the logo. Mystery solved! I stand corrected.
If you're interested in business reality as opposed to ludicrous speculation about why people buy things, you might want to check out today's post:
What Killed GM? Brand Marketing.
http://blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=1975
hrbarbie
Love your straight talk! Tell it like it is. I wish I was on a consumer review committee to give feedback to advertisers - some of the commercials are so bad that I can't remember the product. The new Comcast Commericals are terrible. The sing-song thing they are doing is totally confusing - I can't understand what they are trying to say. All the words run together. It appears the director was stoned while producing the new comcast cartoon commericals. I liked the previous comcast advertising campaign - short and to the point. Don't get me wrong, I love some creativity, like the E*Trade baby.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Quote from hrbarbie:It appears the director was stoned while producing the new comcast cartoon commericals.
Maybe he was! Some ad agencies are awash in nose-powder, even today.
ldva
I enjoy many of the pieces, but frankly this is sophomoric. Using Geoffrey's own example of Moxie vs. Coke. Moxie had great "branding", by which he appears to mean great promotion (words, graphics, etc.). He then denigrates Coke's promotion efforts (ok, so you don't like the advertising), and instead lays Coke's success at the feet of distribution and product. Perhaps you need a refresher in business basics: Product, distribution (place), promotion are three of the four most basic, integral parts of marketing (price is the fourth). Branding is the belief system about these things plus the company. When marketing and branding are done right, it can predispose a potential customer to a product, which makes the sales job easier -- and in the occasional case, irrelevant.
justin@...
I'm actually in sales but I have a new found respect for the power of advertising after seeing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Justin:
That video is entirely anecdotal. It has no scientific validity at all or any real measurement. As such, it's pretty useless as a way of assessing the value of advertisement.
kathlenequinn
If you have teenagers, you understand the value of branding.
iPod versus a regular MP3 player, Evian versus (gasp) generic bottled water, Nike versus Wal-Mart tennis shoes.
I appreciate the cheaper things in life, but Wal-Mart shoes and a good lecture on the value of a hard-earned dollar makes teenagers roll their eyes (a response that actually brings me some joy, because it means they will eventually get their own jobs).
Let's face it - there's a bit of teenage mentality in all of us. Case in point: My 1996 Lincoln. 186,000 miles so far and still doing well - which clearly shows it's a quality car - yet most people I know would be embarrassed to drive it. Why? Because it is not only old, it's generally marketed toward older people. My sister, for example, does not identify who she is or who she aspires to be in terms of a 1996 (or any year) Lincoln. I like it because it was cheap. When I tell people I drive a Lincoln and joke that it is guided by GPS to auto-pilot to any casino in a 50-mile radius, they get the joke. That's because the demographic that usually buys Lincolns also frequent casinos, and most people know that.
While cars and shoes are not big name brand things for me, computers are - so everything I buy is Apple, and it makes me proud to own many iPods, Macs, etc.
For new products, branding clearly isn't a magic wand. It's a heiroglyphic. It encapsulates meaning into a pictoral image. Hand in hand with quality, it can assign and reinforce personality to something inanimate. As people, we like that because humans have a tendency to form relationships with things. Incidentally, lonely people, or those without firm direction in their decisions are also prone to attach greater meaning to inanimate objects - which means marketing may be even more effective to people involved in that experience.
So while I agree the brand isn't the magic solution, I disagree that people wouldn't prefer trying a well-marketed, disgusting beverage instead of buying a Coke. I mean, we're paying for name brand bottled water, so...
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Re: Note 96:
Again with "Coke" example. And more brands that are decades old and thus have decades of product history behind them. And were launched back when there were 3 TV networks and 4 working channels on most TVs. I'm sorry, but those examples are no longer relevant in a world of constant, never-ending brand SPAM. Nobody cares about your "brand." They care about your product. Use advertising to make them aware of the product -- if it's good enough to pass muster -- otherwise you're wasting money.
JMBERARDI1
I think the author makes a simple, valid point beyond the abrupt nature of the article's title.
Branding for branding sake is a potentially expensive waste of time. It all starts with the basics - right product positioned right and overall customer satisfaction . Once those parameters are set , branding can resume and then becomes more powerful. I have worked in companies where the brands were virtually non-existent to the consumer , but our products, marketing techniques and speed to market consistently outpaced the competition so we were able to consistently grow revenues and profits without the costly overhead of a traditional marketing budget.
Geoffrey James, Sales Machine
Re: Note 98:
Note that the examples from his own experience say that branding campaigns are unnecessary, but he can't quite give up the idea that such campaigns should be "resumed." Such is the power of the myth of branding. It's a perfect example of "who ya gonna believe: Kotler or your own lying eyes?"
JMBERARDI1
Re: Note 99:
While I might appear to be contradictory, my point basically is, branding is not necessarily essential for a financially successful marketing model across the board. And my comments did not state that branding "should" resume but , rather, "can" resume, if needed, once the basics are fulfilled.
Geoffrey James
Geoffrey James has sold and written hundreds of features, articles and columns for national publications including Wired, Men's Health, Business 2.0, SellingPower, Brand World, Computer Gaming World, CIO, The New York Times and (of course) BNET. He is the author of seven books, including Business Wisdom of the Electronic Elite (translated into seven languages and selected by four book clubs), and The Tao of Programming (widely quoted on the Web as a "canonical book of... more »
Popular on CBS sites: SEC Football | NFL | Video Game Cheats | iPhone | Video Game Reviews | Notebooks | Antivirus Software
About CBS Interactive | Jobs | Advertise | Mobile | RSS
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy (updated) | Terms of Use | Site Map
Barack Obama is a master at grabbing and keeping his audience's attention, which is the number one goal of any public speaker. How does he do it? Here are five key lessons from Obama's rhetorical playbook.
In the highly publicized chicken wars, KFC seems to be winning the financial battle over El Pollo Loco. But is it really fair to compare the smaller chain to Colonel Sanders' empire?
How’d you like to earn a few thousand dollars for less than an hour of your time? This is no get-rich-quick come-on. The extra income is the potential payoff for making a few simple and painless money moves.
