±±¾©Èü³µpk10

What is a brand? In the unlikely event you read my last column, you

will recall that many of the characteristics we traditionally associate

with brands no longer apply.

Nowadays brands aren’t necessarily objects. They aren’t necessarily

immutable.

They aren’t necessarily of uniform quality. They need have no

trademark.

Today we describe as brands everything from universities to religions,

from orchestras to soccer clubs. The concept of branding has become

ubiquitous.

The danger is that the ’b-word’ is being used so casually it will soon

cease to mean anything at all. We need to redefine what branding now

means with pellucid precision: we need to rebrand branding.

Given the twaddle many people talk about branding, that may not be

easy.

People argue constantly about whether brands are things or perceptions -

whether they are objective reality or just mental images. They are none

of those things; they are all of them. Brands are names appended to

things.

The names without the things (if you can imagine such a possibility)

would be meaningless; the things without the names wouldn’t be

brands.

Every brand is, like water, a fusion of two basic elements which combine

to form something greater than the sum of their parts. Every brand

unites reality and imagery - or specification and perception, if you

prefer.

For some types of brand the specification is more important than the

perception; for others it’s the other way round. But both matter.

Always.

Recently, we have learned that imagery and perception apply to just

about every darn thing under the sun. Moreover, our images and

perceptions are often more constant than the things themselves. Our

images of Arsenal, or the Royal Ballet, may outlive countless changes of

players and management. As with the flickerings of movie frames, our

perceptions provide continuity even when the objects themselves keep

changing.

But that does not mean the objects are irrelevant.

Brand names are nouns. Nouns define things. The philosopher John Wisdom

- what a brilliant brand name for a philosopher! - said nouns are

predictive: they tell us what to expect. The noun ’detergent’ (or

’chocolate’, or ’car’) defines our rough expectations. Brand names,

however, are more than predictive. Brands are promises. They promise

that the entity they refer to will have certain features, both tangible

and intangible. Consumers may expect the brand to have a specific

formulation (packaged goods), or a specific style (fashions, media), or

a specific philosophy (corporations and institutions).

A brand promises to deliver what the public expects of it. If it breaks

its promises it will self-destruct. But if it keeps its promises the

public will grow to trust it. Brands help consumers to select the things

they want, reject those they don’t, and ensure they get what they pay

for.

Those are massive consumer benefits - and are the benefits brands exist

to provide, whatever form they take.

A few years ago people prattled on about ’the death of brands’.

Bullshit.

Brands continue remorselessly to grow ever more important. And

paradoxically the internet will strengthen, rather than weaken, their

significance.

But that will be another story.