
When I first said "Branding Is Dead", it caused a minor (very minor) ruckus.
"Branding" is just a metaphor. "The Brand" is just a metaphor. Something to do with cattle and red hot irons. Whatever. If it works for you, great. But I find that metaphor a very dry hole these days.
One advantage of thinking it as "dead", is that you don't waste any more time worrying about if it's still alive or not, or if it's it's dying or not. You just assume its passing as a given and move on to more interesting, less overused ideas.
In the seartch for new metaphors, Cluetrain came along and suddenly everything was about "The Conversation". That's fine, I like "Conversation" as a marketing metaphor, but after a while I started getting a wee bit tired of hearing the word "Conversation" every second sentence in marketing meetings. We all know you can't really hold a real conversation with twenty million people (although the tireless Robert Scoble would like to try). As much as I love the Cluetrain, "Conversation" as an all-purpose marketing metaphor started to grate on my nerves surprisingly quickly.
Metaphors- brands, conversations etc- are like paintings. They either work for for you or they don't. If they don't, there's no amount of arguing another person can do to change your mind. So when people say "You're wrong, Hugh- branding is alive and well", all I can say is "Maybe to you, it is."
Not to mention, good luck selling the idea to other people, in what is already a fatigued and over-supplied market.
I'm partial to the "Story" metaphor these days. But that's just me.
"The Story" is a narrative. Narratives have movement. They are fluid. "The Brand" is a static term. I think fluid metaphors, ones that accept "Flow" as part of their nature, simply work better.
Besides, nobody is currently offering to pay me the big bucks to help keep the ever-drearier Brand Metaphor alive on their behalf. And I don't do necrophilia for free.
Posted by hugh macleod at May 4, 2005 1:33 AM | TrackBackMaybe one way to think about branding is just making people aware of the story's author.
Associating Author <--> Story, which is both backward-looking (based on known stories) and forward-looking (encouraging anticipation of future stories).
A recurring theme in Kathy Sierra's blog is that people want a product that is about them, rather than about whoever is creating the product. So I would say that brands, i.e. focusing on trying to get the customer to fall in love with the company, goes against that. The success of Apple as a brand, I think, is more about who the customer becomes when they buy the product and join that elite group ... or cult, if you feel that way about it.
"Conversation" at least includes the end user, customer, client, whatever. I'm not sure "story" does that, but it's important for other reasons.
Why do you have to make one metaphor the hero? I think these are all elements that work together.
Posted by: Keith Handy at May 4, 2005 3:48 AMI'd describe the Apple story as "Storytelling at its finest".
The story can be about "Us" or "Them", "I" or "Thou". It doesn't matter. What people like are stories they can project their own narratives on to. And that's the art of it.
Posted by: hugh macleod at May 4, 2005 4:15 AM> As much as I love the Cluetrain, "Conversation" as an all-purpose marketing metaphor started to grate on my nerves surprisingly quickly.
Urgh, tell me about it. I never understood what the heck this meant anyway, but it's quickly becoming synonymous with "I'm a Marketing Weasel(tm)".
Posted by: Jeff Atwood at May 4, 2005 4:47 AM**Not to mention, good luck selling the idea to other people, in what is already a fatigued and over-supplied market**
Shit. Good luck? If it were hard to sell fatigued and over-supplied ideas, we wouldn't have network TV spots, all ISP company web banner ads, consultants, SPAM, infomercials, designer diaper bags and most software. Selling it is as easy as pissing on the broad side of a barn. Waking up every morning, and feeling good about selling it is another thing.
Posted by: eric at May 4, 2005 8:08 AMMetaphors - the inapt leading the inept - are dead. End of story.
Posted by: bmo at May 4, 2005 12:10 PMExcellent post! (Probably because it conforms to my opinions, but anyway...)
"Conversation" grated on me because it only furthers the mercantilization of every human interaction. The whole "cluetrain" group-think thing bugs me because we're all "clueless" to a great extent, and those onboard the "cluetrain" haven't seemed to have happened upon that particular clue. I dislike the phrase "get it" for much the same reason. They're phrases intended to merely rearrange hierarchy in the competition for rank, rather than reduce it; which is rather surprising given the enthusiasm for a "flat" world in some quarters. Maybe it's just enthusiasm for groovy new "memes." Maybe I'm just a cynical curmudgeon.
And finally, the previous two comments regarding death and metaphor provided a superb "daily moment of Zen."
A most worthwhile visit.
Posted by: dave rogers at May 4, 2005 4:01 PM“Brand image is the sum total of your customer’s experience across all contact points with your product or service.” We can have conversations with our markets to communicate the brand image; do it well we succeed. Tell the brand story (I haven’t read the new Godin book so please forgive me if I misuse “story”) well and we convey the desired experience.
Brand image, conversations, stories, these are all concepts are they not? It's hard to kill a concept - especially a valid one.
Are we getting too bogged down in semantics? We marketing types seem to enjoy gaining attention for the subtle shifts a new word or metaphor can make in our minds. Differentiation is not dead afterall.
Personally, I like them all because they keep me thinking – on my toes. That said, however, it is how we interpret these metaphors that really matters, right? Our actions produce more results than our words.
while you're at it, meme is way overused and annoying as well.
Posted by: di at May 4, 2005 5:30 PMEverything you need to know about this topic begins and ends with Seth. If it ain't remarkable, all the pig lipstick in the world ain't gonna help.
Posted by: Rockster at May 4, 2005 6:07 PMdi, hell, "meme" sounded annoying the first time I heard it.
Posted by: hugh macleod at May 4, 2005 6:14 PMBruce, yeah, I know what you mean.
Posted by: hugh macleod at May 4, 2005 6:15 PM"while you're at it, meme is way overused and annoying as well."
Concur. Hence the "scare quotes."
Posted by: dave rogers at May 4, 2005 7:38 PMWhere the F**K did meme come from anyway? Let's decide to kill it RIGHT HERE!
Posted by: Bruce DeBoer at May 4, 2005 7:38 PMJim Autry, retired CEO of Meredith Corp. once wrote:
"Becoming a manager has much to do with learning the metaphors; becoming a good manager has much to do with using the metaphors; and becoming a leader has much do do with changing the metaphors."
As you suggested, Hugh, if the metaphor works then use it. If it doesn't, kill it!
I also believe, however, that metaphors evolve. Witness the change in meaning of "the Dot Com economy" pre- and post-bust. That being said, I believe brand has evolved for many - and for the better. But there are still folks stuck in the lip-stick on the pig paradigm. Check out the rant over here: www.acleareye.com. And please join in. I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by: Tom Asacker at May 4, 2005 8:17 PMHugh: I can't think of a metaphor for how much I agree with you on this, but perhaps you can take it as read...
Posted by: Johnnie Moore at May 5, 2005 10:34 AMHugh, yes, Death is a metaphor. But dead is dead!
Posted by: brian moffatt at May 5, 2005 10:33 PM