As a service industry, we have been so busy defining our clients’ brands that we forgot about a more important one: our own. With all the confusion around the term branding, it is time for us to come together and clearly define it. brandingbranding.com was launched in 2005 to help develop the brand for branding.

help define branding

SUBMIT your definition (click on comments)

eliminating brand-speak

Hyped by so many, branding is in danger of becoming meaningless. Ask the ‘experts’ to define it and too often they have their own complex explanation. No wonder clients don’t get it! Branding is over-branded: digital branding, employment branding, environmental branding, kids branding, nation branding. Ever-expanding brand glossaries are only adding to the confusion.

Brands are about simplification and yet many consultants (that claim to help clients find 'brand essence') strive to make branding more complex by reinventing it. It is up to the qualified branding practitioners to tame an industry that is out of control with brand-speak -- or risk losing a valid term.

a shared definition

Two of the world's largest branding firms have very different definitions of branding...

"Selecting and blending tangible and intangible attributes to differentiate the product, service or corporation in an attractive, meaningful and compelling way." - Interbrand

"The process by which both a brand and brand identity are developed." - Landor

This demonstrates the need for a shared definition that could unite our industry. Certainly, Leo Burnett and Ogilvy would agree on what advertising is. As consultants, we have made the mistake of individually trying to interpret branding, instead of coming together to define it. An industry-wide agreement of what branding really means is a step towards public (and client) understanding.

If there is no common term that our industry can rally around, then there will never really be an industry.

updating dictionaries

A Google search for 'branding' returns 9,530,000 results -- clearly it is a relevant word. Yet most English dictionary definitions of the term are outdated or inaccurate. Many reference the historic definition of branding: “n. the act of stigmatizing”.(stigmatizing is not good: to characterize as disgraceful).

Microsoft Word’s English dictionary has a single entry for branding:
"brand·ing i·ron: n. an iron tool that is heated and pressed onto a surface, especially an animal’s hide, in order to leave a permanent identifying mark. See also brand n."

We are due for a modern definition -- one that is more positive.

keeping it simple

Branding is all about simplicity -- getting to the essence of an organization, product or service. If the most successful brands are straightforward, shouldn't the practice of developing them be?

Trevor Gay (Author of Simplicity is the Key) wrote to me: "What worries me is that 'branding' will be turned into some complicated academic subject. Please keep it simple. Don't let academics turn this into a complex science -- branding is not complicated!"

I agree -- branding is not complicated!

branding = brand development

Perhaps easiest way to define branding is to make it synonymous with brand development. Just as advertising is defined as ‘the business of producing advertisements’, the definition of branding could be as simple as 'the development of brands'. Imagine if the answer to the most frequently asked question (what is branding anyway?) could be this short. Of course, this assumes that most people know what a brand is. Fortunately, a definition of brand exists in the dictionary.

a single word

Although I have suggested 'brand development' to define branding (simply), some feel that this phrase can replace branding. Unfortunately, as an identifier, it is too lengthy -- like saying "advertisement development" instead of "advertising". Why make it the name more complex? One word is best.

'Branding' works in many languages, whereas 'brand development' or any combination thereof requires translation.

i.e. ...orice campanie de branding, pe care mâna omoloaga...

identity vs. branding

Many in our industry are still using ‘identity’ -- a term that is too vague to represent a specialized expertise. I once tried using identity to position my own business, only to have clients (brand owners) refer to it as ‘branding’. Some asked "identity for people?" Corporate identity consultants tried (and failed) to get clients to understand the difference between identity and image –- terms that are too generic and too similar. Why fight it? Even Lippincott Mercer, the firm that founded the 'corporate identity' business, has made the switch. Their latest web site states "Our founders were branding pioneers in 1943".

Branding works because it relates directly back to brands (corporate or product), whereas identity could relate to anything. Branding is specific, yet broad enough to cover many aspects of brand development: naming, positioning, designing, trademarking etc. When I studied, it was corporate identity and today it is corporate brand. As the industry evolves, so must the terminology (i.e. new media isn't so new anymore).

professional title

What do we call someone who practices branding? Brander? Brandist? These examples may sound absurd, but if branding is a valid profession (and it is), then practitioners need a corresponding title -- something more precise than 'brand consultant'. Psychologists practice psychology. Lawyers practice law. Accountants practice accounting. Who practices branding?

everybody's doing it

An internet search for 'branding services' yields almost every type of consultant. Advertising agencies, design firms, marketing consultants, web design firms, management consultants and public relations firms all offer branding as one of their services. It seems that every 'full-service' consultancy these days can develop a brand. Ironically, successful brands focus on what they are good at.

branding is dead

There are plenty of articles proclaiming that ‘branding is dead’. Although it makes for a great headline (I used it too), the statement is as foolish as suggesting that 'advertising is dead'. Just as there will always be advertisements, there will always be brands. Dead are the careers of those that rambled on about brands, when they were not qualified to develop them.

Branding is alive. While some consultancies have distanced themselves from the word, successful firms like FutureBrand, Interbrand and Landor continue to use it. Even if we killed branding, what single term could replace it? I have spent many hours searching and I could not find anything better. Like the ‘b word' or not, it’s here to stay.

brand and branding

When asked to define the term 'branding', many resort to their definition of 'brand'. While updated definitions of the term ‘brand’ exist in English dictionaries, there are no modern entries for ‘branding’. We should not rely on a definition of ‘brand’ to define ‘branding’. Just as ‘advertising’ is defined differently than ‘advertisement’, ‘branding’ should be distinguished from ‘brand’.

However, the there is also a tendency to define 'branding' without the mention of 'brand'. To use advertising as an analogy again, ‘advertising’ is based on ‘advertisements’ -- a proper definition of 'branding' should reference 'brands'.

brandlines

Part of the reason that ‘brand’ went out of control is that the term was over-marketed. Brand developers all developed their own clever taglines for what they felt ‘brand’ stood for. This is understandable –- when your job is to uniquely position your client’s industry, it is a given that you will try to position your own.

Phrases like "a brand is a promise" and "the customer owns the brand" emerged. While all are valid claims, they speak more to an individual approach (or promotion). Like taglines, they are clever and promote thought, but they do not succeed in defining the term. The 'brand as a promise' is too vague for people to grasp. Prospects have become suspicious of such cliché explanations.

We must learn from the failure of these numerous ‘brandlines’. Branding must be defined simply and precisely. Claiming that ‘branding is everything’, will define it as nothing.

strategic/creative balance

While branding is a specialized area of expertise, there are many aspects of brand development i.e. naming, positioning, designing and trademarking. Some are strategic and others creative. Branding is a balance of both.

Currently, most practices are either strong on the strategic (business) side of branding or the creative (design) side. Too much strategy makes for an ugly brand and too much creative turns brand development into a ‘look and feel’ exercise.

Today’s practitioner must have many different skills and talents (emphasis on talents). Not only must he or she be a strategic thinker, but also possess the creativity needed to come up with the big idea. Gone are the days when consultants can simply declare themselves ‘brand strategists’ and farm out the creative thinking. Anyone that creates a brand must be creative. On the other hand, ‘artists’ that are looking to express themselves should find another canvas.

brands need branding

I am surprised that some very intelligent people think that removing or adding 'ing' can make such a big difference...

"There's a difference between brands and branding. Brands exist whether you want them to or not. Brands aren't going to go away any time soon. Brands are a useful shorthand for a complicated asset within an organization. Branding, on the other hand, is a thing you do. And as an activity, branding is problematic. Branding is ill-defined, usually vacuous, often expensive and totally unpredictable. I'm happy to say that you shouldn't grow up to be someone who does branding." - Seth Godin

This is like claiming that ‘advertisements’ are good, but ‘advertising’ is bad. Just as advertising is the development of advertisements, branding is the development of brands. If we don’t do branding, we don’t have brands -- one can’t exist without the other.

Grow up -- be someone who does branding.

vp of branding

Executive titles such as 'Vice President of Brand Strategy and Development' could be condensed to 'Vice President of Branding'. Although rare, this position is finding its way into organizations that view their brand as more than a division of the marketing department.

A Google search for:
Vice President of Marketing: 1,070,000 Results
Vice President of Advertising: 15,200 Results
Vice President of Branding: 376 Results

Branding is at the top level of the communications chain. A brand affects more than just marketing -- it shapes the internal culture of an organization. Despite this, branding continues to be viewed as a secondary marketing event when it should be a primary management process (headed by the CEO). A properly defined brand positively impacts every department within an organization. So, why not have a Vice President of Branding?

for the cows

"Disney is not a brand. Branding is for cows, because they all look the same." - Roy Disney

Eisner's 'over-branding' of Disney received criticism from the family that carries the name. Such comments are the result of branding being pitched as an opportunity to make something out of nothing. Real brands are about substance. Roy Disney's remarks call attention to the problem of branding being perceived as a deceptive labeling exercise.

While branding's past has many negative impressions, the most popular is the marking of cattle. Historically, many occupations utilized brandmarks i.e. potters to authenticate their style of bowls, stonemasons to distinguish the quality of their work etc. The need to establish ownership/origin has existed ever since humans have traded goods and services. We cannot deny brands -- they exist out of necessity. Disney may not be a necessity, but it certainly is a brand.

evolution, not revolution

MarketingProfs.com says, “Branding is the hottest concept in marketing today."

While positioning branding as some new phenomenon has sold many books and filled many seminars, it has certainly made the topic less credible. Those of us, who have been in the industry for many years, understand that branding is not a revolution -- only the evolution (and perhaps renaming) of an existing practice. Brands have existed in some form for at least 5,000 years, so the process of developing them is hardly new. Commercially, brands came from the product world and have encompassed the organization. Today, businesses, not-for-profits and even nations are seeing themselves as brands. For branding to progress, it must be more than a 'hot' (or 'cool') concept that generates money for consultants and corporations. It must become a holistic practice that has a positive impact socially and culturally.

fragmentation

Branding practitioners may have started a self-defeating trend by sub-dividing branding to categorize service offerings (verbal branding, consumer branding etc.)

‘Branding’ is being adopted by other industries. For example, a company that offers consistent voice services for all of a brand's telecommunications has coined the term "voice branding". While such applications help support an existing brand, they have little to do with the development of a brand. Imagine if every profession that impacted a brand had its own type of branding i.e. interior designers that helped maintain consistent retail locations would use 'space branding'. The term branding must be attached only to the development of the whole brand, and not fragments like the voice-overs of a phone system. The elimination of prefixes in our own service offerings will help prevent branding from becoming so generic that it can be applied to any profession.

branding vs. graphic design

Some in the design industry are threatened by the use of branding. They feel that it is a front for the traditional 'identity work' they have always produced. However, many designers make the mistake of viewing branding as only a design task (i.e. logo) when it involves many other tasks like writing, positioning and trademarking.

Branding does not compete with graphic design. Graphic design is a discipline that contributes to the development of a brand -- in the same way it contributes to advertising and even architecture. I love communication design (my roots), but it is only part of the brand equation. There is much work to be done on differentiating branding from not only design, but also marketing and advertising.

editing the glossary

Brand Architecture, Brand Essence, Brand Equity, Brand Experience, Brand Extension, Brand Identity, Brand Image, Brand Management, Brand Strategy, Brand Personality, Brand Platform, Brand Positioning, Brand Promise, Brand Values, Brand Valuation...

Since few can agree on what brand means, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to comprehend an ever-expanding brand glossary -- which may actually dilute the meaning of branding.

branding backlash

Niaomi Klein's book, No Logo, set off a 'branding backlash'. She unfairly blames branding for the unethical business practices of multinational corporations. This is like blaming the accounting profession for the Enron scandal.

There is an obvious need to counter the negative impression that has been cast upon a valid practice. The issues that No Logo uncovers are valid. Nobody wants "brand bullies". However, the book title alone (though not meant to be taken literally) sends the wrong message. Since the general public has little understanding of what we do, they are quick to believe that over-marketing (slapping a logo on everything) is branding.

Every organization has the right to identify itself. To simply exist, an organization must have a legal name, trademarks etc. Branding provides a very useful service: it helps people identify an organization, its products and services. Imagine a shopping experience with no logos. How would we find the products we trust? Even Niaomi needs to distinguish one can of soup from another.

firm positioning

Adding to industry confusion, is the broad list of related terms that various firms use to position themselves...

Branding, Branding and Identity, Branding and Corporate Identity, Branding and Communication, Branding and Design, Brand Consultants, Brand Strategy and Design, Brand Design, Identity, Identity Consultants, Identity Design Firm, Identity and Image Consultants

branding and ?

The 4 most inaccurate and confusing consultancy descriptors:

Branding and Identity - identity is part of branding i.e. brand identity
Branding and Communication - branding is a form of communication
Branding and Design - design is part of branding i.e. designing a logo
Branding and Naming - naming is part of branding

multiple usages

Part of the difficulty of achieving a single definition, is that branding is used as a verb, noun and adjective i.e.

Verb: We are branding our full product line.
Noun: Our company's branding is inconsistent.
Adjective: We are in the branding industry.

Please Note: Copyright © 2005-2006 brandingbranding.com. All rights reserved. All content (including comments) posted at brandingbranding.com remains property of the author(s). Reproduction without the author’s and Administrator’s permission is strictly prohibited. Administrator reserves the right to edit or delete comments that are deemed off-topic or derogatory.

Contact: sal_dan_ha@yahoo.ca