Buyer2Brand

Brand Research is not Market Research

One of my favorite online resources for trends, case studies and strategic approaches to branding is Brandchannel - hosted by Interbrand. It isn't just a collection of the firm's own work, but offers a real forum for discussion and third-party perspectives.

This article caught my eye by a guy named Joseph Benson. Joe is a B2B brand strategist whose past clients have included technology and financial services firms, among other industries. He's also the former VP of Brand Strategy at Sapient Corporation. I don't know him personally, but he offers some easily digestible insight on the difference between market research and brand research.

Most marketers understand the power of research to quantify buyer demand for new and existing products. Standard market research surveys are very useful to determine direction in areas like pricing, packaging, technical requirements, and purchase intent. In the IT industry, I've found that technology vendors are great at using customer research to gage customer satisfaction with the product itself (features/functions) as a direct feedback loop to Engineering, but not so great at examining their own organizational performance to the extent it informs the customer's total "brand experience".

Typical market research studies are not focused on qualitative measures - such as buyer perception, product preference drivers, and the relative success of vendor marketing efforts. Brand research on the other hand aims to understand WHY customers chose the product they did - the true differentiators among competitors as the buyer perceives them - and why they would be willing to pay more for a stronger brand. Brand research is best conducted by the vendor either in one-on-one interviews with its most profitable customers (who cares why the losers bought?!), or when appropriate, in small focus groups. 

So the basics of brand research answer the following questions: Why did your most profitable customers choose you? Who are the market influencers they trust to advise them? What marketing messages resonate most with them? The folks who specialize this stuff are usually domain experts, so they know enough about the market to probe deeper.

According to Benson, brand research is the way to go in the following quick-hit scenarios: when a company (new brand) is first launched into an existing category; when a vendor is exploring if its brand can be extended to a new product type without dilution; and when companies merge and need to merge their brands correctly. Mature organizations use brand research more regularly to steward the brand itself - continually measuring the changing dynamics of customer choice and aligning the organizational behavior of executives and frontline employees behind it. In the final scenario, when a vendor's offerings have become commoditized and the brand diluted, research can find new meaning and relevance with target customers and teach the organization how to revitalize its outdated promise.

Rebranding is about realignment

I've written on rebranding before, but its a decision-making process that merits more discussion.

Most IT vendors are not "startups", in the strictest definition of the term. Most are small companies that are actively selling and winning first customers, then servicing and supporting those customers while working to improve their product or service. Most have active PR and other outbound marketing initiatives that build awareness and fill the sales pipeline. All assert their positioning in the marketplace relative to competitive alternatives.

In a new book Why Johnny Can't Brand (Portfolio 2005), authors Bill Schley and Carl Nichols explore when and why companies should rebrand. They argue that many companies rebrand prematurely or unnecessarily, shooting good brands in the foot instead of strengthening them. The three most common catalysts for misguided rebranding are: new executives trying to make their mark, the need for instant gratification trumping long term commitment, or organizational malaise/boredom.

To gain a foothold in the market, small to mid-size B2B technology vendors typically "chase the money" - closing business for the sake of the reference and the revenue, thanks to the sales staff's existing relationships. If branding's maxim is "customers create your brand", then what happens if some of these early customers fall outside of the positioned target market? Over the years it typically takes a vendor to attain critical mass, markets are in constant flux. Differentiation can be challenged by new competitors or emerging trends. Since "brand happens" with or without the vendor's active stewardship, the result over time can be a spotty understanding of exactly why customers utilize the product or service. The daily demands of customer growth and pace of market change can outdate, dilute, or distract a brand.

Such ventures are prime candidates for Rebranding - which doesn't always have to mean a complete overhaul. Rebranding can in fact have nothing to do with redesigning visual assets (logo, tagline) and instead focus entirely on operational or internal mindset changes. Rebranding is essentially an exercise in realignment. It is rediscovering the single unifying principle that aligns the organization with its customers. It means listening as those who bought tell you why you are special, why your offer resonates, and why your product is relevant. It is evolution more than revolution, but holds great power to re-energize a company.

If you are considering Rebranding, make sure it's not for one of the reasons Schey and Nichols cite above. A quick brand audit is a great way to get a read on if your brand is truly misaligned, not just fatigued. A reinvigorated brand can deliver more qualified sales leads & stronger customer loyalty, but brand equity needs time, dedication and maintenance to grow. Rebranding should not be undertaken lightly, and management support is a critical success factor.

Is Branding a means or an end?

I love Fast Company magazine, and they write a fair amount about Branding. But even the business press can misunderstand what it is tech branders do.

In an open essay on marketers' obsession with branding (guilty), the editors strip away the hype around "branding" and call it out for what it really is: common sense business strategy. In other words, "to successfully build a brand...is to communicate your key value proposition to the key customer segment in an integrated and consistent way." Or Business 101. Strong brands result from well-run companies that offer distinct products and services. Weak brands result from weak products, shoddy service, and unmet customer expectations.  All true.  Thanks for the compliment.

But then the editors discredit the very discipline they seemed to praise.  They claim that branding gurus sell their services by framing branding as a tactic, not as a result. By making "to brand" a verb, something that can be done, experts can sell it as a means, not as the end it truly is. Huh?  The editors argue that branding is being sold as snake oil these days as a direct result of the decline of traditional advertising and marketing. Marketers are escaping to "a frontier without explicit measurement". Obviously Fast Company is a bit out of touch. 

My take: if every marketing discipline can be negated and dismissed by arguing a return to Business 101, then why do we need business magazines to explain anything NEW to us? Branding IS measurable via simple, repeatable, and relatively inexpensive tactics like audits and surveys and site analytics.  Not to mention the power of Web 2.0 nirvana to pursue NEW strategies affecting customer loyalty, competitive differentiation, and shareholder value. Come on, give us brand marketers a bit more credit!

Marketing is evolving just like every other business discipline. Just because "traditional" methods are in decline, doesn't mean that branders aren't discovering and leveraging new tools like social networking, word of mouth, experiential marketing, branded entertainment, and a host of other emerging methods to win hearts and minds. If this is snake oil, then I'm a distributor.

Entrepreneur article on Rebranding

This month's Entrepreneur Magazine has an excellent column on Rebranding by John Williams. 

John's major points are:

1. Don't confuse rebranding - which is a comprehensive, frequently expensive change of strategic direction for a company - with the simple need to update your look.  A simple refresh of design elements or slight naming alteration, which may be all that is required, is not the definition of rebranding. 

2. Rebranding should only be undertaken based on a proven need to alter course (e.g. new market, new trend, new product direction).  Given changing market conditions, it may even be crucial.  Rebranding should be based on sound strategy supported by facts related to sales and profits, not driven by organizational fatigue.  Ideally, everything should be changed at once.  For B2B companies, this starts with all sales tools and the website.

3. Be prepared to lose some customers.  The more dramatic the change of strategic course, the more customers will probably become alienated and abandon your product or service.  No worries, as long as you embody and deliver on your new brand promise to the new target audience(s).  Branding is about using mindshare to win marketshare.

John is an eloquent torchbearer for my mantra that Brand = solid differentiation.  In his words, "you simply can't be all things to all people".   He believes as I do that Brand Happens.  "Branding isn't an option today -- (it's) either by default or design." 

He offers one final piece of advice of particular interest to tech vendors: changing the name of the business to the name of the product is rarely advisable.  It is usually self-limiting and stymies the organization's ability to pace marketplace evolution.

Brand (n.); Branding (v.)

This is a silly little post ...
...but I think it's important to make a distinction between these words, as they are not interchangeable, and yet are so subject to swapping around by marketing people.
(definition language below liberally borrowed from Wikipedia...)

Brand (n.) a brand is the symbolic embodiment of all the information connected with a product or service. It encompasses the set of expectations associated with a product or service which typically arise in the minds of "people" (consumers, buyers, or other target audiences). A brand typically includes a name ("brand name"), logo, and other visual elements such as images, fonts, color schemes, or symbols. In other contexts, the term "brand" may be used where the legal term trademark is more appropriate.

Branding (v.) The art of creating and maintaining a brand. Marketers seek to develop or align the expectations comprising the target audience's brand experience through branding activities. Branding carries the "promise" to the marketplace that a product or service has a certain quality or characteristic which make it special or unique (i.e. differentiated). Whatever the mix of programs, branding techniques should be consistent and complementary when well executed. (also see "brand management")

Now if we can only get all our fellow PR, VC, design and web marketing colleagues to use these terms more carefully!

Mike's definition of Brand

Since I began this blog by comparing talking about brand to discussions of the Great Almighty, it's only fair that I impart to you, in the interest of full disclosure from the start, my own personal religion. 

I decided to begin my mission evangelizing branding over 2 years ago, while attending Sandhill Group's Software 2004 conference.  The tone of the conference that March, with the enterprise IT industry still emerging from the downturn of 2001-03, was sullen and introspective.  Why were our sales still so flat?  Why did our industry suck at marketing? Why did our customers hate us?  I added to these laments one of my own: Why does my industry not respect branding?

In the course of my ongoing primary research on the state of branding in the B2B tech world, I've discussed the Brand Diety with many fellow IT marketing professionals.  I've heard brand gurus from the B2C world evangelize their unique dogma, and seen way too many powerpoints about the future of our religion as a whole.  Some descriptions include: "Brand is a personality."  "Brand is a promise."  "Brand is your DNA."  So what's the definition that fits our industry best? 

Brand is What Your Customers Say About You.

Simply put, your brand is the grade you receive from customers, prospects, investors and the marketplace at large on your ability to fulfill the need you promised to address.  Did you make the pain you targeted indeed go away?  Do you always deliver as advertised?  Is your reputation one to be trusted? 

A vendor cannot buy its brand.  It's not a website or an ad campaign or a press release.  It's created over time by a company's consistent behavior in the marketplace, by how the company sets expectations and then exceeds or disappoints.  The vendor asserts its competitive positioning, executes against this in the market, and then is rewarded or punished by the brand it receives in reply.  Customers define your brand, with or without your help.  In this way, brand is about perception...and reality. 

Brand Happens.  So B2B technology vendors better start joining the conversation.

Talking about Brand is like talking about God

It has been said that talking about brand is like talking about God.  Everyone has their own definition and beliefs.  Still, I've taken on a new professional mission - to evangelize the power of brand to transform the way my industry sells enterprise technology and satisfies customers.

To understand the current perception of branding and its value for the B2B IT industry, I have undertaken an ongoing qualitative research study, interviewing some of the leading technology marketing minds on their branding dogma.  In this blog, we'll examine and discuss findings from this project.

Buyer2Brand will strive never to be preachy in its tone, but instead present the beliefs and opinions of minds greater than my own, relate insights on the news with links to point of origin, and analyze emerging trends and best practices as asserted by sources we trust in common.

If you are a senior-level technology marketer, and would like to be interviewed, please drop me a line.