Posts tagged distinct
about transactional branding
Aug 27th
Ok.
I use this term ‘transactional branding’ a lot when I am talking about business and defending why we shouldn’t talk about branding (or at least stop until everyone can turn off the bullshit meters and maybe all agree on terms of usage).
The premise behind the phrase is that excellent marketing/communications/branding activity/whatever you want to call it and business results – transactions – can and should be inextricably linked.
I do believe a truly inspiring insight or idea will inspire positive brand value and inspire consumer action and I call it Transactional Branding.
Now.
Let me be clear.
I wasn’t the genius who came up with the phrase and idea (although the concept behind it has always resided in my pea like brain).
Some guy at an agency I worked at articulated this idea (probably scribbled on a napkin over cocktails) and came up with the phrase and wording in maybe the late 90’s.
I loved it.
My boss loved it (who was actually the president).
Pretty much everyone else hated it.
It’s that damn word transactions.
Marketing and advertising agencies feel like it diminishes their abilities (and their art) to suggest that they do anything transactional
(but … to come to their defense .. while this is a visceral response I have not run into one great marketing/advertising creative mind … EVER … who didn’t understand that ultimately whatever they created needed to generate a business result or their ‘creative idea’ just wasn’t worth a shit).
Anyway. All that said.
Recognizing a brand cannot exist without ongoing sales, revenue or retail traffic seems to be an overlooked topic in the branding world.
Okay. Someone is going to suggest that it is simply ‘understood.’
Well.
It’s not.
In fact there is an entire generation of young marketers entering into the ‘branding world’ thinking it is all about building value (or adding value).
Well geez … adding value on ‘what.’ Not a logo. Or not on some culture. The value has to be added to … well … some ‘thing.’
And, oh by the way, that ‘thing’ needs some sales, revenue or traffic or your ‘thing’ will become ‘no-thing.’ (let alone a brand).
So this transactional branding concept means building the ‘encourage consumer action’ into the branding effort. In other words, create business outcomes today so the brand lives tomorrow.
It’s kind of a simple concept.
Some people may call it ‘holistic’ or something (maybe not).
Anyway.
How it works:
One brand idea. One brand voice. One brand strategy. An integrated communications plan with multiple tactics (which can be changed constantly because the strategy remains the same).
- note: see my glocal article on my point of view on flexibility in execution.
It begins by identifying ‘the’ inspiring insight (typically the marriage between consumer and brand insight).
Of course you identify the desired business results.
You identify the best communications/marketing ideas to generate the best results.
You develop smart insightful creative messaging (within the organization as well as externally to insure some alignment).
Then you measure results and adjust tactics as appropriate.
Whew.
Sounds simple.
Bottom line.
Here is the tricky part (t least to me)
Everything emanates from the inner truth (the essence, the company value insight, the cultural & functional core of the organization, whatever you want to call it) of the company. THAT my friends is really the brand.
All you are doing with transactional branding is sharing your ‘brand’ with people and let them fall in love with you (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and really the only way they can fall in love with you is if they go out on an actual date … uh .. a transaction.)
So from that ‘inner thing’ you get to create some inspiring brand idea and incorporate it into tactics that create transactions.
THAT is Transactional Branding.
Oh.
And if you buy this thought/philosophy. It isn’t just about advertising or marketing.
Transactional Branding is about working on all aspects of a business – from traditional and non-traditional tactics to in-store to organizational attitudes and behaviors and … well … whatever. Because brand and transactions are so inextricably linked that it is about internal organization equal to, if not more important, than what is done externally wit customers.
Oh.
One last great thing about attaching transactional and brand.
It’s all about “selling ‘more’ of what they want to sell at a higher price.”
Whew.
Doesn’t get much better than that if you are running a business, does it?
decommoditization (no longer being a commodity)
Aug 19th
So.
It seems like I have been talking with a lot of b2b businesses (technology, software, backroom type stuff) lately and we inevitably begin talking about ‘brands, branding & being different.” Three painful B’s.
And then a lot of discussion circles around understanding b2b versus traditional consumer marketing (which usually drives me slightly nuts until we get past that discussion).
- note: I have an entire downloadable white paper on b2b marketing so I won’t waste a lot of time on that discussion here.
Anyway.
I have some b2b experience but wouldn’t qualify as an ‘expert’ based on my resume.
However. Here is the deal.
Unless you have worked only at “glamor brand” companies (think Nike, Coke, McDonalds, etc) you have spent an entire career making your unglamorous brand/company/service not look like a commodity (because pretty much all non-glamor brands all get thrown into some confused perception/awareness cluster).
Oh.
By the way.
Even ‘glamor’ brands struggle with differentiation (or not dropping into a functional commodity status) in the b2b market (see Kodak, IBM, etc. as prime examples).
So.
Unless you have worked on a glamor brand where people line up to show your logo somewhere on their body you have had to become an expert in the decommoditozation business.
I know I have on my resume (somewhere) something like “an ability to differentiate in commodity like categories.”
What do I mean by ‘commodity-like’? Think banking, grocery stores, department stores, pest control, motor oil, eye drops, pretty much any P&G product you can think of, healthcare, cellular.
(all industries of which I have worked in).
Well. Okay. That said.
Nowadays with the advent of the internet and an endless depth of available information almost everyone is in a commodity like category.
Oh. And other than a happy few this also summarizes almost the entire b2b category. Everyone fighting themselves out of the ‘lowest cost provider’ status into ‘great value’ (which by the way is ‘brand’) status.
It doesn’t sound glamorous but I haven’t been in the branding business or the marketing business or whatever strategy business someone wants to call it … I have been in the decommoditization business.
And, in fact, (beyond me) anyone who says something like that in an interview? Hire them. And hire them now.
In today’s world the moment you stop and rest on the thought you are a ‘brand’ and have added value in someone’s mind (b2b or consumer) is the moment you start creeping back into commodityland (which is not nearly as fun as Disneyland). It takes work (inside a company and outside a company – marketing stuff) but it can be done. You can get someone to drive past 3 supermarkets to get to yours. You can get someone to pay more money for some software program written in code Albert Einstein couldn’t understand. You can get someone to choose your widget over 22 other similar widgets. But only if you are relentlessly focused on clearly and concisely de-commoditizing.
Hugh MacLeod did this cartoon and I laughed because I don’t know him personally but he used almost the exact same words I/we used in a new business presentation to a state tourism business in the late 90’s (and then used over and over again with retail and commodity-like businesses).
It’s not just advertising.
If you own a business or selling anything to anyone life isn’t top down (brand to product). Life is down to up (constantly seeking to insure your head is above the commodity water).
Does that sound defensive?
God. I hope not.
It’s just smart. It doesn’t mean you aren’t on the offensive and building value and thinking long term it simply means you have a practical objective – I don’t want to be a damn commodity.
Interestingly.
I am going to end on a personal note about de-commoditizing. Hugh wrote this (I believe .. I lost the source):
“The best way to offset one’s own commodification is to build one’s own personal “global microbrand”, irrespective one own employer.”Brand You”, as the great Tom Peters called it way back in 1997. A good blog works about as well as anything. And no, you don’t have to be an A-Lister.”
So.
I guess while I talk the talk in interviews and with businesses and whomever will listen to me … I am also in a way walking the walk by building a blog (two of them in fact) and maybe I can become my own global microbrand.
Now.
How cool would that be?
Bruce. No longer a commodity. Awesome.
making common uncommon
Apr 26th
“When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of
the world.” 
George Washington Carver
I had a friend who wanted to open an ad agency with me and our credo would be ‘uncommon common sense’. With all the buzzword bullshit floating around in business and life these days we believed if you use strong common sense and communicate with simple clarity you will be so far ahead of the curve the rest of the road will be empty.
There are a variety of challenges with “doing common things in an uncommon way.” First. People want bells & whistles so if it looks too common or too simple people start thinking “is that all there is?” second. There is such a fascination with “being unique” that when you offer a common sense but distinct idea people pas it by in search of “uniqueness.” Third. Well. I will stop there because those two are pretty good.
So. Here is the deal. If it’s a good idea it’s a good idea. Sometimes when that is all there is, it is really good.
“When things are good, it’s easy to miss, easy to mistake.”
Words from a song.
Words of wisdom.
Greatness in simplicity, or in commonness, is difficult to see. So look very very hard if you see something that seems so common sense that you think “it can’t be right.” Cause it just may be uncommonly right.
The Bastardization of Brand
Feb 15th
If you want to really get me wound up, just start talking about brands and branding. It seems every time I read something about marketing, sales, advertising or public relations (heck. nowadays people, organizations, products, interviewing, everyday life ) I am confronted with the word “brand” (brand, branded, branding, br-whatever).
Drives me nuts. Ok. More than nuts. I cannot tell you how many times people confuse the concept of a brand with product, name, service, advertising or marketing (just to name a few).
Oh. “Name.” Yeah. Name. It seems just because someone has decided to call their product or service something (let’s call it a ‘label’ or, better, how about “Jake” as a code word) they immediately start calling it a brand. (aaargh.)
Sometimes it seems there is no understanding of the word, the process, or the original intent behind the concept. I would like to think it is an indication of the invasion of amateurs (or the apocalypse because I keep looking for those signs as 2012 approaches) into the marketing industry, but, alas, it is not so.
Even some of the sharpest minds in the marketing world have fallen into the buzzword trap just to stay even with the less knowledgeable. Ok. Maybe just me, but it seems that this is one sign of insanity…where the brightest have to play by the rules of the ignorant to be heard. It’s the kind of stuff that really does drive me nuts. (and one would think others)
The “b word” is tossed around so carelessly it has diminished and degraded its value.
Brand is an important little word. For those of us who have spent significant portions of our lives taking innovative products and service and guiding them into a position where they could even qualify to be considered a brand by the finicky user world, the misuse and distortion of this little B word undermines us and our abilities. It diminishes our expertise.
I would have to assume David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach and James Webb Young would be appalled. (just to name a few)
So. A dictionary (not Wikipedia) says branding is: the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand. Ok. That helps me understand part of the issue.
How is that a definition? Its circular gobbledygook.
So. Brands and branding. Here you go. Not a definition. A logic flow:
- A product or service that offers something distinct as a benefit.
- It has a “Jake.” (Remember: That is code for a label or name)
- Someone buys it.
- More someones buy it.
- The original someones come back and buy more.
- Jake starts getting known for that distinct thing (or whatever reason the someones associate with buying Jake)…
- Jake is becoming a brand.
Over time, Jake has assumed some character the someones have gotten attached to (trust, reliability, strength, etc.) … Jake is a brand.
So. In reality a brand isn’t really a brand until it exists in some way within the hearts and minds of consumers. By the way. Jake can become a brand without advertising or extensive marketing (there are some nice examples of that).
By the way. If you have a consistently good product/service, becoming a brand is inevitable (or we would face a world of generic products and services with limited selection and little motive for innovation…and that would suck).
The key, the underlying ‘thing’ I am trying to point out, is this ‘brand’ has been built upon some piece of information or usefulness. At some point early on people were educated about something to do with that particular product or service until ultimately the relationship reverses – the brand stands for that education communicated rather than the product or service.
The good news? It is a proven fact consumers will pay a premium for a product or service where someones call Jake a brand.
It starts with a good product and elevates that product to the status of “brand” by making the consumer aware of product benefits, forming perceptions to wrap around the product (some positive and some negative), and stimulating trial, repurchase and ongoing purchases. In the end that true value is the brand.
The Myth of Building Brands
Let me start simply. A great brand is a great product or service that people have developed a strong emotional connection with. (So. It seems like we should be writing less books about “brands” and “branding” and instead investing energy in writing books about building sustainable products and services).
You don’t build a brand (that is the Myth). You build a meaningful product or service (or a company that creates those types of things).
Oh. And contrary to the dictionary definition of the word brand, putting a label (or a Jake) on a product does not make it a brand (but it helps to give it a Jake rather than simply say “pork rinds”). Oh. Creating a website or running an ad doesn’t do it either.
A product only becomes a brand when the consumer/users (the someones) say so. When they associate a benefit and a set of values (that combination is key). Not until then.

The process of ‘branding’ (and I hate that phrase but I assume it is a marketing campaign or activity which highlights what makes Jake a brand) is typically a complex, lengthy, sometimes expensive process. But. It sure would be a boatload easier to simply avoid saying “branding” and call it “building a marketing plan for Jake.” (Oh. And why do I have to say the intent is to attain brand status…because…when isn’t that the intent or objective?). Silly me.
Last thought. Judging brands “in generation” is tough. We are so quick to call something a brand. I would suggest the true test of a brand is if it can cross generations. Until that time, maybe it is simply a ‘generational brand’ or at its worst simply a ‘fad.’
Many companies-brands do ‘get it’ and are doing the right things – for now that is. Crossing generations is about stewardship. Does the transition to new leaders (the next steward) mean losing focus (meaningless reinvention) or guiding to the next level of relevance (and maintain the brand status)?
In the end.
Great brands are inevitably companies that maintain operational excellence by delivering superior (or just distinct) products meeting expectations day in and day out, and employees that embrace the vision day in and day out. Everything else falls apart (sales and marketing and culture) if that core isn’t solid. Wavering operationally creates cracks that have seismic effects externally. And, ultimately, when that wavering occurs it becomes a prime example of a “failed brand” (or a
dead Jake).
My Rant on Uniqueness
Dec 17th

Here we go. How often does a consultant come in and force you to sit down and answer the infamous question “so what makes you unique?”
Oh, how I get tired of this unique or how are you different discussion.
If you have been there, you have seen these conversations go round and round dancing on the head of a pin. Invariably you land on one meaningless thing (to the majority of the world if not the majority of your own employees) or you have a laundry list that the consultant writes on a board and says “okay. Great day. You need to figure out which of these is most important to you.” (gee. thanks. what makes you think we can resolve that 48 hours from now if we cannot now?).
I believe distinctness is the key. Am I suggesting avoiding true product or service differentiation? Heck no. Go for it. I am simply arguing that it is next to impossible in today’s environment to have one. Ok. A sustainable one. I believe the cellular category right now has been doing a pretty good job of highlighting “unique” features (and sometimes benefits). But most of them are short term and not sustainable (and they have lots of money to make short term look big).
In service categories sustainable “uniqueness” is…well…pretty much impossible. Unique is very subjective here. Thinking customer first or “we care” is certainly not unique nor different. That characteristic may represent something the company cares a lot about but most companies to one degree or another feature that characteristic.
In the end we are often talking about small degrees of separation which makes it difficult to discern the difference to the majority. And the amount of energy we expend trying to justify and explain that difference isn’t worth the return on that investment (because that small degree of separation is lost to a competitor responder or thru consumer confusion on internet).
Now. What is sustainable? Character and personality. That is certainly distinct. Could it end up looking close to someone else? Maybe (but I would argue 90 percent of the time the other guy will blink and do something that will make people question their character). Brand personality/character differentiation topic is another writing of mine. This one is just a rant on uniqueness.








