Sorry, the real address is http://www.darwinmag.com/read/070101/brand.html

Some good, strident opinions there, methinks (particularly liked the elbow phrase...)

One question:

In your last para re bricks-and-mortar firms not having different 'brands', does that mean you disagree with Prudential, Abbey National, etc setting up Egg, Cahoot, etc quite distinctly from their existing offline offerings?

Personally, I'd have thought that the 'product' in both cases was financial services such as bank accounts, mortgages, etc (whether badged offline as Prudential or online as Egg), whereas the 'brand' is that set of beliefs attached to the name Prudential or Egg. So Prudential's set of beliefs are built around safe, trusted, established, big, etc, whereas Egg is built around modern, trendy, good value & so on. In other words, 2 quite distinct 'brands' (or would you call them 'identities'?), catering to differing customer types and served up either offline or online.

Views?

Sam

On 10:07:17 13 July 2001 shilen wrote:
>I think you were being far too polite calling some of
>their thoughts 'pretty curious'. In my opinion, as
>so-called marketing experts, a couple of them seem to have
>an 'arse from elbow differentiation problem'.
>
>You are right to question the fact that brand should just
>provide information on the Internet. They should use new
>media and new technologies in any way they can to improve
>the end benefit for consumers. If this means real time
>banking or browse books without having to move then great.
>If it means comparing energy prices without have to make a
>single phone call then super. It can also mean allowing
>consumers to experience your brand in any number of ways
>of which purchasing is just one. The key is interactivity
>and our ability to create this to the benefit of the brand
>and the consumer. This is something I don’t think
>anyone has cracked but as other postings on this thread
>show, brands like BMW and Nokia are having a good go at
>tackling this issue.
>
>Regis McKenna has missed the point a bit when he talks
>about lack of loyalty in today’s marketplace being a
>strong sign that branding doesn't work. Brands are the
>reasons why someone will pick one product over another
>(and very often this has nothing to do with the functional
>product). The fact that loyalty has declined over the last
>20 years is tat fact that there is a lot more competition.
>The number of brands competing in any one market has grown
>hugely and whole new segments have sprung up within
>markets. I almost say that a decline in loyalty has
>demonstrated that branding is well and alive and still
>able to persuade consumers that some products are better
>than others.
>
>To further make his point that brands are dead he also
>gives the example of Starbucks wiping the floor with
>Maxwell House in the coffee market. Well 'Hellloooo', as
>the Americans would say, Starbuck is a brand. It has a set
>of values and beliefs that consumers buy into. The reason
>that consumers like Starbucks is because it creates a
>brand experience on a day to day basis and exploits a
>fundamental consumer insight - consumers want to feel at
>home when they are out. For more on this idea of brand
>experience see other postings in this thread'.
>
>Coming to Al Ries - he's right to say that traditional
>advertising put on the web just turns people off. Rightly
>he points out that interactivity is the key. Doesn’t
>mean you can't advertise. You can create interactive
>experiences that consumers buy into because they're
>interesting that happen to say all the right things about
>your brand. The key here is that for the first time we
>have a medium that truly allows consumers to by-pass ads.
>Doesn’t mean they don’t want them. Just means
>that your communication has to work a lot harder as it has
>to compete with some pretty cool stuff on the web already.
>It's like asking someone to switch over in his or her
>favourite TV programme to watch an ad - the ad will have
>to be pretty special.
>
>I fundamentally disagree with his point that 'bricks and
>mortar' companies should have two brands - a real world
>one and an Internet one. This is just nonsense, plain and
>simple. A brand is a set of beliefs (as other contributors
>to this article point out) and as such having two brands
>means having two sets of beliefs and having to convince
>the consumer that both are as good as each other and both
>better than the competition. You’re just doubling
>the workload for the consumer. A good brand should be able
>to exist in any environment as it has a set of beliefs
>that tie so strongly with a set of consumers that they
>really do buy into it. We found at Guinness that consumers
>thought they were buying into our brand by just buying a
>T-shirt or by just watching our ads (cause they tend to be
>so different and cinematic). We didn't have a different
>brand for TV versus radio, or pubs versus supermarkets, or
>stout versus t-shirts. So why on Earth would you have a
>different brand on the Internet for one that already
>exists?
>
>
>On 16:46:24 12 July 2001 campus77 wrote:
>>In a recent article about brand in
>>http://www.darwing.com/read/070101/brand_content.html?-
>prin-
>>ter=no there are interesting reasonings about brand
>and
>>the Internet just to follow the thread before
>holidays.
>>But the ones from Al Ries are pretty curious. The
>phrase
>>“ Every real-world company should have a
>website,
>>but it should be an information site, not a branding
>or
>>business site” has made me think a bit. We were
>>talking about experience and here it comes just
>>information, not branding. So what it’s going
>on?.
>>As much as I read about the subject, I think there is
>a
>>lot of missunderstanding about the Web or difficulty
>to
>>embrace new technologies. Why should I only give
>>information?. Take the banks for example.
>Shouldn’t
>>they sell through Internet or just keep you informed?
>>About a service did you say?. One of the big things
>>Internet has provided us is that is completely
>changing
>>the way information is delivered and think about the
>wide
>>scope of this term. Travel is information so music,
>books,
>>investing, content, prices, etc. Why Barns & Noble
>is
>>in the Web?. Digital printing is a reality today so it
>>wasn’t a few years ago (with such quality and
>>capacity). Printed information is beginning to move to
>>digital books. Two technologies involved now from
>Adobe
>>and Microsoft mainly and a third revolution in place,
>the
>>e-ink comming soon. So what’s all about?. For
>some
>>brick and mortar companies it’s just to be there
>>before anybody else or just for experimenting or
>>to….. branding. Anybody agree or disagree about?

why two distinct brands for the on and off line banks ? I think , having been involved in the early stages of one of the aforementioned, that this was brand insurance to a certain extent , true the different and narrowly defined demographics of the interent bamking market allowed for differentiation whilst maintaining the history and reliablity drivers of the parent brand
but these people aren't dumb, any online venture has a significant risk factor attached, brand equity in the banking market is particularly subjec to change (remember trendy wine bars ?) so the sensible thing fo rthe industry to do was to lend the online offspring brand those qualities which were medium independent, create the new values that appealed to the online audience and keep the association between the two shrouded in *brand fog* (thats not quite the right word)
this gives a simple exit strategy and brand insurance in the case of hacking / customer service breakdown or any unforeseen negative / terminal publicity. But also gives the parent brand the association with a new set of values for a new generation of customers
Excellent strategy in such a sensitive marketplace.

Is banking unique in this respect ? i'm unable to think of another offline business that has taken this approach.
Dave

On 13:22:24 16 July 2001 Sam wrote:
>Continuing from my previous post, do you think that the
>case for having separate brands online is driven LESS by
>the fact that it's a different channel per se (or a
>particular type of technology), but MORE because the
>fundamental customer demographic differs online from off?
>In other words, it's the same type of distinction that
>leads companies to create and target different brands at
>people living in different parts of the country/world, of
>different gender, of different income.
>
>Using the brewing analogy, brewer X may well have a
>Tennents Super-type product (with its associated brand set
>of beliefs) targeted at those friendly sorts we see
>sprawled out on park benches at 10.30am, while offering a
>poncy bottled lager (with its associated brand beliefs) to
>Giles & Camilla Yuppie living in Fulham.
>
>Whaddaya all reckon?
>
>Sam
>
>On 13:15:21 16 July 2001 Sam wrote:
>>Some good, strident opinions there, methinks
>(particularly
>>liked the elbow phrase...)
>>
>>One question:
>>
>>In your last para re bricks-and-mortar firms not
>having
>>different 'brands', does that mean you disagree with
>>Prudential, Abbey National, etc setting up Egg,
>Cahoot,
>>etc quite distinctly from their existing offline
>>offerings?
>>
>>Personally, I'd have thought that the 'product' in
>both
>>cases was financial services such as bank accounts,
>>mortgages, etc (whether badged offline as Prudential
>or
>>online as Egg), whereas the 'brand' is that set of
>beliefs
>>attached to the name Prudential or Egg. So
>Prudential's
>>set of beliefs are built around safe, trusted,
>>established, big, etc, whereas Egg is built around
>modern,
>>trendy, good value & so on. In other words, 2
>quite
>>distinct 'brands' (or would you call them
>'identities'?),
>>catering to differing customer types and served up
>either
>>offline or online.
>>
>>Views?
>>
>>Sam
>>
>>On 10:07:17 13 July 2001 shilen wrote:
>>>I think you were being far too polite calling some
>of
>>>their thoughts 'pretty curious'. In my opinion, as
>>>so-called marketing experts, a couple of them seem
>to
>>have
>>>an 'arse from elbow differentiation problem'.
>>>
>>>You are right to question the fact that brand
>should
>>just
>>>provide information on the Internet. They should
>use
>>new
>>>media and new technologies in any way they can to
>>improve
>>>the end benefit for consumers. If this means real
>time
>>>banking or browse books without having to move
>then
>>great.
>>>If it means comparing energy prices without have
>to
>>make a
>>>single phone call then super. It can also mean
>>allowing
>>>consumers to experience your brand in any number
>of
>>ways
>>>of which purchasing is just one. The key is
>>interactivity
>>>and our ability to create this to the benefit of
>the
>>brand
>>>and the consumer. This is something I don’t
>>think
>>>anyone has cracked but as other postings on this
>>thread
>>>show, brands like BMW and Nokia are having a good
>go
>>at
>>>tackling this issue.
>>>
>>>Regis McKenna has missed the point a bit when he
>talks
>>>about lack of loyalty in today’s marketplace
>>being a
>>>strong sign that branding doesn't work. Brands are
>the
>>>reasons why someone will pick one product over
>another
>>>(and very often this has nothing to do with the
>>functional
>>>product). The fact that loyalty has declined over
>the
>>last
>>>20 years is tat fact that there is a lot more
>>competition.
>>>The number of brands competing in any one market
>has
>>grown
>>>hugely and whole new segments have sprung up
>within
>>>markets. I almost say that a decline in loyalty
>has
>>>demonstrated that branding is well and alive and
>still
>>>able to persuade consumers that some products are
>>better
>>>than others.
>>>
>>>To further make his point that brands are dead he
>also
>>>gives the example of Starbucks wiping the floor
>with
>>>Maxwell House in the coffee market. Well
>'Hellloooo',
>>as
>>>the Americans would say, Starbuck is a brand. It
>has a
>>set
>>>of values and beliefs that consumers buy into. The
>>reason
>>>that consumers like Starbucks is because it
>creates a
>>>brand experience on a day to day basis and
>exploits a
>>>fundamental consumer insight - consumers want to
>feel
>>at
>>>home when they are out. For more on this idea of
>brand
>>>experience see other postings in this thread'.
>>>
>>>Coming to Al Ries - he's right to say that
>traditional
>>>advertising put on the web just turns people off.
>>Rightly
>>>he points out that interactivity is the key.
>>Doesn’t
>>>mean you can't advertise. You can create
>interactive
>>>experiences that consumers buy into because
>they're
>>>interesting that happen to say all the right
>things
>>about
>>>your brand. The key here is that for the first
>time we
>>>have a medium that truly allows consumers to
>by-pass
>>ads.
>>>Doesn’t mean they don’t want them.
>Just
>>means
>>>that your communication has to work a lot harder
>as it
>>has
>>>to compete with some pretty cool stuff on the web
>>already.
>>>It's like asking someone to switch over in his or
>her
>>>favourite TV programme to watch an ad - the ad
>will
>>have
>>>to be pretty special.
>>>
>>>I fundamentally disagree with his point that
>'bricks
>>and
>>>mortar' companies should have two brands - a real
>>world
>>>one and an Internet one. This is just nonsense,
>plain
>>and
>>>simple. A brand is a set of beliefs (as other
>>contributors
>>>to this article point out) and as such having two
>>brands
>>>means having two sets of beliefs and having to
>>convince
>>>the consumer that both are as good as each other
>and
>>both
>>>better than the competition. You’re just
>>doubling
>>>the workload for the consumer. A good brand should
>be
>>able
>>>to exist in any environment as it has a set of
>beliefs
>>>that tie so strongly with a set of consumers that
>they
>>>really do buy into it. We found at Guinness that
>>consumers
>>>thought they were buying into our brand by just
>buying
>>a
>>>T-shirt or by just watching our ads (cause they
>tend
>>to be
>>>so different and cinematic). We didn't have a
>>different
>>>brand for TV versus radio, or pubs versus
>>supermarkets, or
>>>stout versus t-shirts. So why on Earth would you
>have
>>a
>>>different brand on the Internet for one that
>already
>>>exists?
>>>
>>>
>>>On 16:46:24 12 July 2001 campus77 wrote:
>>>>In a recent article about brand in
>>>>http://www.darwing.com/read/070101/brand_conte-
>nt.h-
>>tml?-
>>>prin-
>>>>ter=no there are interesting reasonings about
>>brand
>>>and
>>>>the Internet just to follow the thread before
>>>holidays.
>>>>But the ones from Al Ries are pretty curious.
>The
>>>phrase
>>>>“ Every real-world company should have a
>>>website,
>>>>but it should be an information site, not a
>>branding
>>>or
>>>>business site” has made me think a bit.
>We
>>were
>>>>talking about experience and here it comes
>just
>>>>information, not branding. So what it’s
>>going
>>>on?.
>>>>As much as I read about the subject, I think
>there
>>is
>>>a
>>>>lot of missunderstanding about the Web or
>>difficulty
>>>to
>>>>embrace new technologies. Why should I only
>give
>>>>information?. Take the banks for example.
>>>Shouldn’t
>>>>they sell through Internet or just keep you
>>informed?
>>>>About a service did you say?. One of the big
>>things
>>>>Internet has provided us is that is completely
>>>changing
>>>>the way information is delivered and think
>about
>>the
>>>wide
>>>>scope of this term. Travel is information so
>>music,
>>>books,
>>>>investing, content, prices, etc. Why Barns
>&
>>Noble
>>>is
>>>>in the Web?. Digital printing is a reality
>today
>>so it
>>>>wasn’t a few years ago (with such
>quality
>>and
>>>>capacity). Printed information is beginning to
>>move to
>>>>digital books. Two technologies involved now
>from
>>>Adobe
>>>>and Microsoft mainly and a third revolution in
>>place,
>>>the
>>>>e-ink comming soon. So what’s all
>about?.
>>For
>>>some
>>>>brick and mortar companies it’s just to
>be
>>there
>>>>before anybody else or just for experimenting
>or
>>>>to….. branding. Anybody agree or
>disagree
>>about?