• by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, August 14, 2002

The Brand. The Brand is the holy grail of advertising. When marketers look to spend their ad budgets they always tout the strength and importance of The Brand. When a medium cannot clearly detail the effectiveness or power of their advertising it usually states that it’s strength lies in developing the Brand.

Is the strength of a Brand positive or negative? What truly is its power?

I will argue that the strength of a Brand lies in separating it from the competition. The power of a brand is that it will strengthen response and improve those metrics that lead to customer acquisition and customer retention. A Brand is the embodiment of the “Emotional Bank Account,” an idea coined by Stephen Covey. If a Brand is strong, customers are more loyal. If a Brand is strong, potential customers will trust it more than a no-name competitor. A Brand grows from forming a positive working relationship with the customer, and the more positive interactions there are, the higher the balance in the Emotional Bank Account.

In recent weeks we have witnessed a number of strong Brands battered by negative reaction, or withdrawals from their emotional bank accounts. Martha Stewart is in trouble for supposed insider trading. WorldCom announced it’s second major accounting error.

If a Brand is so important, what exactly does it take in this A.D.D-afflicted world to lose it? My hypothesis is this: with the market as volatile as it is and the average consumer appropriately mistrusting of any and all corporations, that the strength of a Brand is beginning to lie on very shaky ground.

We have all agreed that advertising is becoming more accountable to its returns. Companies that spend in the current economy are looking for some measurable benefit. Sales, market-share, increased brand favorability (which ideally leads to sales or market-share). The outcomes need to be proven to warrant spending. I think that the Emotional Bank Account of the traditional Brands has been injured by the state of the economy as well, and consumers are taking a more accountable stance, too. As consumer confidence wanes, proven results are becoming ever more important in the purchase decision cycle in comparison to traditional intangibles such as the Brand. Price is also becoming more important, as is reliability and other tangible benefits.

Lets examine Martha Stewart. Martha is a household name. Her Brand is among the most highly trusted and recognizable Brands in the world. She got caught with one possible case of insider trading and the stock for her company plummeted. Does Martha’s ethical stance on insider trading affect her ability to develop a recipe for tuna casserole? No. Did anyone care? No.

If that can happen to a Brand that is as stable and highly regarded as Martha Stewart, what does it mean for the power of a Brand that is less established?

Please don’t misinterpret what I am saying. I still believe that a Brand is important, but my point here is that a Brand is a means to an end, it is not the end itself. A Brand is necessary. It is critical for the growth and development of a company, but it does not take the place of a strong product, a sound marketing strategy, and careful consideration of the needs and desires of the customer. The customer is fickle. They will change their minds faster than they can change the TV station.

Gladly we have seen the end of the discussion of whether or not the Internet is a branding medium or a direct response medium, but we may need to start the discussion of which is a larger element in the effectiveness of advertising across the entire media mix.

Just some food for thought.