by JAMIE SWEDBERG

Do branding experts envy plumbers? Plumbers’ customers arecrystal clear on the objective of the work they perform: an oper-ational system of pipes, drains, sinks, and toilets. But compa-nies who hire branding professionals tend to labor under anumber of misconceptions. They may be unable to defineexactly what branding is, and they can have some pretty oddnotions about it.

Part of this is intrinsic to the branding industry, since there’sno hard and fast definition of what branding includes. “Whenpeople go into a branding project, they assume that theiremployees and the people they’re working for have a commonunderstanding of what branding is,” says Jane Tilka, presidentof Tilka Design, a communication design firm in Minneapolis.“Starting out, it is really important to understand what you areaccomplishing: what the organization that is working with youis delivering and how it is going to be used within the organi-zation. You know, a grasp of ‘Why are we doing this?’”

Different consulting groups approach the problem in differ-ent ways, she says, and that spawns confusion. So before theybegin, branding consultants should set the ground rules forwhat branding work within the organization will entail. Andwhile they’re at it, clear up a few things.

Clients, it turns out, tend to hold a predictable set of spuriousbeliefs about branding. These common misconceptions can getin the way of clear communication and effective branding work.Here, local branding gurus dispel the misinformation.

Myth #1:A brand is just a logo.“That’s probably the oldest misconception,” says Aaron Keller,managing principal at Minneapolis-based public relations firmCapsule. “People think branding is advertising—that it’s justthe soft side of business. It’s not, but it’s impacted by all thosepieces. Those things might help define the brand, but they arenot in and of themselves the brand.”

Elin Raymond, president of The Sage Group, Inc., a strate-gic communications firm in Minneapolis, says clients may notrealize branding is an all-encompassing process. They mayequate it with their logo, brochures, ads, or product packaging.“They probably don’t realize that it is a part of everything thatthey do: who they are, how they are perceived, and the entirecustomer, constituent, or stakeholder experience,” she says.

Tim Larsen, president and founder of Larsen Design andInteractive, agrees: “A brand is never just a logo but the totalityof the experience one has with a product, service, or company.”Larsen Design is a strategic communications firm based inMinneapolis.

In short, branding includes every single touchpoint a cus-tomer experiences. Yes, it includes the logo, but it also includescustomer service, product quality, and the relationship acompany forms with its customers. It is the art and science oftrying to manage the way a company is perceived.

S P E C I A L F O C U SBRANDING

BRANDINGMISUNDERSTANDING

BRANDINGMISUNDERSTANDING

Local experts clear up common myths about branding.

As Seen in April 2006

Raymond says the confusion maystem from clients using the logo as a kindof shorthand for the larger issue. “Someclients may come to us initially asking fora new logo,” she says. “I think this is theirway of communicating that their brandneeds an overhaul. It could well meanthat the way they present themselvespublicly does not represent who theyare.”

Myth #2: Branding was trendy for a while, butnow it’s dead.“The pendulum constantly swings withbranding,” says Chris Schermer, directorof client strategy and services at market-ing agency Schermer Kuehl inMinneapolis. “Ten years ago, it was anemerging hot trend. Five years ago, afterthe technology bubble burst, it was kindof something that companies didn’t wantto invest in. Today there are fewer com-petitors out there, but the pendulum hasswung back to where brand is in favor.”

Keller says some of the “branding isdead” talk is a result of the term beingoverused when it first became fashion-able. “You’d hire a printer, and they’d betalking about helping you manage yourbrand,” he says. “That’s stretching it alittle far. But at the same time as thosethings were happening, academia tookup branding [as a discipline]. If academiais doing it, it’s not going to go away.”

Companies have always been con-cerned with the total customer experi-ence—marketing, customer service,operations, distribution channels,pricing strategies, everything. Only nowthere’s a word for the way companies tryto manage that experience: Branding.

Myth #3:Once you establish a successful brand, you should leave italone.That myth couldn’t be more wrong. Onthe contrary, brand needs to be at thefront of a company’s consciousness at alltimes. The initial branding work that acompany does with a consultant consists

of defining what the company stands for.But at every juncture from then on, thecompany must be vigilant about the wayit projects itself.

“For organizations to do brandingwork, they have to make a series of deci-sions that say, ‘We stand for this,’” Tilkasays. “That means that maybe 50 of thecompany’s other activities don’t supportthe brand anymore. Often it can be aheart-wrenching experience organiza-tionally. So when they get to the pointwhere they’ve ratified what the brand isabout, there’s a big sigh of relief—‘Whew,we’re done.’ But that’s when the real workbegins.”

There’s a lot involved in aligning acompany’s everyday activities with whatits brand is supposed to be. Part of it istraining employees to understand andadvocate the brand. Part of it, too, ismaking strategic decisions that are con-sistent with what the company standsfor: high quality, hip designs, flawlesscustomer service, or whatever.

“What they really have to understandat the end of the day is that brand work isdynamic and always has to be workedon,” Tilka says. “Within all of those day-to-day, year-to-year activities, you askyourself, ‘Is this activity consistent?’”

If the brand ever stops feeling true andclear, it’s probably time to retune it. Andsometimes, even if the brand is strong,you’ll need to recast it to align it with the

Zeitgeist. “Look at Buick,” says KevinDiLorenzo, managing director and seniorvice president at Olson, a Minneapolisadvertising agency. “They had a greatbrand, but it just didn’t take long for it tobecome a dated, old-man’s brand.”

A core brand should not changeaccording to fashion, he says. Instead,the company should find a way to makeits values relevant to society. It’s notabout changing who you are as a brand;it’s about how you express yourself in thetimes.

Myth #4: Only huge consumer-facing companieshave to worry about branding.“That’s totally illogical!” exclaims KerrySarnoski, principal at Minneapolis-basedFusion Hill, a research and marketingcompany. “I would say anyone who has aproduct or service—anyone who wants tobe successful or make a profit—needs toworry about their brand.”

Shelley McKay, partner at CricketMarketing & PR in Minneapolis, agrees:“Smaller companies such as shopkeepersor local franchisees still need to make aname for themselves and deliver on theirpromises.”

If anything, Raymond argues, smallcompanies need to be even more focusedon the purity of their brand. “I haven’tread a study about this, but I would betthe success of a start-up can be linked inpart to its branding efforts,” she says. “Ithink a start-up company has to do itshomework. It’s got to do it’s market-segment research and its competitiveintelligence. It’s got to craft that brand-experience model to ensure that thedesired brand pervades everything itdoes. Only that way is it going to have areal impact.”

Firms that serve the business-to-busi-ness market need to be focused on brand,too. “Our agency works exclusively withbusiness-to-business companies, and themain difference is that B2B buying deci-sions are often made by groups ratherthan individuals,” says Schermer. “Theproducts often cost more, too —likecomputers versus toothpaste. They areless likely to make an emotionally baseddecision. But make no mistake, groupsare still influenced by all the criteria thathelp build trust. I think it’s imperative tohave an established and trustworthybrand in that case, because it helps thosepeople minimize the risk of their deci-sion. It helps them feel more comfort-able.”

Elin Raymond, The Sage Group, Inc.

�

{ A company should find a way to make

its values relevant tosociety. It’s not aboutchanging who you are as a brand; it’s about

how you express yourself in

the times. }�

Myth #5: The company owns the brand.Well, legally speaking, yes. But in reality,the brand exists in the minds of users,consumers, and stakeholders. Why?Because brand is all about perception. Acompany can manage a brand, but it cannever completely control it.

“Every company and every producthas a brand, even if they’ve never workedon it,” explains Sarnoski. “It might not beintentional or even desirable, but it existsin the mind of the consumer. You can tryto alter that however you want.Hopefully, if you are really good at man-aging that experience across all thetouchpoints, there will be a lot of consis-tency between what you want the brandto mean and what it does mean.”

It’s possible for loyal customers tostage a sort of branding coup, wrestingcontrol of the brand and its perception inthe world. “You can lose control in a goodway,” Keller says. “Some have said thatHarley-Davidson doesn’t really havecontrol of its brand anymore. In mostcases, if you get people very engaged andpassionate about your brand, with thebrands that people are most passionateabout and the brands that people talkabout a lot, that’s what often comes.”

But, Larsen notes, there’s ownershipand then there’s ownership. “While acompany can’t fully own it’s brand on anemotional level, it must own it legally,” hesays. “Securing a trademark for acompany’s name and identity is funda-mental to protecting its brand.”

Regardless of who’s driving, thecompany needs to work hard to stay rel-evant and meet and exceed customers’expectations. Otherwise, the customerswill feel that the contract between themand the company has been broken. Thebrand becomes meaningless, and thecustomers drift away.

Myth #6: A brand needs to appeal to everyone.Certainly there are some brands that tryto be everything to everyone. But it’s ahard thing to do. In most cases, a betterapproach is to do research and find outexactly who your customers are and howyou can best sell to them.

“A strong brand differentiates acompany from its competitors,” Larsenargues. “By definition, this differentia-tion means you can’t be all things to allpeople.”

“Our agency talks about bonfirebrands,” DiLorenzo says. “Those arebrands that people gather around andcreate community around. People areattracted to the light and the glow andthe warmth that they feel when theyconnect with [the brand].”

In an increasingly global world, hesays, people feel disconnected. They wantto form tribes and to feel a sense ofbelonging. A powerful brand can be a cat-alyst for this type of community.

DiLorenzo uses Jeep as an example:The company offers weekend getawayswhere the vehicle’s fans can learn to drivein off-road environments. These get-aways aren’t intended for everyone—justthe sort of people who seek out Jeeps.

Even in the mass market, companiesdifferentiate themselves. “Wal-Mart andTarget have a strong sense of self andwho they are as a brand,” DiLorenzosays. “You would never mistake theTarget experience for the Wal-Mart expe-rience.”

Myth #7: There’s no way to see a return on yourinvestment in branding.True, branding isn’t like direct mail,where you can count the responses youget from a flier you mailed. It has a

longer-term, more subtle payback. “It’s an increase in sales over time,”

McKay says. “Or, if it’s a commodityproduct, then it’s an increase in loyalty.Are they choosing your product orservice over someone else? Is it new cus-tomers or clients? If they are new to you,how did they find out about you? If youare doing it properly, you should noticean uptick.”

Measuring the ROI for branding workis still both an art and a science,

Schermer says. The key indicator isbrand equity—how much value thebrand has intrinsically. It can be meas-ured through studies of consumer prefer-ence and loyalty. These things don’tnecessarily translate, in and of them-selves, to sales. But there is a strong cor-relation across the board.

Measuring brand equity is becomingless problematic over time, Keller says.Some large business publications havestarted listing the top 100 brands and theasset values of those brands. “It’s not onthe books inside the company, but it isout there as something that you canmeasure against,” he says. “In time, theformula [for those calculations] willbecome more widely available, andsmaller companies will be able to do it.There’s actually talk of the asset value ofa brand showing up on the books froman accounting perspective.”

Larsen says you may also see theresult of brand efforts when a company issold. “A number of years ago, we wereworking for a technology company thatwanted to sell one of its most successfuldivisions,” he recalls. “The initial offerswere far below what the companybelieved to be the division’s real value, sothey hired Larsen to re-create the divi-sion as a separate brand. One year later,with its own name, identity, and commu-nications support, the same entity sellingthe same products was sold for twice theprice of what was first offered.”

Sarnoski sums it up: “The money andthe attention that you spend on manag-ing that consumer experience—at theend of the day, that’s what delivers yourrevenue and your market share.” TCB

Jamie Swedberg is a freelance writer livingin Georgia and a regular contributor toTwin Cities Business.

Tim Larsen, Larsen Design

�

{ “Wal-Mart and Target have a strong

sense of self and whothey are as a brand.

You would nevermistake the Target experience for the

Wal-Mart experience.” }�

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM TWIN CITIES BUSINESS • COPYRIGHT BY MSP COMMUNICATIONS