According to his bio on BNET, Geoffrey James “has sold and written hundreds of features, articles and columns for national publications including Wired, Men’s Health, Business 2.0, and… and… and…”
… And according to me he’s just penned his last. Because it is codswallop. Which is the sort of grand pronouncement Geoff seems to favour.
BNET is owned by CBS so I assume it has a substantial readership and a modicum of credibility within the business community. Which is the only reason I bother to call out clods like Geoff who make baseless, facile and sensational pronouncements concerning marketing and advertising. Like Mrs. Patrick Campbell, I don’t mind what they do, so long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses, or in this case my clients.
His article is entitled Branding is Dead: Apple, Toyota, Leno & Obama Prove It. Geoff’s journalistic speciality appears to be the startling non sequitur. Viz. (all italics mine)
Apple, of course, is a highly visible corporate brand and has established numerous successful product brands. However, all the discussions after the announcement of the iPad were about the product, not about the brand.
Toyota has a highly-recognizable brand name that for decades has been associated with high quality products. However, the brouhaha over the recall shows that consumers are more than willing to change their perception of a brand for the negative, if the product no longer justifies that high opinion.
Both Leno and O’Brien are “brands” in and of themselves, but the reason that there was an argument in the first place was that, no matter how recognizable their brands might be, their products weren’t any good
The final event of note was Barack Obama’s state of the union address. Obama is more than a President; he’s a brand in and of himself… His speech was masterful — like all of his speeches — but in the large scheme of things, that speech is irrelevant because Barack Obama will be judged, not on his brand, but on the performance of the product.
You are so confused on this subject Geoff that I’ll let your random thought collisions speak for themselves. Most of my readers understand the difference between a product and a brand.
Think of it like the physical states of matter: a product is a solid, tangible thing, a brand is a gaseous ephemeral thing while your article is a liquid babbling thing.
8 Responses
Geoffrey James
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
1Thanks for the thoughtful review of the ideas in my post. It’s nice to know that somebody appreciates the fine value of debating points, without resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks. I’m sure your clients appreciate your restraint and realize that true gems can be found in backwater blogs like this one, rather than in the popular blogs written by real journalists with extensive experience in brand marketing. Bravo!
simon
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
2Geoffrey: Glad you were able to take the time to respond to my backwater blog, it’s been called worse, “cyber malignancy” was my favourite. Although I have to reiterate that nothing you wrote in your article justified the title of the piece. There is no logical linkage between a product issue potentially damaging the integrity of a well established quality brand and the statement that branding or brands as a marketing tool, are dead. In fact it is likely that the strength of the Toyota brand will help pull it through the crisis if they manage things properly. Your Apple example is even more illogical – it is precisely because Apple is such a gargantuan brand (a significant component of a brand being the expectations it creates) that there is latent market interest and excitement every time they release a new product. As for Obama, I am not a fan of mixing branding and politics even though politicians employ marketing tactics in their campaigns.
This One Guy
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:55 pm
3Real Journalism – connecting the dots between 3 or 4 popular news items in the most superficial way possible and declaring something or other dead.
On bnet.
I said BNET.
adchick
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
4“…a liquid babbling thing.” HA! The whole post is Fabulous!
Mark
February 4th, 2010 at 7:28 am
5I love backwater blogs, much less touristy.
Phillip
February 4th, 2010 at 9:41 am
6The really scary part Geoffrey, was how you gloated about wasting large amounts of corporate spending on a brand that you clearly had no passion or drive to see through to success. That is wrong on so many levels it’s ridiculous. Chaps like you with attitudes to boot, are why we wound up in a recession.
The fact is, your sensational headline :”Branding is dead”: is just that.
You stated yourself on Bnet.com that Brands exist, in your responses, so how are they dead if they exist?
You are wrong and branding will thrive simply because it’s a capitalistic society and businesses need to be competitive. Branding is one of the most powerful tools to give the edge.
Rapid prototyping and IP theft is at an all time high thanks to technology and your image is all you have in many cases.
Peter Holmes
February 5th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
7He accuses you of “Ad hominem attacks” and then goes on to call this a “backwater blog?”
Then the fellow has the audacity to pat himself on the back with, “popular blogs written by real journalists with extensive experience in brand marketing.”
Heh.
Little wonder so many so-called journalists and their publications are in such deep shit.
At its most simplistic, a brand is an extension of persona – an object imbued with human attributes and meaning. And that’s not likely to go away any time soon.
MarkSpizer
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:51 am
8great post as usual!
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a reply
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
Meta
Grumpy Brit is powered by WordPress - based upon the original BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease