There is something to be said for the fact that the phone with the strongest brand in the world has no visible branding whatsoever on its front face.
—John Gruber on the iPhone. But you knew what phone he was talking about.
I’ve always been deeply opposed to any branding strategy that values a brand over a product. Adding branding to something’s “face” makes it harder to use, because it adds visual noise to the very part of the thing you have to interact with (and figure out how to use). For example, an “Intel Inside” sticker next to a keyboard is one more square-thing you have to rule out when looking for the right button to press.
Well, it depends. I have a bias since I’m in the business. Branding is vital from the marketer’s pov but branding needn’t always take the form of shoving a logo or slogan in your face. A lot of companies (Nike) have successfully made their logos into status symbols, which is a win for both the company and the consumer (or most of them). Apple controls its design but Intel has no other way to notify us of its presence. There may be something more subtle or aesthetically pleasing than “Intel Inside” (I personally would be proud to have come up with that tagline.), but Intel–unlike Apple–has minimal interest in aesthetics and as for subtlety, well, it’s often very effective but usually viewed with suspicion. The common joke in agencies is that when the client has rejected every campaign proposal, the fail-safe fallback is to make the logo bigger. (I think this is even a song now.)
And then sometimes brand supercedes function. My sometime friend the art crtic Dave Hickey once wrote (I can’t find where, so I’ll have to paraphrase) that the neon signage of the Las Vegas Strip (where signs can be six stories high and are replaced every few years to keep current with taste) are as beautiful as “prefab sunsets” and promise pleasures that the casinos and theaters and brothel-hotels don’t deliver, since their FUNCTION is to quickly & painlessly separate you from your money. Dave lives in Las Vegas so he’s not just striking a pose.
Comment by Ernie — June 6, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Right, my problem isn’t with ostentatious branding, or branding being part of a product, it’s with branding hurting the actual product. I don’t believe it’s a trade off that ever makes sense.
With the Las Vegas and Nike examples, the branding is enhancing the function of the product, not sacrificing it. A glitzy 6 story neon sign is part of the ambiance of a casino — it makes it more fun to be fleeced. And with fashionable clothing like Nike or Tommy, you are buying the luxury brand as much as the premium product. When Nike spends money controlling their image instead of making a stronger shoe, I think they are still building a better shoe — because they are making a more popular shoe.
And even if marketing had absolutely no effect on a product, except to divert funds from building it better, I still wouldn’t be axiomatically opposed to it. There’s no point in building something great if nobody uses it. If marketing buys eyes, then it’s worth something. Those extra eyes mean more money to build it better down the road. But I don’t think hurting your product with branding ever makes sense.
Comment by Vincent Gable — June 6, 2009 @ 10:29 pm