The Single Most Common Branding Mistake


The most common branding mistake, in my view, is to focus solely on functional benefits based on the assumption that customers will have the motivation and capacity to seek out relevant objective information and apply that information to a structured decision process leading to a logical decision.
The mistake is particularly prevalent in the high-tech and B-to-B world. However, we know that the driving assumption is nearly always very wrong. Further, superiority on functional benefits that matter to customers is difficult to create. Even when they emerge, competitors usually copy or appear to copy them quickly.

The alternative is to surround the brand with bases of a customer-brand relationship that go beyond the offering. Consider dimensions such as:

• Shared interests—Pampers on baby care, Muji on lifestyle.

• Personality—Zara as trendy, Virgin as irreverent and creative.

• Passion—Whole Foods Market’s passion about food, Nike’s passion about athletic excellence.

• Organizational characteristics—being global (VISA), innovative (3M), quality driven (Cadillac), customer driven (Nordstrom), concerned about the environment (GE), treating others with respect (the original HP way).



None of these affect the offering, but they do affect the relationship between the customer and the brand and are much harder to duplicate than a functional benefit. Competitors can become irrelevant because they lack these elements and, as a result, can appear to lack interest in and relevance to their customers.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ensemble

Boosting: In lieu of training all the models separately as in bagging, boosting trains models sequentially. Each new model is trained to correct the errors made by the previous ones. The first tree is examined and the weights of those observations that are hard to classify are increased and the weights for those that are easy to classify are reduced. This modified data is used to build the next tree. This process is repeated for a defined number of iterations. Predictions of the final ensemble model is therefore the weighted sum of the predictions made by the previous tree models. GBM uses loss functions Since each tree is fit to residuals as against the original output parameter, each tree is small and improves prediction in the parts where prediction is bad. All the models might make the same mistake in the standard ensemble method. Compute error by deducting forecasted value from target value (e1= y - y1_forecasted) Build a new model on errors (e1_forecasted) as target variabl...
Read more

Bias-Variance tradeoff

Bias refers to the deviation of the predicted values from the correct value. The error occurs when you make wrong assumptions about data. In other words, it is the error that is created when you represent a real-life complex problem using a simpler model while it might be making them easier to understand. For instance, when you build a linear model to solve for a non-linear problem. It results in under fitting and makes them less flexible. Parametric algos like Linear Regression can produce high bias while non-parametric algos like Decision Trees make good assumptions about the training data and target function and hence do not have high bias. Variance refers to the change that occurs when the model is applied on a different training data. It occurs when the model captures not just the underlying pattern but noise as well. It results in overfitting. In other words, it is memorising the data. It is often observed in Decision Trees. When the observations are limited but the...
Read more

AI

we are now at a critical juncture where many of the systems we need to master are fiendishly complex, from climate change to macroeconomic issues to Alzheimer’s disease. The problem is that these challenges are so complex that even the world’s top scientists, clinicians and engineers can struggle to master all the intricacies necessary to make the breakthroughs required. It has been said that Leonardo da Vinci was perhaps the last person to have lived who understood the entire breadth of knowledge of their age. Since then we’ve had to specialise, and today it takes a lifetime to completely master even a single field such as astrophysics or quantum mechanics. The systems we now seek to understand are underpinned by a vast amount of data, usually highly dynamic, non-linear and with emergent properties that make it incredibly hard to find the structure and connections to reveal the insights hidden therein.  Kepler and Newton could write equations to describe the motion of p...
Read more