I don’t think that Laura is saying that you can and should do one thing forever. Facebook started with college students and evolved by allowing anyone to join. Laura has stated that this WAS a good idea. But if Facebook tried to become Twitter-like with “Diet Facebook” this would be a bad idea.

Al and Laura’s premise has always been when you stand for something in the mind it is almost impossible to change. When the Kodak name is on a digital camera that is just silly. If they had evolved and created a new brand name for a digital camera they would have had a chance at success. Even Seth Godin’s philosophy is find one thing you do better than anyone and be even better, in fact, be the best.

Technology is moving at such a fast pace that companies that once dominated the market like Blockbuster can be gone before they know what happened. Everyone knows that Blockbuster stands for “video rentals”. At-home entertainment, I don’t even know what that means. And if the simple mind can’t understand your brand in simple words you don’t have a chance.

The pressure of Wall Street has forced great brands like Dell and many others to lose focus and market share. The Law of Success in action.

There is a difference between a business and a brand. A brand is something that provides goods & service in a certain category and serves a distinct market.

Business reality says that you should go after new categories and new markets. Marketing reality says that it is hard to do without new brands.

Although brand advice is business advice, a business can own multiple brands. Toyota (the business) did this with the Scion brand for low-end vehicles and the Lexus brand for high-end vehicles. That protected the Toyota brand. Kodak (the business) could have launched a separate brand for digital photography. That would not have diluted the Kodak brand.

On another note, as much as marketers like to think that they control the meaning of the strong brand, it is actually the paying customers that do. If people thimk that Kodak means great film photography, that is what it is. Marketers can try to influence this, but the actual branding occurs when marketers change the message, and then a large percentage of paying customers acknowledge that the brand owner has delivered on the new promise better than others in that same category. That is hard.

One more thing. Technology is moving fast because that depends on people’s ability to come up with new ideas. However brands move slowly because they depend on people’s willingness to change what they like and do.

Laura is right.

Kodak should have launched a new brand in digital. The force that kills brands like Kodak and Blockbuster is exactly the force that built them in the first place. You ride that force as long as you can and make as much money as possible. But when it dies, it dies. Launch a new brand.

UPS should have done the same.

Well, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve disagreed with Laura Ries –publicly: http://www.robfrankel.com/videos.html That’s where you’ll see several cases in real time, pointing out how Laura’s view differ radically from my own.

While Trout & Ries have to be acknowledged as contributors to modern branding, their strategies and tactics fall woefully short, beginning around 1975. Unfortunately, most of their material seems to be rehash of their earlier work, largely irrelevant to the needs and issues of current businesses.

For example, maintaining that “Once your brand stands for something in the mind, it is almost impossible to change the brand’s position” is not only wrong, it’s irresponsible. If you can’t change a brand’s perception, there’s only one reason: you’ve abdicated your responsibility to the brand and turned control over to the masses.

I personally believe you’re right on target. Even as far back as 2005, Kodak blew it because their Caretaker Managers never understood branding, which led to their marketing downfall ( http://robfrankel.blogspot.com/search?q=A+Disastrous+Kodak+Moment )

Remember, most clients, agencies and civilians can’t agree on what branding is. That’s why they can’t hold sensible discussions about it — and why they can rarely agree on effective branding strategies and tactics.

This is why I wrote my book: http://www.RevengeofBrandX.com where I maintain that “branding is about getting your prospects to perceive yours as the only solution to their problem.”

If you don’t subscribe to that definition, fine by me. But if you do, watch your brand strategy propel your enterprise driven by real business issues, rather than the color and font of your logo.

Rob Frankel
http://www.robfrankel.com
@brandingexpert

Rob, your understanding of branding–or lack thereof–is scary. The first thing you need to understand is that, as Al Ries has appropriately pointed out, “Marketing doesn’t take place in a boardroom, it takes place in the mind.” Marketing is an exercise in economic psychology. And since a brand is simply the perception people have of a company or product, there are limitations to what companies can do with that brand. Trying to make the brand stand for more than one thing in the human mind is the perfect example. Another example is suddenly trying to make the brand stand for something else. Minds don’t like to change. And as Jack Trout once warned, “If your assignment is to change people’s minds, don’t take the assignment.” Remember, Rob: It’s not just about what you want your brand to do, it’s about what the marketplace will allow your brand to do.

Is Scott being awesomely condescending to Rob M. or Rob F.? And what’s with the circular logic of quoting Ries and Trout in their own defense?

Brands certainly have limitations, but they may not be as rigid as Erik, Jay, Jason, and Scott think. What about Yamaha (motorcycles and pianos)? Mitsubishi (rally cars and tuna)? Sony (laptops and movies)? Brands can’t grow indefinitely, and not every brand can even grow substantially, but some can.

While Blockbuster and Kodak mightn’t have succeeded, to say that they never should have tried to leverage the immense equity of their brands to enter new markets just doesn’t make any sense.

Interesting points all. I’ve posted a follow up here: http://www.semanticargument.com/?p=262

“While Blockbuster and Kodak mightn’t have succeeded, to say that they never should have tried to leverage the immense equity of their brands to enter new markets just doesn’t make any sense.”

Paul, trying to make your brand stand for many things doesn’t make sense. Trying to be all things to all people doesn’t make sense. Lack of brand focus doesn’t make sense. Spreading your resources too thinly doesn’t make sense. Being weak everywhere instead of strong somewhere doesn’t make sense.

It is a basic branding fundamental that brands SHOULDN’T try to enter new markets (categories). Should Harley-Davidson make cars? No. Should Coke make fruit juice? No. Should Rolex make wall clocks? No. The same goes for Kodak and Blockbuster.

The more your brand tries to stand for, the less it actually does. (And your examples of Yamaha, Sony, and Mistubishi are examples of branding mistakes, not brand successes. These line extensions have all hurt their respective brand equity, not helped.)

The failure to understand why this is so is a failure to understand the limitations human psychology puts on the branding process.

Sorry Scott, but I’m unconvinced by both your assertion that Mitsubishi, Yamaha, and Sony are branding mistakes, and that brands can’t grow into new markets.

Texas Instruments?
General Electric?
Virgin?

Have any of these brands achieved success in growing beyond their initial categories?

Have they grown? Yes. Has the growth made their brands more profitable? A resounding No. These are all brands on the decline because they no longer stand for anything.

Any brand can grow. Just throw more money at it. But growing profits is a different story altogether.

Starting to get off-topic now, but hey – what’s the interweb for anyway?

Fun blog on just how far Virgin extends

and another on how Tropicana is extending its identity too far

Perhaps I am a little late to this post – I found it through Rob’s comment while reading Laura’s original post. I think you both have valid points.

My question would be, to anyone that argues UPS’s strategy was a good move: “Where do you go to get copies made?”

Personally, I have never went to a UPS store only to make copies. I go to staples. I go to the UPS store to ship packages, and if I need to make some copies (for example of letters or invoices) while I’m there, it’s convienent that copy machines are available. If I’m copying in bulk or printing a business report, I go to Staples.

I think most people would agree.

Considering this, perhaps a better slogan then “We do more than just shipping” would have been “Copy, sort, staple, and ship” or “convenient copies, reliable shipping.” Something to emphasize the convenience and the benefit copy services add.

But thats just my humble opinion, and I’m a marketing guru by no means.

-Matt
twitter: @mattmillerart

Thanks for the comment, Matt. I like your tagline ideas better than what UPS is using.

Funny that you mention Staples, though. I think of them for office supplies first, copies second. Apparently their brand is strong enough to stand for both ideas. Or are they really separate ideas? That’s the focus of my follow-up post.

More insight into whether or not Kodak’s brand can stand for more than film photography. To the naysayers, apparently the company has been having some success with digital as of late. Why? Because, as suggested here and in my follow up post, they can finally credibly claim they “do more than film.”