March 8, 2005

branding is dead (cont.)

yyyylkgjut06.jpg
Ear­lier today, the “Bran­ding Is Dead” debate con­ti­nued over lunch:
Hugh: Bran­ding is dead.
Friend: You really think that?
Hugh: Yes.
Friend: Why do you believe that?
Hugh: Because it’s bet­ter than the alter­na­tive.
Friend: What’s the alter­na­tive?
Hugh: Necrophilia.

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

13 Responses to “branding is dead (cont.)”

  1. Hugh Says Bran­ding is Dead

    Hugh is on his

  2. J says:

    bran­ding is for nec­rophi­liacs? ha!

  3. JSLogan says:

    Death of Branding!?!?!?

    Bran­ding is one of those words you could drop in the middle of a mar­ke­ting party and likely get 10 simi­lar, yet dif­fe­rent defi­ni­tions of its mea­ning. I’m not sure I could give a best defi­ni­tion of what it means to create a brand, nor am I con­fi­dent I …

  4. Tom says:

    Bran­ding is the domain of edu­ca­ted wan­kers who piss on the floor of public wash­rooms. Don’t BLINK now but it too has reached the tip­ping point.
    Don’t for­get to buy my new book coming out this spring, “How wha­les talk in dirty”

  5. John Antczak says:

    Most com­pa­nies haven’t the fain­test idea of what bran­ding is, was, or should be.
    Some com­pa­nies waste their time trying to esta­blish a glo­bal brand (Haier) when com­su­mers just buy their pro­ducts because they’re cheap.
    Some think that faded glory is still a valua­ble asset (TCL/RCA).
    And some shouldn’t waste their time because they have great pro­ducts (Sanyo).

  6. Isn’t bran­ding essen­tial because it esta­blishes momen­tum? I sup­pose what really really tal­king about is coer­ced bran­ding as oppo­sed to pro­ducts that brand them­sel­ves on the leathery cons­cious­ness of con­su­mers based on sheer quality.

  7. Bruce DeBoer says:

    I don’t know what the heck your tal­king about Hugh. You make a stat­ment and then back away from it with no explai­na­tion; that’s boring.
    I keep coming to your blog because others have you lis­ted but I’m con­ti­nually bewil­de­red since there is not real dis­cus­sion going on.
    Bye.

  8. hugh macleod says:

    Sorry, Bruce, maybe my “crea­tive” wasn’t “synthe­si­sed” enough. Ha!

  9. Alexoid says:

    Wait, isn’t bran­ding like, a logo? I was once asked to make a logo but change the font a bit to make it “spe­cial”. So now I do that every time and life is good.

  10. arturo says:

    A brand is your iden­tity.
    Every pro­duct has one by vir­tue of being.
    The ques­tion is awa­re­ness — that is how many peo­ple know your brand. And expec­ta­tions — if they know you what’s their per­cep­tion of what you do.
    (both those cri­ti­cal fea­tu­res can be chan­ged by PR, adver­ti­sing, and other com­mu­ni­ca­tions tac­tics)
    Saying that ‘bran­ding is dead’ to say you don’t unders­tand what a brand is about.
    Dumb.

  11. Evelyn and Hugh on Branding’s Demise

    Had a brief email chat with Evelyn Rodri­guez and Hugh re: the bran­ding is dead. They’re trying to help me unders­tand the thin­king behind such a sta­te­ment. More to write on it later, but Ev direc­ted me to this post,

  12. Bruce DeBoer says:

    Synthe­si­zed is spe­lled with a Z

  13. campester says:

    this arturo com­ment has been brought to you by coca cola.
    [sorry, that was unconstructive.]