Branding is dead?

I've been mulling over this for a bit as it really seems absurd that people are arguing this. D. Kieth Robinson offers up some opinion on the matter as well.

Anyways, I find arguments of branding is dead are often really about semantics. That be some specific definition the mere traditional methods of 'branding' no longer apply. Ho hum.

I don't care what you call it.

What it all boils down to is establishing a level of trust between you and the consumer (customer, client, person, whatever).

The avenues to build that trust relationship have simply increased. Whether it be door-to-door sales, radio, newspaper, television, banner ads, or blogging, it really doesn't matter. All avenues merely establish communication between you and the consumer.

As Hugh says, it's all conversational now. Although, I'd say it always has been. People just have different ways of talking back. They have faster ways of talking back.

Branding isn't dead. Not by any means.

Update: It seems others share my argument on semantics.

Published November 09, 2004 · Updated September 17, 2005
Categorized as Opinion
Short URL: https://snook.ca/s/279

Conversation

1 Comment · RSS feed
Gabriel Mihalache said on November 09, 2004

"Just the facts, m'am. Just the facts."

You can keep your green banner, sky writing extravagantza and buzzing Flash pop-under. I can look at the contractually binding documentation myself. :-)

The problem with branding is that bad branding killed it, especially online. Some people do it spectacularly well (Apple) but for every succesful campaign, there 10000 scammers, because, basically, branding turned into scams and spam in far too many cases.

Sorry, comments are closed for this post. If you have any further questions or comments, feel free to send them to me directly.

Want to learn about scaling CSS for large projects?

I'm available for full and half-day workshops on scalable CSS architecture. I can provide on-site training for your team. Interested?
Get in touch.