Talk:Brand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Brand Trust[edit]

Should the entire "Brand Trust" section be moved to Brand strength? This seems to be conceptually very similar in that the strength of a brand can include components such as trust, awareness, differentiation, etc. Trust alone does not make a brand.--Blueadept1 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Coca Cola[edit]

Coca cola is overly represented on this page. I think the picture of the hebrew and english pop bottles is distinctive and should stay, but the topmost image of their pure logo should go and should be replaced by another globally recognized brand, such as nintendo.

Brand = Americanization[edit]

Hmmm. How does Brand = Americanization play with Apellation controlee? We have wine names going back to the Romans, at least (pass me a glass of the old Falernian, boy!), but I don't know when governments got into the game. --MichaelTinkler


It's a good question, I think. I'm sure you are right that there has always been product names and therefore potentially product loyalty. The term "branding" however, as a term for developing product identity is itself very recent. Here is the short form of the OED as it pertains to this word:

c. A trade-mark, whether made by burning or otherwise. (Applied to trade-marks on casks of wines or liquors, timber, metals, and any description of goods except textile fabrics.)

  • 1827 Motley v. Downman 3 Mylne & Craig Law Rep. 4 The proprietors have added the brand mark `Margam' on each box.

6. (transf. from 4 c.) A particular sort or class of goods, as indicated by the trade-marks on them.

  • 1883 Harper's Mag. Aug. 451/1 There are special brands of steel wire for the shrouds and stays.

9. attrib. (sense 6) and Comb., as brand-image, the impression of a product in the minds of potential users or consumers; also transf. and fig., the general or popular conception of some person or thing; brand-name, a trade or proprietary name; also transf.

  • 1958 M. Mayer Madison Avenue U.S.A. iii. 59 David Ogilvy, of Ogilvy, Benson & Mather, apostle of the `brand image';
  • 1958 M. Mayer Madison Avenue U.S.A. iii. 63 Ogilvy's brand-image advertising..works essentially on the consumer's conscious mind in an effort to convince him that brand A, technically identical with brand B, is somehow a better product.

I think here it relies heavily on the early fire implications of the word. The idea as it develops is of burning an image on the mind of the public. This is especially true when we get to the 1950s and brand is used in an almost religious context, where branding is a kind of psychological attack. So, certainly there was product naming previous to branding, and probably that should be included in the entry, but I wonder if the character of American or at least modern "branding" as it is used in that sense isn't somehow different from previous concepts of product identification. This is, again, one of those terms or concepts which rests heavily on characterization and interpretation rather than on empirical fact. We can say what the modern definition is, and we can talk somewhat about the etymology of the word, and about the history of the concept, but... well, I'll stop there. -trimalchio

Interesting! Im not sure if the official government monopoly given to regional nomenclature (the Champagne, Bordeaux, Harris Tweed, etc.) is the same thing. I look forward to someone who knows about the history of marketing taking this on! --MichaelTinkler
I just loved that comment relating religion with brand marketing. At my advertising agency, a JWT affiliate, we talk a lot about how a brand resembles a religion. With a brand you have a creed (the brand promise), a holy book (brand guideline), temples (points of purchase), clerics (brand management team) and so on. The similarities are just amazing. (Aditya Kabir 13:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC))
Insightful & well-referenced, thanks. :)
> We have wine names going back to the Romans, at least (pass me a glass of the old Falernian, boy!), but I don't know when governments got into the game. --MichaelTinkler
As back history - at least to ensure it isn't /automatically/ presumed by a casual reader of the article that "brands" did not exist in any context prior to the 19th century - I've added a nudge to trademarks and their history and included the "Vesuvinum" example as what could easily be deemed a "brand" in the modern context, utilising a marketing pun as an extension of the place of origin. Harami2000 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding geographical origin as "protobranding" in its own right, see "Rethinking Environmental History: World System History and Global Environmental Change (Globalization and the Environment)" (2007) on http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CtJBmvi1XQEC (page 184/185). The "Vesuvinum" example goes one further in that that introduces a marketing pun.
We don't have any marketing jingles from Roman times, but then there's a distinct lack of Ancient music in general which has come down to modern times. Same for any marketing handouts... i.e. It's impossible to state nowadays what the actual brand "depth" was back then. Harami2000 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference between a brand and a "brand" as we have them today is the fact that brand today communicates so much. I think its in "the corporation" (book) where the link is drawn between the disappearance of the "shop keeper" and the rise of brands (many at that time trying to communicate a trusted human image of themselves). At the time of the shop keeper branded packaging was not as widespread because trust in quality and "it does what it says on the tin" were communicated to the consumer by the shopkeeper (mind you, his/her shop and name might have been a bit of a brand). This is an entirely Western view, as today "we" (that is the West) buy most products pre-packaged, in an anonymous shopping environment, without assistance of a shopkeeper. You can only say so much on packaging hence we look for brands to communicate most of the information, or "assure" us (how do I know that this is really 100g, it does not go off before its due date, its really compliant with food safety standards, is suitable for vegetarians, the product has not been produced in a sweat shop etc). Muji is a good example, they have minimal communication on packaging (and the shopkeepers are not necessarily knowledgeable), but still, when people buy their products they feel like they "know" about the product, they trust the brand (which has been previously communicated to them somehow). In reality its not all that easy (I think the rise of the "lifestyle" brand, like Nike and Coca Cola is definitely a US contribution to our everyday life), but I think the change in the way we purchase and consume has definitely to do with the rise of the brand as we know it today. Also, brands as we know them today, like Coca Cola, are only possible because of mass media and print. In order to communicate a brand to a great number of people one has to mass replicate an image or message to a considerable number of people, which in the West was not possible at such a scale in a short time before the arrival of newspapers, television, radio, internet (basically round the mid 1950s). But I would not say that that the print or mass media is that "American" (US).

Re the history section in the article, I think it’s a good start, but could be extended with further research. Germany has brands that predate the 1950s (Siemens, Krupp etc are essentially only family names of those who started and established the businesses). You also have recent developments around green brands and no-brand brands which build on forgone developments (I originally put the No-Brand brand section under history). --SasiSasi (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph quoted from where?[edit]

An anonymous user from IP address 202.59.128.7 created a bunch of articles on marketing topics, all of which appear to have been cut and pasted from a marketing textbook: see [1] for a list. The first paragraph of that user's article on "Branding Strategy" [2] was very similar to the first paragraph of Brand. Which makes me think it's been copied from a textbook.

If it's just a one-sentence definition, it is fair use to quote it, but the source must be credited. So where does it come from? Gdr 19:44, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the paragraph you can see how we developed it. Being largely responsible for writing this paragraph, I asure you it has not been copyed from anywhere. However this is a fairly standard definition and I would not be suprised if you don't find similar definitions in numerous text books. The fact that user 202... used our definition when creating his article, I will take as a compliment. mydogategodshat 17:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's good to know. Thank you. Gdr 18:01, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

First para: Can we check - I've always understood that a "font" is a sub-family of a "typeface", essentially it's the typeface that conveys individuality - may sound a little pedantic, but this is a very specialized field and it needs to right all the way through.92.227.204.85 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


How is go.com a successful? I think if the article makes the claim then it should elaborated upon.


I have a HUGE problem with the offered definition of "brand" as being a mark or quality associated with a product or service. In fact, a brand more often is associated with the manufacturer or seller of the product or service. E.g., Ford is the brand, the T150 truck is its product. Target is the brand, selling items is its service. For that matter, the ranch is the brand, the cow is its product. I believe this is the commonly accepted meaning of "brand" within the branding community. For a Wikipedia article to be so wrong and still to receive an A rating is simply remarkable, in the most negative meaning of that term.

I can't sign this opinion with four tildes, as my tilde key is nonfunctional. So here's my name and a link to my weblog:

Bob Jacobson, Total Experience on Corante.com [3], 21 May 2007

Webster.com's definition (emphasis mine) - "a class of goods identified by name as the product of a single firm or manufacturer" - If you have a reference for your definition, feel free to provide it or just make the change in the article, and there can be a discussion about which one fits better. My examples would be that Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. is the company, Kleenex is the brand, or S. C. Johnson & Son is the company, and Windex is the brand. --OnoremDil 09:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Links links links[edit]

Perhaps there should be a discussion about which links are notable enough to remain in the list. It's been steadily getting longer, but I've had some trepidation in removing those which, honestly, do seem notable or valuable to me. Nonetheless, the list is growing, and I believe the list should be whittled based on consensus. Jkatzen 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Greyfedora 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Mainly because it keeps getting longer and longer, and Wikipedia is not a link repository. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkatzen (talkcontribs) .

People removing links should be more consistent. If you want to remove links that end in money going into the content-provider's pockets all of these links should be removed.Joe 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Examples of well known brand names" doesn't add up[edit]

Who ever edited the examples of well known brands section should learn how to count. Firstly the Business weekly citation concerning European brands doesn’t add up to the number quoted. Apparently there are 37 brands on the list, but only 31 appear in the article.

Plus the breakdown of the brands listed by country is all calculated wrong. For example there are 7 UK brands listed, yet there are apparently only 4.5 in this Business Weekly annual "brand scorecard". I'd like to know if it’s just me who sees this blatant mistake. Why hasn’t someone read this and noticed before?

The list of brands changes fairly frequently as people add brands and take them away. Everybody seems to have an opinion about what belongs in the list and what doesn't, and not all of those people care whether the brands were on the Business Week/Interbrand top 100 or not. In fact, I'm not completely sure from the introductory paragraph of that section that all of the brands are supposed to be from that list. Nevertheless, the original list can be found here[4] and the list on the article could be reconstructed from it. Greyfedora 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Education & Branding[edit]

Deepbluesea2000 06:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Do you think educational institutions can be regarded as brands?

Msmith32 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Yes. I'm a bit late to the discussion, but this is certainly true. Think of the value of Harvard, Yale or MIT. These names influence purchasing decisions, and are now actively managed as brands.

Why no list of blogs about naming?[edit]

I'm curious as to why the list of blogs about brand names has been removed twice. A link to a single blog (brandnama) has been in the external links for a long while. Wwhat makes the more useful and comprehensive listing (as opposed to a single blog) objectionable? Most recent removal was by Yonatanh, and before that it was by CobaltBlueTony. Would appreciate an explanation so I don't keep trying to post something that doesn't belong. 71.163.140.163 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Sarah

I don't know which links you are talking about in this case exactly, but "links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority are links to be avoided" per Wikipedia:External links. --Onorem 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. This makes sense. After having read the information on what is allowed I can understand the action - and I note that the other links have been removed as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.140.163 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Deleting Mike Cline Contributions[edit]

I am deleting or reverting any contributions I have previously made to this article for the following reason. I work for a company that practices and teaches Strategic Planning methodologies thus making my contribution to any article related to Strategy topics a conflict of interest an in violation of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines WP:COI --Mike Cline 13:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)--

Naming[edit]

Naming used to be it's own article, but per discussion it was deleted (and theoretically merged with brand. Because I've never done this before, I am including the text of the original article below so that better editors than I may ensure merge nirvana:

-Naming Process- Naming is usually based on a clearly defined marketing strategy or business plan and includes not only creative development of a name, but also its sound harmony test, a comprehensive analysis of its perception by a target audience (including groups comprised of native speakers of different languages), identification of a degree of its novelty, measures of increasing its patent protection, and the patent protection itself.

Professional development of a name also implies that the specialists involved in the name creation should take into consideration possibilities of its graphic design, its further use within the trade mark, elements of package design and company style.

-Result- The intended result of the naming process is an actual word, newly coined pseudoword or various combinations of them that might not be easily pronounced or catchy, but have to meet the above criteria. --Cjs56 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I'm trimming down the external links, which looks like a lot of spam and little content.

This one would be nice but it's subscription only:

The rest were ungodly spam and have been removed. For a bunch of marketing companies, they really don't have much of a clue regards the use of wikipedia to sell stuff. WLU 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that articles from subscription based sources should stay. Most university students do have access through their library accounts. Even though universities tend to not respect Wikipedia, students can use it as a quick way to find relevant articles. Davidhowse (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)davidhowse

Brand History and Europeans[edit]

This article seems to take far too US-centric a perspective on the history of brands. What are recognizably modern brands emerge in Europe, as brands, by the 1860s, and it is possible to date some modern brands back even further. By focusing on the US economy, the author is ignoring the central position of European companies in the 19th Century economy and their role in inventing modern branding. Schweppes had emerged as a fully modern brand by the 1830s (it was a branded good, not an owner's mark) and had global coverage by the 1850s, being consumed in Africa, India and China as well as Europe (the quinine in Schweppes Tonic Water protects against malaria).

Another company, Germany's Henkel, had developed its first, branded washing powder in 1878, which soon achieved cross-European sales, and would then replace it with Persil a few decades later. One powerful stimulus for German companies especially in branding their goods was to disguise the national origins of the product: Persil sounds French (parsely), as does Mercedes (Daimler-Benz). At the turn of the 20th century, German products were non too popular west of the Rhine. --WilliamPayne

I agree with the US-centric comment and I think that more non-US content should be added. Though I don't think that restricting more US content would very prudent. In any case, I added some legal information on the History of Trademarks. 209.107.109.227 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)davidhowse

Removed "Brand Valuation" section[edit]

The entire "Brand Valuation" section was Interbrand advertising. Every branding agency has its own approach to valuation—none of which are standards and thus notable for inclusion. That section was removed. Adraeus 10:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Brand Identity[edit]

Why does the article redirect Brand Identity? It may seem logical but my experience of Media states that brand identiy is (like brand essence) made overtime. A brand is say Levis, brand identity of Levis takes into account heritage, values etc the whole package of a brand. Kaeso Dio 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Brand identity system refers to the visual elements that aid consumers in identifying goods and services. Adraeus 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What's misleading? Adraeus (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comment again it is not misleading although all we have done is come to the conclusion that brand identity is rather important and should have its own page. Agree? Kaeso Dio (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Eventually. There should at least be a summary section here first. Adraeus (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please[edit]

Hello!

I was hoping you could help me out and comment on my first Wikipedia page titled "co-branding"

I wrote this article for a class and would appreciate some feedback.

Thanks, Mary Beth Mlease (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please[edit]

Hello!

I wrote my first Wikipedia article for a class called "co-branding"

I was hoping I could get you to give me some feedback.

Thanks, Mary Beth Mlease (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Brand Image[edit]

I added a citation for the reference to the term "brand image." Looking at the article, I would think that maybe 5 or 6 more well placed citations should make it reasonably authoritative. Thanks, Davidhowse (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)David Howse

Brands and Philosophy[edit]

Any support or opposition to adding a section on Sidney J. Levy's integration of philosophy and marketing as it relates to brands? Davidhowse (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)davidhowse

Interwiki synchronization[edit]

Hello,

I am trying to clean up the interwiki of this article. Please see the discussion:

Your comments are welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding.[edit]

The first paragraph of Brand claims that a brand somehow conveys the "essence" of a company, product, or service, but how can this literally be true?

It could be accurately (and neutrally) stated that a "brand" is a body of ideas with which a company attempts to associate itself, but it is muddled thinking to conclude that this association (whether successfully established or not) says anything about the company's "essence." The body of ideas may stand in direct contradiction to what the company actually does, while still qualifying as a "brand."

Case in point: British Petroleum's "brand" includes the color green, a green, yellow, and white flower, and a bunch of propaganda about what BP is supposedly doing to save the environment and develop sustainable energy. The product being associated with that brand, however, is petroleum, which has a history and a future that directly and completely contradicts the "essence" portrayed by the brand.71.72.235.91 (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Brand Equity into Brand[edit]

brand equity and brand are two different concepts. brand is to too broad to cover all marketing points of brand equity.

Looks like this was placed around April, 2009. I disagree with the merger; because Brand equity is really a financial term; though I believe there should be a link here to that article. How it is calculated, could lead to a complete article by itself. (removing tag, as no discussion in 6 months) -- Mjquin_id (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Critical Perspective[edit]

This article doesn't have any critical perspectives. A section exists highlighting the benefits of global branding (Brand#Benefits of Global Branding) but there isn't much comment on any negative aspects of branding or brand creation. For example deception is also used to create or sustain the image of a brand. 219.108.62.99 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Merges?[edit]

We have a lot of small articles on different concepts involved in branding and I wanted to get some third opinions on which ones should and should not be merged. From my perspective most of these can be merged into Brand for definition (noun) type concepts and Brand management to describe the act, profession or different strategies/approaches/concepts to managing it. While a few articles like Brand loyalty refer to sub-topics that warrant an independent article.

For now I'm proposing Visual brand language and Brand architecture be merged here.Corporate 20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Brand elements[edit]

Isn't the sense of touch sometimes used as an element in branding? Here is a chapter devoted to the concept. (Not being familiar with the subject, I will abstain from editing myself.)

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Decouple brand strategies[edit]

Since quite a lot of interesting stuff has developed under the lemma "branding strategy", do you think it would make sense to create an article "brand strategy"? --Arbraxan (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Brand" actually referring to a company[edit]

I've re-added a line in the introductory section that acknowledges that the word "brand" is actually being used to mean the company that the brand represents. So many definitions of "brand" leave that out, yet that is one of the most common uses of the word. "Major brands have decided not to participate…" doesn't mean that a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature decided not to participate. It means a company, through its representative, decided not to participate. Srnelson (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction's focus on accounting practices is questionable.[edit]

Of the introduction's 260 words, 100 are currently devoted to brand valuation (which already has its own page), concluding with "the notion of putting a value on a brand forces marketing leaders to be focused on long term stewardship of the brand and managing for value."

This inclusion seems rather arbitrary. One could instead represent graphic design, differentiating identity and logo from "brand" (a common mistake), social media branding -- you name it. Should valuation be moved further down, and/or use the link to the brand valuation page instead of overdescribing the process on the Brand page?

MandyCatalano (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Brand identity" section wanders into how-to territory; also merge "brand identity" with "visual brand identity"?[edit]

The second paragraph does not contain any specific references/citations. It also sounds like a marketing client pitch or advice for marketing and branding professionals. "Typically" and "should be" seem out of place in an encyclopedia.

Also, the page doesn't reflect the hierarchical organization of terms. "Visual brand identity" is a component of "brand identity" and should fall somewhere under the heading "brand identity." Editorial identity and nomenclature should also be represented in the same area.

MandyCatalano (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. This article needs some WP:BOLD editing. Please feel free to make changes. Bhny (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Crowd Sourcing Branding[edit]

I removed this sentence, as the argument is problematic and would need further elaboration: "This type of method minimizes the risk of brand failure, since the people that might reject the brand in the traditional method are the ones who are participating in the branding process."

Reasoning: In theory, this argument might be true, the problem is that usually crowd sourcing branding is crowd sourced to (semi-professional) designers on crowd sourcing platforms, which are not necessarily part of the target group. Even if customers are asked to be a part for the branding team they might have very different views on the product or lack the understanding of all implications. So it is desirable to involve customers or even better learn about their needs through observation etc, but sourcing the branding itself to the crowd is not necessarily a better approach than the traditional approach done right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.37.134 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Error in Brand Name diagram[edit]

The diagram Relationship between trade marks and brand in the Brand Name section has the Holds arrowhead at the wrong end of the line. I'm afraid I don't know (yet) how to change diagrams. DavidCh0 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello DavidCh0, thank you for your comment! The diagram is correced now. --LepoRello (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)