Thanks for opening this fascinating discussion @decentrality. Sean's structure (which has clearly emerged from practice) coincides with the Lean Branding book's perspective on brand building, measurement and learning.
I wanted to share how my perspective weighs in on the "semantics debate", and it is a product of both my academic and consulting experiences. I studied business (undergraduate), design management (graduate) and psychology (doctoral) to arrive at an integral definition of brand that would incorporate both business objectives (which in the startup world often translate to traction and conversion) and consumer psychology. After looking at these definitions theoretically, I began doing consulting work for politicians, government institutions, and companies of all sizes in South America. In particular, I led a Lean Branding program for 303 entrepreneurs (97 tech startups) over the last 3 years to arrive at a framework that would effectively help practitioners "that need this muddy water cleared to be able to aggregate their values"(like you pointed out). After all, it is a matter of pragmatism: we need to understand this in order to capitalize on it. That's exactly why I wrote this book.
These experiences shaped my definition of brand, which is described in the book as "the unique story that consumers recall when they think of you. This story associates your product with their personal stories, a particular personality, what you promise to solve, and with your position in relation to competitors. Your brand is represented by your visual symbols, and feeds from multiple conversations where you must participate strategically."
There are four key aspects to the definition that the Lean Branding book proposes:
- It embraces consumer co-creation: your brand does not exist in isolation. It is shaped by consumer perception.
- It is story-centered: consumers recall your brand as an holistic story- the sum of both experiences AND symbols. (Coinciding with Sean here)
- It highlights empathy: consumers look for your brand because of what it can do for them (how your value story connects with THEIR personal stories).
- It allows for iteration (a dynamic brand): the brand feeds from multiple, ongoing conversations (about its value).
The most commonly known definition of brand comes from the American Marketing Association: "A brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers." As you've probably noticed, it is focused on identity and assets.
The Lean Branding book's definition is closest to Seth Godin's, which is: "A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another. If the consumer (whether it’s a business, a buyer, a voter or a donor) doesn’t pay a premium, make a selection or spread the word, then no brand value exists for that consumer."
I'd be happy to answer any questions via Twitter (@laurabusche, @leanbranding) or email laura@laurabusche.com
Lean Branding is out now (Amazon, Barnes and Noble & O'Reilly) and I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks a lot for your very detailed reply, especially digging into the semantics debate of you and Beard vs. Gardner.
Since I began this thread, after I invited Ries to weigh in, I wrote this on Medium to expand further on where Beard's ideals lead me, as I think through The Lean Brand. I'd really appreciate it if you could weigh in on that also ( here or there is fine ) when you have another moment:
In the meantime, since you and Gardner both obviously spent a small eternity each on thinking through a definition or contemporary usage of the word Brand, it seems like that comes through most of all in your reply. As someone who appreciates etymology deeply, which I always keep in mind -- I'll continue searching for a framework and language for Brand, thinking out loud about your definition, for you to respond on also. I feel very fortunate to have an author of one of the two books who seem to be vying for the term itself here!
Circa 1400, the word, used as a verb, included the meaning of 'to stigmatize' and by 1600 included the meaning of 'mark property' and 'mark criminals' both as verbs; then as a noun, before the 1550's its meaning included being a piece of burning word, then 'mark made by hot iron' which expanded to 'a particular make of goods' ( which coincides to what I read in The Lean Brand, taking about the Golden Spike in 1869, where Gardner claimed the current use of the word Brand is still at that point, which you seem to sustain? ). Only in 1992 did it include the meaning "brand name" which is itself a sustainer of the 1869 usage also.
My point is, words change dramatically in meaning, especially considering circa 1400 the verb usage was the exact opposite of what we mean now, like many other English words have done over time. So in searching for a language and framework as a standard, the existing definition, or the loudest shouted definition doesn't necessarily answer what I need. If this were 1868 and we had never seen a train traveling across the continent, we wouldn't even need the existing definitions you listed -- so as we stand at 2014 at the threshold of Alibaba vs. Amazon, and The United States Digital Services, plenty of totally free services such as this one, Hacker News and Twitter where you joined from, there is quite possibly an entirely different context for the word now.
I didn't anticipate so much depth coming to my question so fast, otherwise I'd have mentioned that my personal situation as an innovator is the development of transmedia technologies, meaning that ( for perspective ) I come from a world where hackers in high school at the same time with me, are now 10 years later creating global organizations whose brands involve literal billions of individuals, and are valued at literal billions, whether created in their garage or in a skyscraper or bunker underground. There is another context for the word brand now, and if one or a few people began from the premise of influence as Beard seems to say, and as you seem to sustain, there would be a problem I feel, in my approach to the question: why would I need to persuade the entire world of something? Why would I want to? Wouldn't I want to work within a sub-set of that world, and invite that sub-set into my offering? I cannot and would not want to scale to the size of accommodating the planet, unless my brand itself is to provide something intangible or automatic. Even then, the relationship rather than the influence would be my focus, because as we see over and over with the Google complaints and a litany of others regarding privacy, influence is the exact thing being purged from the groundswell definition and usage of Brand. For me, until I read The Lean Brand, the word Brand was heading back to 'to stigmatize' in my feelings about it.
So with all that said, I am very curious to hear your reply to my musing on Medium linked above.
And from what I gather, Gardner is out of the country, and from what I've heard, his book is being released October 8th, so he probably will be hard to get, but Brant Cooper seems to be in the United States and might be available. I hope one or both of them can come address your thoughts and mine. Like Beard and Wilkins said, this is an extremely important topic, and I am so glad for your time.
I wanted to share how my perspective weighs in on the "semantics debate", and it is a product of both my academic and consulting experiences. I studied business (undergraduate), design management (graduate) and psychology (doctoral) to arrive at an integral definition of brand that would incorporate both business objectives (which in the startup world often translate to traction and conversion) and consumer psychology. After looking at these definitions theoretically, I began doing consulting work for politicians, government institutions, and companies of all sizes in South America. In particular, I led a Lean Branding program for 303 entrepreneurs (97 tech startups) over the last 3 years to arrive at a framework that would effectively help practitioners "that need this muddy water cleared to be able to aggregate their values"(like you pointed out). After all, it is a matter of pragmatism: we need to understand this in order to capitalize on it. That's exactly why I wrote this book.
These experiences shaped my definition of brand, which is described in the book as "the unique story that consumers recall when they think of you. This story associates your product with their personal stories, a particular personality, what you promise to solve, and with your position in relation to competitors. Your brand is represented by your visual symbols, and feeds from multiple conversations where you must participate strategically."
There are four key aspects to the definition that the Lean Branding book proposes:
- It embraces consumer co-creation: your brand does not exist in isolation. It is shaped by consumer perception. - It is story-centered: consumers recall your brand as an holistic story- the sum of both experiences AND symbols. (Coinciding with Sean here) - It highlights empathy: consumers look for your brand because of what it can do for them (how your value story connects with THEIR personal stories). - It allows for iteration (a dynamic brand): the brand feeds from multiple, ongoing conversations (about its value).
The most commonly known definition of brand comes from the American Marketing Association: "A brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers." As you've probably noticed, it is focused on identity and assets.
The Lean Branding book's definition is closest to Seth Godin's, which is: "A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another. If the consumer (whether it’s a business, a buyer, a voter or a donor) doesn’t pay a premium, make a selection or spread the word, then no brand value exists for that consumer."
I'd be happy to answer any questions via Twitter (@laurabusche, @leanbranding) or email laura@laurabusche.com
Lean Branding is out now (Amazon, Barnes and Noble & O'Reilly) and I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks for opening this thread.
My very best,
LB