Brands are an outcome

I’ve just finished the major part of the book we’re doing, published by Butterworth-Heinemann. Hence the long gap between the last post and this. So expect more content from now on.

Anyway, one of the research themes we look at is the influence of brand on decision making. Did you know that there is no research available that supports the assertion that “building the brand” leads to more sales? None.

In simple terms, this means that any money pumped into branding is unlikely to translate into business success. This, presumably, would include the hilarious London Olympics 2012 pink splodge. Spookily, Seth Godin comments on more or less the same thing here.

But if brand is not a prerequisite for success, what is it? Firstly, brand is a consequence of success. Google is successful, so its brand becomes trusted. Secondly, brand is a measure of trust and expectation, not awareness. Anyone can get awareness is they spend enough. Ford is well-known – does it have trusted brand? (Answer: not if business success is the measure.)

Finally, it’s interesting to see how fragile a brand is, only as robust as the product or service quality it represents. In the UK, the banks are taking an absolute pasting on their charging regimes, and it seems that the US banks are having a few problems too. The trust with which we approach banks is being severely dented. And I predict that the first bank to promise no more unfair charges will be deluged with new custom, irrespective of their current brand status.