Member Since: 16th Jun 2004
8th Jul 2009
I am now writing a book on branding and ethnic, cultural and religious segmentation, and have been following the tribes/herds discussion somewhat closely. I think both are important concepts, but am having trouble reconciling the two. Everyone in marketing knows the importance of segmentation, but the discussion of tribes/herds deals with segmentation. Right now, and I'm open to changing my mind here, the concept of tribes/herds is product centric. In other words, I'm a brand, and represent a platform for a community to tell stories and exchange experiences together. I tend to dislike such product-centric concepts as "brand equity," "brand managers," "brand personality," etc. because that puts the attention on the product, when the entire corporate focus must be on the customer. I think segments come closer to this ideal of customer-centricity because to appeal to a segment, you must a) have a understanding of that segment; b) understand that each segment is different from another, and likely has deeper differences within that segment (Hispanic advertising often makes this classic one-size-fits-all mistake) and c) tailor offerings/service to each segment/subsegment.
At the end of the day, I think companies would be better off focusing on segments (beyond the simplistic demographic, etc.) and spend less time seeking to be leaders amid shifting "tribes."
But an excellent article.
10th Jun 2009
Mention the word "branding" to someone outside marketing, and they will immediately roll their eyes. It's easy to understand why. Marketers put their faith in discredited theories like "positioning," which has no metrics associated with it (can anyone say, "our positioning is 5% better than last year?"), while they are judged on their sales or other performance. Marketers prattle on about "brand equity," when the focus must be on either sales or the customer. Plus there is confusion over the word "branding." Do you mean advertising? Logo design? PR? No one just does their specific job anymore; they all "brand."
23rd Jul 2005
Mr Arussy is absolutely correct that it makes little sense to proclaim a brand promise if the organization cannot execute on it. That can even backfire, as disappointed customers defect when raised expectations are not met. But I disagree with his assertion that "n fact what they need to do is walk on the road less travelled and approach their operation people first." What they really need to do is to first talk to the customer, not the operations people. Find out what customers value, then drive operations to meet that value. Talking to operations also runs the risk that processes will be optimized for efficiency, when customers are actually looking for effectiveness.
Author, ProfitBrand: How to Increase the Profitabiltiy, Accountability and Sustainability ol Brands.