Quite\noften, people working in corporates tend to throw the word \u201cbrand\u201d all over the\nplace and abuse the power it possesses. Well, here\u2019s a confession. We all have\ndone that at one point in life. It became cringe-worthy when Akshay Kumar had a\nt\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate with the antagonist in \u201cGabbar is Back\u201d on the same topic of\n\u201cBrand\u201d. The word carries much more responsibility than just what people\nactually perceive it to be. This blog will tell you how much branding is too\nmuch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Brand\n101<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Teja\nmain hoon. Mark idhar hai.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Brand is something similar to this. It is a mark, symbol, name, word\u2026 anything that identifies a product or a service from the clutter. It is what creates, what they call, a \u201cBrand identity\u201d. Why did we say that the word is being thrown around? Here\u2019s the thing \u2013 People who work on a brand (call them Brand Managers or Brand Management Team) often tend to use \u2018brand\u2019 and \u2018sales\u2019 interchangeably. This may not be universally true. Let\u2019s remind you, this is not a #DotsFired blog. So, if any Brand Manager is reading this, we mean no offence. So, if the client comes up with a brief saying they want to do a \u201cBrand\u201d campaign and insist the advertising agency shove in all the product or service USPs saying that these points will help uplift the brand, they mean something else completely. Advertising and branding are termed differently for a very specific reason. The reason being \u2013 purpose<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine\nif Marvel Comics sold only comic books. Would people remember Stan Lee for his\nmastery in comics or his cameos in the superhero franchises? You know the answer\nto this! Branding, in this context, is an offshoot of the fame that the comic\ngained over the years. The purpose still remains the same \u2013 to entertain the\nmasses. But, when a multinational company tries to replicate the reputation of\na distinguished brand, they leave the \u2018purpose\u2019 behind and focus on the \u2018what\u2019\nrather than the \u2018why\u2019. That\u2019s where most of the brands fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take\nthe example of Colgate! Initially, when they were adamant against the use of\ncharcoal, they had to break the stronghold of Ayurveda in the Indian market.\nThey launched an aggressive TV commercial that showed the cons of using a\ncoarse, abrasive powder (Dantmanjan<\/em>) to clean your teeth which was\nusually made from ayurvedic ingredients including charcoal. Colgate tried to\nconvert those customers to using their toothpowder which was smooth and had a\ncooling effect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nBlack & White War<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe late \u201970s and early \u201980s, the Indian version of Colgate\u2019s ad portrayed a\nbare bodybuilder in a village asking his sister-in-law to bring him almond milk\n(doodh badam) and charcoal (koyla). The sister-in-law retorts with a surprising\nlook, \u201cArey waah devar ji, badan ke liye doodh-badaam, aur daaton ke liye\nkoyla? (Wow! You need a healthy drink for your body but charcoal for the\nteeth?)\u201d. A VO then kicks in prodding the audience to switch to Colgate\ntoothpowder because khurdare padaarth<\/em> (abrasive substances) can\ndeteriorate your enamels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cut\nto, decades later, Colgate launches an ayurvedic range of toothpaste which\nincluded charcoal flavoured toothpaste as well. Maybe that\u2019s how Colgate got\nits name (Coal-gate) by creating a controversy out of charcoal (just kidding).\nDid Colgate over-brand itself? Is this what branding has become these days? The\nquestion still hangs in the balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To\nmake a brand stand out, the purpose should be solid and every brand should take\na stand and stick to it. Who knows, the customer might even consider your\nstance as one of the essential elements that would make your brand even bigger\nand better. <\/p>\n\n\n\n