Brand v reputation

I need to cut back on my use of the word 'brand'.

Brand (n). 1.  A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a manufacturer.  2. A product line so identified: a popular brand of soap.  3. A distinctive category; a particular kind: a brand of comedy that I do not care for

A key element of the long-term project to legitimise marketing as a profession is the argument that a brand should be treated as an intangible asset and thus be included on a Balance Sheet.  As a marketer by training I certainly understand that a well-respected brand makes it easier to sell the product so branded and thus has a value.


'Brand' is meant to have a value neutral connotation.  A brand is manipulable, which is the purpose of positioning.  This leads to a line of thinking that like any other asset a brand can be neglected or even purposefully damaged and then repaired.

This is the thrust of an article on the IPL cricket competition by Gideon Haigh who is surely the world's finest cricket writer.  He explores the damage that marketing thinking can have in sport: -

A game is a cultural activity, operating at myriad levels, all of which need to be maintained, nurtured, protected. In the world of the brand, all that really matters is the face shown the public, the spectacle, the image. A game depends on fair dealing, robust processes and good people prepared to place their individual interests second. Both a game and a brand are at reputational risk, but in the case of the brand only the appearance of respectability and integrity is essential, and that can be achieved, or so it is usually felt, by sound media management, and at worst post hoc damage control.

Part of the problem is that the term is used far too loosely.  Often when we say 'brand' we really mean 'reputation'.

Reputation (n). 1. The general estimation in which a person is held by the public.  2. The state or situation of being held in high esteem.  3. A specific characteristic or trait ascribed to a person or thing: a reputation for courtesy

Reputation has a old fashioned judgmental, not to say a moral, element to it.  David Cameron's long-term project to 'detoxify the Tory Party brand' was a worthwhile exercise yet it fell short of establishing a reputation for inclusiveness.  Of course there is only so much of a (positive) effect that a political party can have on its reputation if it is out of power so the Tories' real work on this starts now.


I spend a lot of time advising pharmaceutical clients to ignore the brand and to focus on patient outcome as this is where a drug's real value lies.  Advertising agencies, who make money on the premise that a manipulated brand is an enhanced one, rarely thank me for this.  Then again, if I'm annoying the agency then I'm probably doing something right.


The brand v. reputation distinction operates most cogently at a personal level.  As a performer I suppose I have a brand and certainly every show I've produced has benefited from attention to this detail.  Still, I think we'd all do better if we were less concerned with branding and each paid a little more attention to our reputations.