What is a Brand

WHAT IS
SELL
A BRAND?

WHAT IS
A BRAND ?

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
1. DICTIONARY
2. HISTORICAL
3. MARK OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROMISES, PROMISES
5. CHAIN
6. ANCIENT & MODERN
7. THE TITANIC DEFINITION
8. DIFFERENTIATE OR DIE
9. BRAND-OLOGY
10. NOT THE END
11. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
12. A FORCE FOR GOOD
13. BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT
14. BRANDS AS CHANGE MAKERS

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION
Some people would like marketing to be a precise
science; others prefer to think of it as a black art. Most
marketers know that it is neither... and both.
One of the ways this ambiguity manifests itself is in the
definition of many of the key terms in marketing. Take
‘brand’, which as strategic consultants is something
we’re naturally interested in; we have lots of different
definitions of the term, many of which have merit but
none of which we would claim to be definitive.
This little book is a collection of some of our favourite
definitions, which we believe help marketers think about
the challenges of creating, managing and revitalising
brands.
If you have others you would like to share, please send
them to us at:
info@thevalueengineers.com

1.DICTIONARY
A MARK OF DISGRACE OR INFAMY

1.DICTIONARY
The dictionary is a logical place to begin our search, and
even here it is clear that there are many definitions of
‘brand’. In the Collins English Dictionary, we find twelve
definitions of the word.
The 12 are:
1. A particular product or a characteristic that serves to
identify a particular product
2. A trade name that serves to identify a particular product
3. A particular kind or variety
4. An identifying mark made, usually by burning on the
skin of animals or formerly slaves or criminals
5. An iron heated and used for branding animals
6. A mark of disgrace or infamy, stigma
7. A burning or burnt piece of wood as in a fire
8. A flaming torch
9. A fungal disease of garden plants characterised by
brown spots on the leaves
10. To label or mark
11. To place indelibly in the memory
12. To denounce
Though only two overtly refer to the commercial concept of
branding, the set raises a number of the themes to which we
will return with other, later definitions.
What we can draw from these is that a brand is: a “social”
concept (seen, perceived and understood by societies),
something that conveys meaning (both positive and
negative) and sometimes denotes ownership.

2.HISTORICAL
A REASSURING GUARANTEE OF
PREDICTABILITY AND CONSISTENCY

2.HISTORICAL
Our second definition comes from the realms of history - or at least the realms of
history as retold by a modern marketer.
When Chairman of Unilever, Sir Michael Perry, gave a speech to the Advertising
Association of Great Britain, he covered, amongst other things, the evolution of one
of the greats of early brand names: Sunlight Soap.
“When William Hesketh Lever first packaged up his Sunlight soap, he had a
clear sense of what he was offering to Lancashire housewives. It was a reassuring
guarantee of predictability and consistency. It wasn’t possible for the housewife to
get the equivalent guarantee elsewhere.
Certainly not when she purchased a lump of soap which had been of a block of
unknown origin and uncertain quality in a grocer’s store”.
The birth of a great brand and the birth of an enduring definition of a brand; a
brand is a guarantee of quality and consistency.
Today, brands are still a guarantee of quality, but unfortunately that guarantee isn’t
quite as valuable as it used to be. That’s due to three main factors:
1.Retailers have become brands in their own right (and very good ones, too),
offering their own guarantees of quality.
2. Quality is in the eye of the beholder (which is connected to the third point...)
3. I haven’t ever met a brand manager who doesn’t really believe he has a quality
brand.
While brands are still guarantees, it’s no longer enough to say quality: you have to
say what type of quality you are guaranteeing. ‘Good’ is no longer good enough.

3.MARK OF
OWNERSHIP
THE PERMANENT MARKS MADE ON
COW HIDES BY A HOT IRON

3. MARK OF OWNERSHIP
If you asked a cowboy what a brand was, he would
talk about the permanent marks made on cow hides
by a hot iron that was shaped in a particular way to
denote ownership of those cows.
In short, for him a brand was a mark of ownership.
This definition goes back to the earliest known
incidence of branding. It comes from over 2,000 years
ago, when one maker of oil lamps in Rome started
stamping the word ‘Fortis’ on his lamps.
It showed that he had made them and that they were
his lamps, at least until he sold them in the market.
Which raises some interesting questions about this
definition in relation to marketing. Is a brand a mark
of ownership, a mark of manufacturing or of creation?
And who does own a brand?
As regards the ownership of brands, our opinion is that
an abdication has taken place: “The company brand
owner is dead, and the consumer is the new king.”
Over the last few years, many marketing people
have handed over ‘ownership’ of their brand to their
consumers. It is now increasingly accepted that as
consumers own their perceptions of a brand and can
shape its future, they are the ‘owners’.

3. MARK OF OWNERSHIP
Without wishing to dispute the importance of consumers, the notion that an individual’s
perception of brand is personal, or indeed the inability of companies to control every
aspect of what will shape brand perception, we would like to state the case for the old
‘kings’ – the brand owners – to reclaim ownership of their brands.
Consumers are able to influence the brand, and even control it to some extent. They are
perhaps the most powerful influencing force or pressure group. But they are not, and never
will be, the owners.
We would be deeply concerned if consumers were completely in charge. Sometimes
consumers don’t know what they want, or at least don’t know until they are offered it.
Brand ownership and creation is often about innovation: changing what already exists and
creating new things. If consumers owned the brand and their word was final, then many,
many brand innovations would be killed before they started.
Henry Ford said: “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster
horse.”
A brand owner should have ‘that vision thing’. That is, the belief that what you are doing is
right, and that it should be done even if those around you don’t always agree. Walt Disney,
W.K. Kellogg, Richard Branson, Phil Knight (the founder of Nike) and Anita Roddick (the
founder of The Body Shop) believed in what they were doing.
They believed in creating something that existed in their minds long before it existed in the
minds of what were often, at first, very dubious consumers.

3.MARK OF OWNERSHP

4.PROMISES, PROMISES
A BRAND IS A PROMISE.

4. PROMISES, PROMISES
People make emotional connections to brands, so it’s not surprising that some of
the most popular definitions of brands are also ‘emotional’. One such example is,
‘A brand is a promise’.
As a definition, it’s beautifully short, sweet and so very memorable.
Analysing it a bit more thoroughly, its strength is that it combines the notion of the
brand proposition - that the role of a brand is to make an offer to its customers -
with one of the original definitions of a brand as a guarantee of quality.
In other words, this definition says that a brand is not just an offer, but something
more: a pledge.
It is this thought, taken a bit further, that has led to the variation of the definition that
we prefer, namely, ‘A brand is not just a promise: it’s a responsibility’.
The new definition reflects the fact that brands aren’t just focused on ‘selling’
to customers, but on building and maintaining these relationships. The point of
purchase is not the end of a sale but the beginning of a relationship. It is the
‘responsibility’ of the brand to deliver on its promises. How else can it expect to
retain its customers?
As we like to say, “A brand is the promise you make; the customer experience is the
promise you must keep”.
It is a definition that should help remind marketers about the difference between
over-promising and under-delivering, and under-promising and over-delivering.

5. CHAIN
‘Chain keep us together”, sang Fleetwood Mac, which
I suppose could be the theme tune for the next brand
definition. ‘A brand is the vital link between an organisation
and its customers’.
The definition is a simple metaphor. One part of a chain is
the organisation. The ‘links’ in that part can be seen as the
supply chain or value creation chain, running from sourcing
through to distribution.
The second part of the chain represents the customers.
The brand can therefore be seen as the (hopefully not)
missing link.
The brand is not only what will connect - link - the
organisation to its customers, but if strong enough it will
bind them to it: another neat metaphor reflecting brand
loyalty!
Brands are not just the means by which organisations talk to
and try to sell to their customers. Brands also need to be the
means by which customers can engage with organisations.
Relationships and dialogues are what brands need to be
built on. A link that isn’t complete - that isn’t a loop - is a
weak link, and nobody wants to be the weakest link.
The link is circular, reflecting modern thinking about brands
and marketing, and making this a powerful metaphor.

5. CHAIN
5.CHAIN
KEEP US TOGETHER
A BRAND IS THE VITAL LINK BETWEEN AN
ORGANISATION AND ITS CUSTOMERS.

6.ANCIENT AND
MODERN
A BRAND IS THE SUM OF THE
PRODUCT (OR SERVICE) AND THE
NAME, VALUES, FUNCTIONAL &
EMOTIONAL ATTRIBUTES
AND PERSONALITY ADDED TO IT.

6. ANCIENT AND MODERN
One of the most widely used, traditional definitions of
a brand is that of ‘product plus’. It is based on a simple
analysis of the way in which many brands were actually
developed - think Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, or
indeed Sunlight soap. It reflects a belief that a ‘brand’ is
something that is created around or on top of a product or
service.
Put simply, a brand is the sum of the product (or service)
and the name, values, functional & emotional attributes and
personality added to it via the packaging, advertising and
brand experience.
Product + Name, Values, Attributes and Personality = BRAND
(delivered via packaging, experience, advertising, etc.)
A modern and deliberately provocative alternative stands
this definition on its head. It suggests that rather than
starting with a product or service, a brand should be defined
first as a set of values, attributes and personality. These can
then be applied to almost any product or service category.
Think Virgin, think Easy... and maybe even Apple as
potential archetypes of this new approach.
BRAND = Values, Attributes and Personality = Product A,
Product B, Product C, Service D

6. ANCIENT AND MODERN
It is a deliberately provocative definition because the
‘brand’ only becomes a brand in truth when it is actually
applied to its first product or service.
Perhaps a more realistic interpretation of this definition
is a combination of the traditional approach and the
alternative approach.
The results are shown below...
Product + Name, Values, Attributes and Personality =
BRAND = Values, Attributes and Personality = Product A,
Product B, Product C, Service D
It reflects the reality of many modern brands, which started
life as a single product, service or even a range in one
category. Once they establish a clear brand equity (of
values, attributes and personality), that equity is leveraged
to take the brand into new markets.
Think of Lego, which began life as a humble collection
of plastic bricks, but has since ‘constructed’ its brand
into something that now stands for ‘creative constructive/
educational play’. That brand now stretches into electronic
games and theme parks, among other categories - a large
step from its beginnings.
All of this suggests that a brand can be defined
independently of any product or service; or at least, its
‘equity’ can be.

6.ANCIENT AND
MODERN

7. DIFFERENTIATE
OR DIE
A BRAND IS INTENDED TO SIGNIFY THE GOODS OR
SERVICES OF ONE SELLER OR GROUP OF SELLERS
AND TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM
THOSE OF COMPETITORS

7. DIFFERENTIATE OR DIE
Having visited the dictionary earlier in this quest to define a brand, it’s probably time
that we delved into the classic marketing texts to see how they confront this thorny
question.
Philip Kotler’s ‘Managing Markets’ seems a reasonable place to look, and he doesn’t
disappoint, defining a brand as:
“A name, term, symbol or design, or a combination of them, which is intended to
signify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them
from those of competitors”.
This definition plays to one of the themes discussed earlier - namely that of brand
ownership - but also highlights another equally significant aspect of branding:
differentiation.
One of the most important roles of branding is not only to signify who produces or
supplies particular products or services, but also to communicate how those products
and services are different from other brands’ offers.

7. DIFFERENTIATE OR DIE
If your brand isn’t different, better or cheaper than other
brands, why should anyone choose it?
Ultimately, branding is about choices.
Most obviously, it is about helping customers make choices,
but branding also involves choices for organisations. Do
you want to brand your products and services?
What do you want those brands to stand for?
Ever since General Motors introduced their ‘Sloan ladder’,
offering choice to car buyers and undermining Henry Ford’s
offer of “You can have any colour as long as it’s black”,
it has been clear that no one brand can appeal to all of the
people all of the time.
Branding is about choosing who you want to appeal to, with
what, and on what basis. That means making choices. The
real skill in branding and marketing is all about making the
right choices.

7. DIFFE RENTIATE
OR DIE

8. THE TITANIC
DEFINITION
A BRAND IS AN ICEBERG

8. THE TITANIC DEFINITION
Another definition and another metaphor: a brand is an iceberg.
It builds on - or rather, challenges - Philip Kotler’s definition of a brand as:
“A name, term, symbol or design, or a combination of them, which is intended to
signify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate
them from those of competitors”.
The Titanic definition would claim that Kotler’s definition tells only part of the story.
Kotler focuses on the visible elements of the brand – the name and identity – but
misses the importance of the brand’s meaning, values and internal culture.
As branding has spread from fast-moving consumer goods into services and
corporate brands, recognition has increased of the fact that branding isn’t just about
the public face of an organisation; it is an expression of an organisation’s internal
beliefs, cultures and behaviour.
In other words, the outward facing name and identity (and advertising) are the visible
tip of the iceberg, and should be the expression of the invisible but vitally important
elements of the brand.

9. BRAND-OLOGY
A UNIT OF SOCIAL CURRENCY

9. BRAND-OLOGY
As has been said many times, the best brands come from
within.
This definition combines branding and sociology to define a
brand as ‘a unit of social currency’. It reflects the idea of a
brand as a social phenomenon.
As we’ve discussed, branding is about the creation and
management of meaning en masse. In fact, the origins of
modern branding really arose out of the convergence of a
number of ‘masses’.
The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century led to
mass production, which in turn drove the need to mark or
brand manufacturers’ products to distinguish them from
those of other traders.
The same revolution, led to the transformation of the
economy from rural to urban, creating mass population
centres in the new industrial towns - with an associated
desire for mass consumption.
Finally, the advent of mass education provided the
emerging brands with an audience who could consume
(read) their packaging and advertising - the brands’
mass communications.
Brands are fundamentally a ‘mass’ tool - particularly
the largest national and global brands. They aren’t
about single transactions; they work in multiplicity, with
many people and on many occasions.

9. BRAND-OLOGY
Brands are a means by which organisations do their best to
manage multiple relationships simultaneously. It is the role
of the brand owners to create and then manage the best
perceptions of that brand.
As Al Ries and Jack Trout so famously and succinctly put it,
the aim is to try to ‘own’ a space in consumers’ minds.
Successful brand owners create a positive, motivating and
distinctive set of associations for their brands. Individual
perceptions can and do differ, but strong brands have a
consistent set of strong, powerful associations.
A strong brand therefore has a mass ‘meaning’ – certain
values and personality traits – that are consistent across
consumers.
This meaning becomes, in effect, a unit of social currency.
For example, there is a general understanding of what is
meant when phrases like “bloody BMW drivers” or “he’s a
Guardian reader” are used.
We may all have individual perceptions of these brands,
but we also know the generally agreed characteristics and
meaning of those brands.
Sir Michael Perry said, when Chairman of Unilever: “In the

modern world, brands are a key part of how individuals
define themselves and their relationships with one another…
More and more, we are simply consumers… We are what
we wear, what we eat, what we drive.”
UK fashion designer Jasper Conran defined and segmented
women by their choice of fashion brand, using a technique
that we have dubbed ‘Brandographics’:
“There’s the Versace woman who dresses for men, sans
doute. Versace girls make a career of sex; they don’t have
girlfriends, they’re too much like competition. The Armani
woman dresses for herself, and the Chanel woman dresses
for other women.
Chanel is all about branding; you know she’s a woman who
wants to make women envious.”
Brandographics, like demographics and psychographics,
is a method of segmenting and classifying people. As the
name suggests, brandographics segments people according
to the brands they buy and use.
It is based on the idea that we express ourselves through the
brands we select, so that it is possible to build a profile of a
person by understanding their choice of brands.
It rests on the fact that brands, their meanings and their
associations are broadly consistent across the population;
units of social currency.

10. NOT THE END
THE BEGINNING OF A RELATIONSHIP

10. NOT THE END
This definition comes courtesy of one of the Nineties’ most famous (and sometimes
infamous) advertising agencies: Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury.
The definition is a slight adaptation of a quote from that agency’s launch manifesto,
‘Marketing at a point of change’, in which they suggested that a brand is, “not the
end of a sale but the beginning of a relationship”.
It’s a definition that captures the fact that brands and branding aren’t about a single
sale - that is Sales’ job.
Brands are about multiple touch-points and multiple sales; they are about ongoing
relationships.
The most successful brands have relationships with their customers over a period of
time and sometimes even across generations, as brands are passed from parent to
child.
The notion that brands and their customers have a relationship is a powerful one,
reflecting the recognition of an increasing two-way interaction between brands and
their customers.
Back in the 1950’s and the days of the ‘Mad Men’, the relationship - if such it could
be called - between brands and their customers was more often than not one-way. In
transactional analysis terms, it was ‘adult to child’, the brand talking at and down to
the little ‘consumer’.
Over time, as competition increased and consumer power grew, the relationship became
more adult-to-adult. Either as a result of better consumer understanding or of being
forced by the internet, brand owners realised that the best relationships are two-way, and
more dialogues have begun.

11. MONEY,
MONEY,MONEY
BRANDS ARE THE BIGGEST BUSINESS
PHENOMENA OF THE LAST CENTURY

11. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
Buy one get one free: two definitions for the price of one, as
both relate to money and brands’ ability to generate it.
“Brands are (perhaps) the biggest business phenomena of
the last century”.
“Brands are value creators”.
Whilst many definitions of brands focus on their relationship
with customers, the other side of the coin is equally
important. Why are businesses so interested in brands?
The answer is simple: they help create value.
Successful brands can help deliver higher prices and better
loyalty, and so allow the companies that own them to deliver
better margins. It’s therefore not surprising that John Stuart,
one-time chairman of Quaker, said:
“If this business were to be split up, I would be glad to take
the brands, trademarks and goodwill and you could have all
the bricks and mortar - and I would fare better than you.”
Brands may be intangible, lacking the solidity of bricks and
mortar, but as numerous analyses have shown, the value of
an organisation is increasingly based on intangibles.

11. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
Primary amongst those intangibles are their brands.
Whilst the debate continues about if and how you can
measure the value of a brand, and whether or not that value
should be included in the balance sheet, it is undoubtedly true
that businesses pay a premium to acquire brands; consider the
$57bn P&G paid for Gillette in 2005.
So while brands build relationships with customers, they also
build big businesses.

11. MONEY, MONEY,
MONEY

12. A FORCE FOR GOOD
BRANDS NEED TO BE MORE THAN MERE ENGINES OF
PROFITABILITY - THEY SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR PURPOSE.

12. A FORCE FOR GOOD
In an era when there seems to be more Superhero
movies than films in any other genre, another
definition casts brands as potential superheroes – a
brand is a force for good.
The economic importance of brands has already
been discussed and clearly it shouldn’t be
understated. It has been estimated that brands
account for the creation of approximately onethird
of the world’s wealth. They make a significant
contribution to shareholder value.
However, increasingly there is a belief that brands
need to be more than mere engines of profitability;
they could and, in fact, should aim to do more. They
should have a clear purpose.
Brands that are forces for good need a reason ‘why’
they exist, beyond the desire to make profit. They
need an aspirational reason for being which inspires,
provides a call to action for the organisation, its
partners and stakeholders, and contributes benefit to
local and global society.

12. A FORCE FOR GOOD
As Roisin Donnelly, P&G Northern Europe Brand Director
says “Purpose isn’t about having one tactical plan with a
charity or an agency – it has to be big, inspiring, simple
and memorable. It has to inspire every single person in
your company, as well as shareholders, stakeholders and
agencies.”
This notion of a brand as champion of something other
than just profit has been around for years. J&J’s Credo,
written in 1943, is a good example of a brand setting out
a bigger, broader set of goals. However, the recent rise
of “purpose” and the definition of ‘force for good’ is a
reflection of the current zeitgeist and millennial thinking.
It isn’t just wishful thinking either, brands that have a clear
purpose and consistently deliver against them can deliver
a triple-win – they can be good for consumers, good for
society and good for shareholders.
In fact, some studies, like the one that forms the basis of
Jim Stengel’s book ‘Grow’, show that these sorts of brands
outperform the S&P 500 by c400%, which suggests brands
really can be superheroes.

12. A FORCE FOR GOOD

13. BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT
BRANDS ARE CULTURAL ICONS, CREATING THEIR OWN
IDENTITY MYTHS..

13. BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT
They are cultural icons; they create their “identity myths”
through the use of symbolism.
Why do people turn themselves into walking billboards for
brands? And what’s more, why are they willing to pay for the
privilege of doing so?
Leaving Dublin airport, you’ll see thousands and thousands
of people carrying or wearing their Guinness T-shirts. Many
of them don’t like the taste of the ‘black stuff’, all of them
will have paid good money for those shirts and when they
wear them they will become walking adverts for the brand.
A ‘job’ for which they won’t get paid a penny.
The reason why is that Guinness is more than a product,
it’s more than mere marketing tool, it is a cultural icon
representing Ireland, community and “Craic”.
Brands have a huge impact on us as individuals, they
contribute to the success of companies but they also play a
major role in society and culture.
Guinness.
Coca-Cola.
Harley-Davidson.
Nike.
Disney.
These, and many other brands, are valued by customers
more for what they symbolise than for what they actually do.
In fact, they often appeal in the same way to non-customers
who can have the same strong emotional attachment to
them even if they will never use them or own one.

13. BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT
Many aspire to but will never own a Harley.
The best brands are therefore more than marketing tools;
they are cultural icons.
Brands become symbols of and within our culture, whether
that is a symbol of freedom, modern masculinity, the
American dream or teenage rebellion.
Brands create their “identity myths” through the use of
symbolism in their packaging, advertising and other
communications. They can and do reflect and tap into
cultural stereotypes, fears, hopes and dreams, and don’t
have to rely solely on the more conventional brand-building
strategies which focus on benefits, brand personalities, and
emotional relationships.

14. BRANDS AS CHANGE
MAKERS
BRANDS CAN AND DO CHANGE THE WORLD.

14. BRANDS AS CHANGE MAKERS
A more recent definition and one which we fully endorse,
support and indeed, champion is that brands are change
makers.
Brands change things – they change categories, they
change markets, they change habits, they change
perceptions… in fact, they can and do change the world.
Brands make things happen; they are sources of ideas, of
products, services and innovations that help drive change.
Brands - through the relationships with their stakeholders,
their employees and us, the general public - have the
breadth & depth of connection and potential for ongoing
engagement that can help provide the means to
seed and grow those changes, whether they are financial,
behavioural, social or even environmental.
In 1956, the Houston Post reported that, “It has been
estimated that Brownie Wise has helped more women to
financial success than any other single living person.”

The tool with which Brownie achieved that end? – Tupperware.
It was a brand of storage systems and the power of the
Tupperware parties bought financial liberation to their
thousands of local representatives.
The iPod wasn’t the first mp3 player, but when it arrived
it changed the category, when iTunes was subsequently
launched and linked to it, it changed the market, and now
as the music industry moves significantly to streaming it has
helped change the world.
Amazon was just a brand retailing books, but it has
changed the whole world of publishing and self-publishing.
When Always launched its #LikeAGirl campaign, it hoped
to change things for the better. It wanted to help address a
very long-standing and negative stereotype.
With over 100 million views on YouTube alone, it – a brand
– has probably done more to address this out-dated sexist
perception in the last 2 years than any other initiative has
managed in the last 20 years.
If you ever wondered why working in marketing is so
appealing, it’s probably because of the fact that brands
are so central to people’s lives and how those lives are
constantly changing.

CONTACT US
LONDON
The Value Engineers
12 Flitcroft Street
London
WC2H 8DL
United Kingdom
t: +44 (0)20 3954 3032
e: info@thevalueengineers.com
www.thevalueengineers.com

LONDON

SAN FRANCISCO

CONTACT US
SAN FRANCISCO
440 A 9TH STREET
San Francisco
CA 94103
USA
t: +1 917 912 1517
e: info@thevalueengineers.com
www.thevalueengineers.com