A recent book review caught my attention. The book being reviewed, OBD: Obsessive Branding Disorder, was authored by Lucas Conley. With a title like this, I figured the author would have plenty of controversial statements to make. Talk about an understatement.


In all fairness, I have not read the book in question. Still, it raises several important points that bear discussion.
The review states: "'OBD' embraces an anti-commercialism argument that people are overexposed to commercial messages and impart too much meaning to the clothes they wear and the cars they drive. . .Branding promotes sizzle over the steak, Conley argues, and the time and money spent on branding could be spent on other pursuits–notably R&D and Innovation."
In a nutshell, Conley's problem with branding arises from the fact that companies spend billions of dollars to carefully craft images and messages that are often at odds with the quality of the very products and services under the brand umbrella.
In essence, he believes that branding helps marketers to deliver style over substance... and to push the boundaries more and more for the sake of ingraining their brands over their competitors' brands, even if it means "cheating" to do so. Conley gives these kinds of examples to prove his points:
*
While Ford branding itself as the company "Driving American Innovation," while the company's 2007 vehicles got "worse gas mileage than its 1908 Model T."
*
AT&T's 'Your World. Delivered.' This was its 23rd major branding campaign over the past 25 years. . .at a billion dollar price tag.
*
Christina Aguilera's efforts to extend her personal brand in consumer products from A to Z.
*
Slick branding campaign portraying post-Katrina New Orleans as still being a party destination of choice in spite of the elevated crime plaguing the city after the devastating hurricane.
*
Sony's Columbia Pictures division's creation of a fake movie critic who wrote glowing reviews about films the studio received, countering other critics' panning of those same films.
*
Procter & Gamble's network of WOM teens and moms. Conley claims that 1% of American teens and 7% of American moms are actively pitching P&G products to friends and family in an innocent manner.
Conley's conclusions:
*
Branding does serve a useful purpose, helping consumers to zero in on products and services in a cluttered marketplace. . .but. . .
*
Constant rebranding constitutes wasteful spending.
*
Branding is increasingly being used to motivate consumers with lifestyle and emotive cues, "jumping the tracks, barreling through popular culture unchecked", in the author's own words.
*
Companies ought to be concerned first about the quality of their products and services and spend money on that before entertaining the idea of constantly rebranding.
*
Companies might be using more "insidious" branding M.O.s to get consumer buy-in, even being a bit or very disingenuous to do it.
*
Consumer cynicism and disillusionment are bound to increase when branding represents ideas that are less than honest, authentic and transparent.
While seeming to be an anti-branding book, Conley raises some important questions and points here. Ones that all business owners, executives and marketers need to pay attention to. In the end, honesty, authenticity and transparency are extremely important to company credibility. Reputation and consumer trust are all, and once lost, it can devastate a company, and even put it out of business.
Questions:
*
Can you cite examples of companies that have branded themselves authentically, so that they've gained your trust as a consumer?
*
Which companies over-hype themselves with branding campaigns in your view?
*
Are there any specific marketing tactics that you don't like or respect as a consumer? That disillusion you?
I'd love to hear from you.