Thanks for your reply and the two “Duh!” moments: “That’s easy! The brand has more value than the product.” and “That’s easy! The product is the brand and there is no brand without it!”

Hmmm…I was thinking out loud, remember?

You are so right. In fact, I see the next level of using some of these powerful and inexpensive tools will be to turn them into revenue centers rather than an expense. Hey, not everybody can do it, but I know some people can and I’ll be helping a few do it in the months ahead. Stay tuned.

You also always ask great questions. There is no way to answer all of them (actually, I’m just thinking with you) but I’ll cover a few…

a) Why do auto manufacturers, for example, keep the “brand” going for generations yet change the “model” with the same frequency that consumers recycle the product?

That’s easy! The brand has more value than the product.

Conversely, why do some brands depend on the integrity of the original product enduring? Lego immediately comes to mind, closely followed by Spam. Oh, Wrigley’s Spearmint Gum!

That’s easy! The product is the brand and there is no brand without it!

Why would consumers choose Southwest Airlines over JetBlue – and vice versa?

Well, Southwest Airlines and JetBlue are totally different. One give you cheap seats and hurds you like cattle. The other gives you bigger seats and assigned seating. But the fact that you are asking tells me neither one is doing a good job demonstrating a contrast. Maybe they could blog about that. Ha!

Is it service or branding?

Customer service reinforces a brand and vice versa (a brand reinforces expectation), eg. Starbucks vs. 7-11. I expect it at Startbucks but not 7-11.

“Last, and to your point, your are right, Richard: The measure of a brand’s endurance is the extent to which it can withstand adversity; the extent to which consumers will forgive the transgressions of the brands handlers/circumstances beyond their control, and the speed at which whatever went wrong is forgotten.”

Thank you. That is a great point. It is very true. It is why Firestone hid for behind the Bridgestone name, but Ford did not have to hide despite the enduring from the same recall crisis.

Brand value and the management of the brand means everything and when it comes right down too it… you can reinforce your brand with a blog OR strategically change your brand with a blog OR destroy your brand with a blog. But it’s not about blogs; you can do that with any medium.

It only takes … one tanker spill in Alaska … one tire recall … one bad bunch of spinach … and you’ll see how little control brands have beyond what we tell ourselves. Ami! Once again you have given me a good thought to work a post around later this week.

a) The proprietary nature of branding somehow trumps the adoption of a brand by its consumers — the consumers who ultimate control the brands’ ongoing viability — is just plain wrong; and

b) Branding — which is the message to communicate and stimulate emotional attachment and identification of the subject with its consumers — somehow needs to correlate with the medium. That’s wrong too.

It seems to me that it hardly matters whether the medium is billboard, blog or urinal splash-mat. The medium is nothing more than a means to an end, the end being conveyance of the brands essence and intrinsic value to and for its consumers.

As I understand it, brands are elevated by historical context, social validation, widespread adoption among the target audience, consumer endorsement and brand loyalty, etc. In a web 2.0 context, all this is communicated through intra- and inter-communal exchanges that are validated by things like “authority,” “trust,” “authenticity,” “dialog,” “transparency” and “reputation.” These things can advance a brands’ cause in powerful and inexpensive ways that make blogging unique for communicating the brands’ message and value proposition. To suggest the opposite the case is another wrong assumption implied in the slides I think.

That is not to suggest that “authority,” “trust,” “authenticity,” “dialog,” “transparency,” and “reputation” are the the exclusive domain of social media, or that other traditional media cannot achieve the same results — and sometimes more — using other means.

Blogging about high-end Fegato alla Toscana can hardly compare with a televised wrecking of branded-vehicles in a NASCAR pile-up, is it? And if we added a badge for the best Fegato alla Toscana in Christendom to the patchwork of brands worn at the Daytona 500 would anyone — except the dopey marketer blogging about it — even notice, care? But there’s the rub I think…

I guess the calves liver/blood and guts comparison might suggest that blogging for branding purposes might work best when the community of potential consumers is relatively small, hopefully connected intimately and online, somewhat passionate and willing to participate in evangelizing the brand among the target audience.

I ask myself this:

a) Why do auto manufacturers, for example, keep the “brand” going for generations yet change the “model” with the same frequency that consumers recycle the product? Conversely, why do some brands depend on the integrity of the original product enduring? Lego immediately comes to mind, closely followed by Spam. Oh, Wrigley’s Spearmint Gum!

b) Why would consumers choose Southwest Airlines over JetBlue – and vice versa? Don’t they all fly the same planes out of the same airports and to the same destinations? Don’t their tickets sell at the same price point? Why do fliers have a preference? Is it service or branding? Certainly, both companies have blogs but to what extent are they simply a part of the branding mix?

c) Is all this something to do with branding per se and the media used to communicate the brand? Nah, its about the consumers taking control and the brand-whallahs paying attention to how they should respond, anticipating what will delight their consumers next, and in so doing elevating the brand through increasingly levels of acquisition, acceptance, use and loyalty.

Last, and to your point, your are right, Richard: The measure of a brand’s endurance is the extent to which it can withstand adversity; the extent to which consumers will forgive the transgressions of the brands handlers/circumstances beyond their control, and the speed at which whatever went wrong is forgotten.