Mike Arauz Mike Arauz is a strategist at Undercurrent, and lives in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Mike's interested in media, marketing, technology, photography, film, food, and politics. This site is a place for you to discover the things that Mike thinks are interesting enough to pass on. Email: him[at]mikearauz[dot]com
HOME
Get the feed you need:
Blog posts and once-a-day collected delicious links — RSS
Blog posts, pictures, videos, and delicious links as they're added — RSS

Hello. I'm from the internet: Twitter Facebook Tumblr Delicious Flickr LinkedIn

Blog: Stream of Thoughts

Product, Company, and Reputation

A few weeks ago I watched a video of a panel discussion at the PSFK London conference. In the video, Russell Davies (OIA), George Parker (Madscam), Stan Stalnaker (Hub Culture), and Johnny Vulkan (Anomaly) attempt to address the daunting challenge of "Changing the World." Towards the end Russell and Johnny addressed a particular issue that I've been struggling with: Is it time to retire the term "Brand?" (Should it no longer be the preferred nomenclature?)

The only people I know who are comfortable using the term Brand are those of us who rely on the various manifestations of the term for our paychecks. Even those rare customers who blissfully plaster themselves with logos and actually define themselves to some degree by the stuff they own don't use the term Brand to identify their preferred choices. Sure, people will tell you about "this great new ___, I got at ___." But they'll never follow that up with "Yeah, ___ is totally my favorite Brand." As Johnny pointed out, the word "suggests some kind of thin veneer that is coated over mediocre products." Brands are empty and meaningless entities as far as the general population is concerned. The term Brand might be good for us, but it isn't good for them. And if we've learned anything in the past few years, it's that we should be speaking their language, not vice versa.

Around the 47 min mark of that PSFK video, Russell Davies makes a great point:

Things would get really simple if people only used the words Product, Company, and Reputation.


This nugget has been echoing in my head ever since. Everyone knows what those three words mean. And when you challenge your clients and yourself, as their planner or strategist, to take on the notion of earning a Reputation, you are suddenly forced to cut the bullshit. A Reputation is something that is earned through your actions, not awarded based on your appearance. We all share an intuitive understanding of the difference, because Reputations are how we become known to each other. Our best relationships are sparked by a genuine interest in each other's Reputations. What has she/he done? Have they been a good friend? Have they proven themselves insightful? Do they have a hilarious sense of humor? The relationships that we've started based on the most superficial aspects, on the other hand...What does she/he look like? How many MySpace friends do they have? Do they spell their name with and "i" or a "y?"

So, as Johnny pointed out, marketing - and maybe that term needs some help, too - should focus more on developing products and the companies behind the products. Because, in this age of transparency, that's where your reputation is made. Now a marketer's job is to help their client walk the walk, instead of trying to convince customers that the client's walk is awesome.

1 Comments:

Blogger Jakeybro said...

Interesting post, Mike.

To my question on plannersphere, does this mean we are "reputation shepherds?"

August 9, 2007 5:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Pictures, Videos, and Links