Just for Branding
This platform or initiative is 'just' for branding?
Rui Lapa
7/25/20244 min read
I have recently worked with a few B2B companies, and the initial conversations and deep-dive brand audits inevitably led to some specific initiative or platform that evoked the following response:
«This platform (or initiative) is just for branding.»
Using the word 'just' suggests a lack of clarity on the impact of this effort. However, various factors like competition, partners, suppliers, influencers, and stakeholders may pressure or compel us to engage in this platform or initiative.
Soft impact measurement criteria
Lacking any syncrhonization or connection to the core business objectives
Linked only to an isolated department objective
The company has always done it this way
Competitors are doing it
For the community or cause
Fear of missing out
Just is a catchword for many reasons, including
Is there something wrong with the above bullet-point list? Pehaps. Without delving deeper, at first glance, these seem like flimsy justifications. To provide clarity, let's differentiate between 'Any-Benefit' and 'Impact-Aligned' approaches.
Any-benefit approach to marketing channel selection
I run into this type of thinking almost daily, especially with businesses that have not built a solid brand strategy. The idea is that most of the newest or biggest platforms and initiatives will be beneficial.
With this philosophy, into which bucket much of the business world has decided to fall, specifically relating to social networks, Cal Newport states in his book, Deep Work, «You're justified in using a network tool if you can identify any possible benefit to its use, or anything you might possibly miss out on if you don't use it.»
I would love to broaden the scope beyond social networks to encompass all marketing channels, such as events, radio, TV, associations, new marketing platforms, websites, industry publications, community 'donations', fleet decals, billboards, and more. The only thing holding many organisations back from doing all of them is running out of money.
Impact-aligned approach to marketing channel selection
Although this may sound simplistic, consider the following approach: Revert back to purpose, key business drivers, and corresponding strategic business objectives before developing your marketing and brand strategy and, consequently, aligning your marketing channels.
Again, from Cal Newport's book, Deep Work, in the context of a professional life, «Identify the core factors [key business drivers] that determine success and happiness in your professional and personal life... adopt a tool only if its positive impacts on these factors substantially outweigh its negative impacts.» Notice how different this is from the Any-Benefit approach?
Returning to Just for Branding
There is no space for «just» in an effective brand strategy. Branding should never be taken lightly or treated as an afterthought. Branding done effectively ensures that all stakeholders (customers, employees, the community, and shareholders) exhibit consistent, engaging, and predictable behaviour.
There is no space for «just» in an effective brand strategy.
I have recently worked with a few B2B companies, and the initial conversations and deep-dive brand audits inevitably led to some specific initiative or platform that evoked the following response:
«This platform (or initiative) is just for branding.»
Using the word 'just' suggests a lack of clarity on the impact of this effort. However, various factors like competition, partners, suppliers, influencers, and stakeholders may pressure or compel us to engage in this platform or initiative.
Just is a catchword for many reasons, including
Soft impact measurement criteria
Lacking any syncrhonization or connection to the core business objectives
Linked only to an isolated department objective
The company has always done it this way
Competitors are doing it
For the community or cause
Fear of missing out
Is there something wrong with the above bullet-point list? Pehaps. Without delving deeper, at first glance, these seem like flimsy justifications. To provide clarity, let's differentiate between 'Any-Benefit' and 'Impact-Aligned' approaches.
Any-benefit approach to marketing channel selection
I run into this type of thinking almost daily, especially with businesses that have not built a solid brand strategy. The idea is that most of the newest or biggest platforms and initiatives will be beneficial.
With this philosophy, into which bucket much of the business world has decided to fall, specifically relating to social networks, Cal Newport states in his book, Deep Work, «You're justified in using a network tool if you can identify any possible benefit to its use, or anything you might possibly miss out on if you don't use it.»
I would love to broaden the scope beyond social networks to encompass all marketing channels, such as events, radio, TV, associations, new marketing platforms, websites, industry publications, community 'donations', fleet decals, billboards, and more. The only thing holding many organisations back from doing all of them is running out of money.
Impact-aligned approach to marketing channel selection
Although this may sound simplistic, consider the following approach: Revert back to purpose, key business drivers, and corresponding strategic business objectives before developing your brand strategy and, consequently, aligning your marketing channels.
Again, from Cal Newport's book, Deep Work, in the context of a professional life, «Identify the core factors [key business drivers] that determine success and happiness in your professional and personal life... adopt a tool only if its positive impacts on these factors substantially outweigh its negative impacts.» Notice how different this is from the Any-Benefit approach?
Returning to Just for Branding
There is no space for «just» in an effective brand strategy. Branding should never be taken lightly or treated as an afterthought. Branding done effectively ensures that all stakeholders (customers, employees, the community, and shareholders) exhibit consistent, engaging, and predictable behaviour.