A Name is attached to a person, artist or musician and can not be transferred. A perfect example are artists, because a famous artist, when dead, can not be replaced by another artist under the same name. In this regard the pro´s are to gain higher value for a single artwork, but there is no exit strategy, once decided to go with the name, means to live that business until the end.
A brand works differently, a franchis such as Subway´s or Burger King are perfect examples of a brand in action. Several businessmen-and-women worldwide, can open a store and name it Subway´s if they are part of the original chain and if they abide to follow the structures and rules established.
The founder of such brands have an exit-strategy, once their label is known, accepted and trusted worldwide, they can reap the benefits of not having to work anymore (except they are bored).
It would be great if things would be that easy, but unfortunately the world is a much more difficult place, so there are a lot variations inbetween those two, for example:
If a brand has a very charismatic leader who loves to connect with the public on events that brings together early adopters worldwide, the brand can suffer from being attached to one face, you can guess it: Apple and it´s CEO Steve Jobs.
Another not so popular example of the opposite: An illustration rep. called "John Doe rep" can suffer from having no exit point strategy and once he has to retire, the company can hardly be led by another person, even if the successor is known to be a great benefit for the company. Branding differently and marketing on a different level would have made that easier.
Both, name and brands have their benefits and it is important to focus on these aspects. If someone wholeheartedly agree with this simple rule and accepts the outcome whatever this may be, there is nothing wrong. It is only the surprising reactions of some people I have seen, that makes me question such things and ask, why didn´t they thought about that beforehand.
0 comments:
Post a Comment