One of the most valuable things I am bringing with me to my MBA studies is that I look through the world with a Marketing lens. I am continually fascinated by my Economics class because it makes total sense product, pricing, promotion, and placement decisions would all be made based on supply and demand. Or that in Operations, you need to know how long it actually takes to make/deliver a product/service, not just how long you think it will take based off of a perfect time trial. People take coffee breaks, after all.
What happens when I take off my rosy Marketing glasses?
I realize suddenly that people within Marketing might be speaking different languages.
The other day we spent time talking about how branding is more than just a color or logo, but it’s the identity, personality, and reputation of a firm. It’s the promise of delivering excellence, and it’s the way brand ambassadors know each other as passionate enthusiasts of brands like Jeep or Apple, no matter what others say. Brands are memories, almost like fellow friends who follow you your whole life. I love the word “brand” because it seems like so much meaning can be packed into one tiny word.
I see branding as limitless because who you are (person, company, service, or product) is limitless.
When I spoke with another marketer, her opinion was that branding is practically like prison chains. It is binding, and there is no freedom to expand or evolve. She prefers to think of identities instead of brands. I imagine if we made a list of what made up my version of “brand” and her version of “identity,” we’d have pretty similar lists. Her bucket of association is just with a different word.
Unfortunately, I quickly realized that even if we made almost identical lists, she was going to have nothing to do with “brand.” It was almost as if the handcuffs that created bounds for “brand” were the same ones binding her to her interpretation of “identity.” That’s when I realized that speaking different languages, even if the meanings are the same, can create more friction than we want in business. The belief in your own language is a powerful thing, and we imagine people who were taught the sky is green will be unflinchingly committed to green even after learning about blue (I assume).
If something as foundational as branding can lead to argument, where else are we missing each other because of the words? Saying what you mean is very difficult, and I have personal experience in becoming frustrated with people who have no idea that they aren’t saying what they mean. Because we weren’t blessed with the ability to read minds, we need to read definitions.
Think of a time when you were at odds with someone because of words or interpretation of words. What did you do to handle the situation? What would you have done differently?
Photo credit.
I like this post because it conflicts with something that I wrote a while back on Ryan Rancatore’s blog.
Some people will argue that personal branding is nothing new, and to be honest, I agree with them. Whether you called “reputation management” or something else in the past, the concept is very, very old. But in my post, I argued that you should call it whatever you want, as long as you are aware of it and are doing your best to utilize it.
But after reading your post, I guess that maybe we do need a universal language.
Jake, I am totally fine when people choose different words to represent something. For example, I prefer Gen Yer to Millennial just because of how I interpret the intrinsic qualities of each word. However, if someone uses Millennial, I still know what they’re talking about and try to understand their interpretation of the word. If someone just says, “No, it’s wrong,” I start wondering when did this world of language become math? I think even if you aren’t using the exact same words, at least make sure you’re taking time to ensure your meanings are the same. Depending on the situation, you might need to pick an actual word if things are too confusing, and in other cases words are interchangeable. Perhaps the real key is understanding the context. Thanks Jake!