Branding is Dead: Apple, Toyota, Leno & Obama Prove It

The past week saw four disparate events, each of which illustrates (in its own way) the death of "branding" as a vehicle for business success.

The first event of note was Apple's introduction of the iPad. Apple, of course, is a highly visible corporate brand and has established numerous successful product brands. However, all the discussions after the announcement of the iPad were about the product, not about the brand. The brand name for the product is, frankly, horrible, since it sounds like a feminine hygiene item. But that won't matter because as Andy Ihnatko at the Chicago Sun-Times put it: "With the right device, marketing doesn't really matter."

The second event of note was Toyota's massive recall. Toyota has a highly-recognizable brand name that for decades has been associated with high quality products. However, the brouhaha over the recall shows that consumers are more than willing to change their perception of a brand for the negative, if the product no longer justifies that high opinion. While Toyota may recover from the debacle, the decline of the GM provides ample evidence that products generate brands. Good product = good brand; bad product = bad brand.

The third event of note was the wrap-up of the Leno/O'Brien dust-up at NBC...

Both Leno and O'Brien are "brands" in and of themselves, but the reason that there was an argument in the first place was that, no matter how recognizable their brands might be, their products weren't any good. I like Jay Leno, but his prime time show was lame and O'Brien's never really came together after moving to the 11:35 spot. If either product had been successful, there wouldn't have been any controversy. It was the products -- not the brands -- that created the problem.

The final event of note was Barack Obama's state of the union address. Obama is more than a President; he's a brand in and of himself, with everything from a compelling narrative to a highly recognizable brand image. His speech was masterful -- like all of his speeches -- but in the large scheme of things, that speech is irrelevant because Barack Obama will be judged, not on his brand, but on the performance of the product. Right now, the Obama "brand" is suffering because it hasn't delivered the goods. In the end, nothing else matters. As BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell put it: "There were solid economic measures in this speech. And how they work out will determine the president's popularity more than his words."

All four examples above give the lie to the idea that marketing creates brands. In each case, the brand reflects past performance of the product, and the brand will prosper (or suffer) based upon the future performance of the product.

That's why it's always a waste of time for companies to spend money on "branding" as if it were a separate activity that can have an impact on revenue and profit. Yes, "brand" can help sell a product; but "brand" is simply mental shorthand for emotions that people feel about a product, which are always based upon the performance of the product.

All the "branding" in the world can't repair a brand that's been clobbered by a lousy product. And a great product can survive and thrive even when the "branding" is awkward.