When we started these essays we thought branding was pretty much a well-understood, accepted concept within the cultural arts field. But then we got this response to one of our new business letters sent to a marketing director regarding our brand strategy consulting services:
“At this time, we focus our energy on creating provocative and effective graphics to market single tickets to each show. As you can see on the banner of our website, we typically put our organization’s name in Futura bold white, black, or red. This seems to work for us as we’ve had five years of extremely strong audience attendance. We’re not interested in developing a new graphic look for our organization. We have a graphic artist in-house and use local companies for graphic services as needed.”
Now, I’m not trying to be some snooty consultant lording his supposed knowledge over some innocent marketing director. But since transitioning from corporate to cultural arts branding back in 2000, I really thought that in 2011 we are past a “what is branding?” discussion. And maybe we are. Maybe this was a one-off reaction and the rest of you are just fine in your understanding. I’ve a feeling that you’ll let me know. Back in 2000 the b-word was verboten in some, or misunderstood in other, arts organizations. One executive director even introduced the subject of branding to her staff as, “you all know what branding is, it’s like branding livestock.” Amusing now, kind of disturbing then.
So, just to get the definitions out-of-the-way, because I know you’ve all heard them — just think of them as your quick, go-to guide to email to confused colleagues:
- Branding is to marketing as strategy is to tactics. I like this one. It’s short. It’s quick. It’s an easy concept to grasp. And it finally makes use of those SAT analogies that many of us had to learn, but never thought we’d actually use.
- A brand is the sum of all the impressions one has of a visual or performing arts organization. This one’s important because it’s from the audience’s viewpoint and encompasses how an audience views an organization’s:
- Mission and vision
- Building and facilities
- Collections and exhibitions, or season programs
- Public, educational, and outreach programs
- Name and graphic or visual identity
- Digital and print advertising
- Public relations and news about the organization
- Actual and virtual word-of-mouth helped by social media
- Social media itself
- Digital and print communications
- Comparable and/or competitive organizations
- Boards, management, and staff.
- Branding is the practice of aligning all those impressions to ensure that they form the consistent and unified image and message that we want for our organization to differentiate ourselves and create the right impression among our audiences so that they will be more likely to visit or attend more often.
- A logo is to branding as the tip of an iceberg is to the whole iceberg. I admit, this isn’t a perfect metaphor, however, a logo is often the most visible or most used part of a branding program, but a brand and branding encompass all the components listed above.
Questions? Hey, at this point you don’t need me, just Google it. For “branding vs. marketing” you’ll get 15,500 results in .13 seconds. There’s gotta be something in there that you can use, right?
5 comments
Raziya Reavis says:
Sep 14, 2012
This was the easiest explanation I have found thus far. Thanks!
justice kwesi kwarteng says:
May 23, 2011
branding is what and how ‘others’ think/perceive/conceive of and feel about your brand, whereas marketing is how you strategically communicate your brand’s identity/essence/image/values/culture based on what your audience/customers/patrons tell you about your brand. it is that simple.
in general, when it comes to branding, what ‘others’ perceive/think of your brand is king and/or must, almost-always, take precedence over what you, honestly, think of your brand: the ‘others’ here mean customers/clients/patrons, for the customer is the lifeblood of, and to the survival of, your brand.
thus, what you think of your brand is inherently subjective to your customers/clients tell you about your brand. and so to have a successful brand, you must be a deeply great listener, who is completely free of ego; you must be willing to allow your own preconceived notions about your brand to take a backseat to what your customers/patrons/clients tell, or is telling, you about your brand.
you must listen and listen and listen and constantly, and permanently, listen to your customers/clients/target audience.
for your marketing strategy is only relevant if you know what your customers/clients think of, and feel about, your brand: you ONLY get to fill-in the blanks guided by what your customers/clients naturally leave out in their process of informing you about your brand–but even with you feeling in the blanks, you must still let the ego go and be open to consistent deep listening.
brands who refuse to listen to their customers/clients suffer and suffer brutishly: the most successful brands are those that listen to their costumers/clients, no matter their own clearly pre-outlined organizational values.
it’s about listening so as to effectively adapt to their needs, pure and simple.
[–justice kwesi kwarteng, bfa, mfa, mspc* | creative director/talent agent/talent scout/guerrilla marketing strategist/cause + emotional branding professional | jtalentagency@gmail.com]
Nathan Medina says:
May 11, 2011
Good discussion. In a very short answer, I tend to think of “branding” as how others see you whereas “marketing” is your approach to branding.
Mechel says:
May 4, 2011
I absolutely love the way the definition for that correlates to the performing arts. Branding is something I am trying to move my company to, but don’t yet know how to get there.