I continue to be entertained by the (good and the bad) branding efforts of many businesses. Terry O’Reilly has a knack for exposing and explaining how and when the branding message works and when it does not. I have been a fan of his ‘The Age of Persuasion’ radio program for some time and I am glad to see that he has put out this book. Thank you for shining a light on it.

So yes, it’s true. I’ve always had two parts to my “Good Jazz” of a great brand (did I mention that in my talk?) – a left brain and a right brain, a yin and a yang, an anchor and a sail.

But really, what I love about the PROMISE+DIFFER formula is not that it’s revolutionary, but that it makes good plain sense.

However, lest I appear thick myself, I’ve never felt that the equation Brand=Promise was enough – even if you nuance it by saying it must be RELEVANT, emotionally compelling, or whatever (all of which are part of the picture).

One of my clients right now was trying to build a brand around this promise: Quality, Service, and Price. All good, and definitely relevant. But not different – either within their industry or across industries.

Don’t know who came up with it first, but if something is good to go for you *and* Terry then it’s gotta be good.

cheers,
Andrew

People buy emotionally and justify logically. So a properly constructed definition of that promise establishes the “how you differ” by being emotionally relevant and engaging, and then DEFENDABLE (that is, does only your company actually fulfill what it promises, and is it the only company fulfilling that promise?)

As simple as it is to say, it takes a lot of “roll up your sleeves” work that most people just don’t have the time, discipline, or methodology to do properly.

I’ve seen this discussion a lot recently, more from the point that marketers and brand pros are adding to the noise and confusion by mixing and matching or “inventing” new definitions, or adding layers of “Brand things”: Statement, Essence, Promise, Magic, Mantra, Proposition that seem to dilute the very basis they establish. They will arrive at a fairly good Promise statement, and then add these thickened layers which then start to overlay words and ideas on the original Promise, with nuances (or in some cases I’ve seen, BOLD contrasts) that actually change meaning.

I get it, we’re all trying to create the ultimate proprietary way (with a cool name) to arrive at a brand and market those services, but in the end we are sometimes hurting our own cause.

The nice thing about this definition is that both parts are owned by the customer, not the brander. Promises are owned by the recipient, not the maker, and differentiation can’t exist in a vacuum: it MUST be judged relative to its counterpoints.

There is no platonic ideal of your brand or mine hovering around in space waiting to be discovered. It needs to be worked out, negotiated into existence, debated on, and as much as possible, agreed on between real people.

Which is why I’m hoping to spread the word about Terry O’Reilly – who doesn’t just spout off about brands, but is a master in his own field of radio advertising as well as thinking deeply about the cultural *meaning* of what he does.

I’ll also agree that we probably spend too much time debating finer points of theory when there’s real world work to be done. That’s why I’m pleased somebody has nailed down a solid practical definition like this one. It works and I can use it to help real world clients solve problems.

But I can’t agree that this knowledge is commonplace, or that the “debate” is just for the chatter-sphere. Otherwise there would be more well crafted brands than bad ones – and we both know that just isn’t the case.

Otherwise we’d both be out of a job.

I’ve been *working* with a brand consultant for years and I still couldn’t easily articulate what a brand was. That little formula will help a lot with the brand work I’m doing in Action Studio.

Thanks, Dennis!