Archive for the 'Definitions' Category

What brands do

Thursday, February 2nd, 2006

In our Pages section (sidebar top) I’ve added a concise definition of what brands do. It is an anthem of sorts for a new perspective on brands, one predicated on value and innovation.

This new perspective has several things going for it:

  1. It disrupts the comfy, lazy world of mainstream brands. It will flush out the slugs.
  2. It puts brands on a new playing field.
  3. It identifies new opportunities for creative companies, and for creative individuals in those companies.
  4. It does the same for customers.
  5. It opens up new avenues of value between companies and customers. What now seem like dull or “mature” markets may harbor significant growth potential.
  6. It explains the title of this blog.

This same material is included on our site, but I’ve added it here because it underlies 99% of my posts.

Share

Redefining brands, from the customer up

Saturday, January 28th, 2006

Over there to the right, in the Pages section, I’ve added a New Brand Glossary for quick reference. Brands need a new glossary because many conventional brand definitions suck. They lack structure, rigor and vision, and they have to be thoroughly re-thought and re-shaped if our practice is to deliver higher levels of value.

In the Glossary you’ll find concise (re-)definitions of brand, brand innovation, brand vision, brand platform, brand loyalty, and other key terms, plus a growing number of new terms: legacy brands, pseudo brands, brand API’s, brand chain, and others.

If you think brands have a positive future, the Glossary is not a bad place to start. (And yes, I am channeling Joseph Schumpeter every chance I get.)

Share

Get ready for some great insights on design

Thursday, January 26th, 2006

Joel Spolsky is beginning a series on interface design in Joel on Software. This is an absolute must read for anyone concerned about eradicating the pain and suffering of feature-itis. Get the RSS so you don’t miss out.

Product “features” are interesting. We define a “feature” as a part of the product trying to become a part of the customer. When there are too many parts, all yelling at once, the result is feature shock, and product turn-off. The product essentially alienates itself from the user.

A great thing about Joel’s essay is that it will generate plenty of comments, enriching the discussion even more.

Share