This week’s thought: Inclusivity is business 101.

Brands get bigger by selling to more people. The only way to add more people is to have an appeal that is inclusive of everybody. Inclusivity is the fundamental requirement of brand growth, which makes inclusivity business 101.

Put another way, the biggest brands offer something that everybody wants to buy. By definition. That’s why they’re big. And because they sell to everybody, they are inherently inclusive. Everybody is included as a customer.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Universal appeal doesn’t necessarily mean a universal message or benefit, though. It just means that everyone can find a connection with a brand, one that is valuable to them. It need not be the same connection for everybody, but everybody needs a connection. The biggest brands have figured out how to make their franchises accessible and welcoming to a full panorama of consumers.

A big challenge in doing so is that inclusivity sits at the intersection of commercial and social priorities. Generally, the commercial imperative of inclusivity makes brands a leveling force of unity and integration, even if sometimes a reluctant one. But not always. During the Jim Crow era, for example, restaurants would sell to everybody, with one entrance for white people and another for black people. So, while inclusivity as a commercial principle puts brands in a unique position relative to social priorities, it does not equate automatically with social justice.

Nevertheless, brands are attuned to social issues and, by and large, try to do what’s fair and respectful for everybody. Brands are motivated to get it right because when brands get it wrong, they find themselves in the crosshairs of controversy. And controversy is bad for brands.

Controversy risks conflict. Conflict will almost assuredly alienate part of a brand’s prospect and customer base, thereby choking off the growth potential of inclusivity. Growth is first and foremost for brands, so the profit motive is an engine of inclusivity.

This is why brands and politics are a bad match. The models don’t align. Politicians win with one more vote, so divide-and-conquer is a good strategy. Brands only win by selling to everybody. Brands must shy away from controversy, not invite it. It’s better commercially for brands to accommodate and conjoin differences than to discriminate, accuse, provoke or evangelize. Stitching diversity together in civil, uncontroversial ways is the superpower of big brands.

Every brand targets; most brands segment. Many brands have plenty of upside growth potential within a niche or specialty. But this doesn’t mean that inclusivity isn’t relevant. It points instead to the way that the best brands do their knitting. They deliver a compelling solution for a shared problem, whether niche or mass, thus bringing together diverse groups in need or want of the same benefit. Brands being better brands makes for inclusivity.

It’s okay for brands to deliver demographically or culturally or economically specific communications. Just not controversial communications. Of course, this moment in time has made it harder than ever to duck controversy, but that just calls for better insights, more testing, better tracking and more real-time response. It’s not easy, but it’s not outside the ken of what brands do in the ordinary course of business.

This may be a riskier moment, but there is never a moment for writing off potential customers, either by walking away from them or by estranging them. Brands must stay current and inventive in order to figure out fresh ways of being inclusive without getting punished by controversy, conflict or politics.

In today’s fraught atmosphere of political division and social discord, brands offer a counterpoint of inclusivity, a recipe to study and follow. Because inclusivity is business 101.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider By Walker Smith, Chief Knowledge Officer, Brand & Marketing at Kantar

The Blake Project Helps Brands In All Stages Of Development Gain An Emotional Advantage, A Distinctive Advantage And A Connective Advantage

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

From the start, both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods made marketing mistakes. Neither brand differentiated itself from the other. Both brands behaved as if the idea of “plant-based protein that mimics animal protein” was enough of a breakthrough that people did not need information. Both companies adopted pricing strategies that were not in line with consumer expectations for non-animal offerings. In fact, it is still the case that plant-based offerings are nearly twice what a shopper would pay for an animal protein offering.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

But, the most troubling issue was that both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were not as insightful as they could be about the way people think about and speak about food. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were both blind-sided by the previous, persistent power of the organic, natural food wave’s food education and food language.

Ironic.

Both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods designed offerings based on an understanding of the future of food. Both brands focus on non-animal protein substitutes that are sustainable, animal-friendly, anti-industrial food, wellness-oriented, organic, and available in a variety of places.

Sure, we have moved on from macrobiotics, grow-your-own communes, natural, low-fat, fewer calories, less sugar, less sodium, low cholesterol, organic, and a plethora of diets such as Keto, Atkins, Paleo, vegetarian and vegan. But, our food language reflects the ideas generated by these passing food waves. How we talk about food affects our perceptions of food.

Unfortunately for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, the language we use for food puts these brands in a precarious position—and not just from a marketing standpoint. All the ecological and humane benefits of non-CAFO or non-factory-farmed animals that these brands epitomize do not appear to overcome the dreaded idea of “processed.”

Our food vocabulary changed years ago into “good words” and “bad words.”  All-natural, unprocessed, raw, organic, natural, clean, real, raw, pure, not genetically modified, unprocessed foods: these are the best words. Just take a look at the peanut butter section at your local grocery store. Peanut butter brands attempt to differentiate by using “all-natural,” “organic,” “non-GMO.” The bad words are the alternatives: unnatural, unclean, unreal, genetically tampered, chemically-tainted, impure, processed foods.

“Processing” is a bad word. When processing is what makes food convenient, increases safety and value, how did “processed” become a bad idea?

People say they want prepared foods that are not processed. But, prepared is processing.

The “movements” – natural, organic, 1960’s, vegan, vegetarian and so forth co-opted the best words decades ago. The “movements” trained us – regardless of our diets – to want organic, whole food, natural foods, clean foods, real foods, raw, unprocessed, not genetically modified, pure foods versus unnatural, processed, genetically tampered, chemically-tainted foods with free range all-the-time versus caged pigs, confined cows and crowded chickens.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline, “Imitation Meat is Facing concerns About Processing.” The wording is: Imitation Meat. We define imitation as artificial, synthetic, simulated,  manufactured, ersatz, substitute. Surely, “imitation” is not a desirable descriptor for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods.

And, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods should have known better, at their beginnings, that there might be a tough road ahead. “Processing” is not a fight that should be waged now. It is too late to fight “processing.” There is probably no definition of processing that can overcome processing’s already ruined rep.

There are continuing discussions about the word “processing.” The CEO of Impossible Foods told The Wall Street Journal, “Processed, if you really want to look at it from a food perspective, means highly artificial and very little nutritional value. We are a nutrient-dense product. That’s not the traditional definition of processed.”

On the other hand, Marion Nestle, NYU professor emeritus, nutrition, food studies and public health and the author of many widely read and highly respected books told The Wall Street Journal that “plant-based products were still ultra-processed and that long-term studies on their impacts were needed.” Ms. Nestle did state that from an environmental perspective, plant-based is better than animal. She added that “everything is better than beef.”

It is important to note that neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods made consistent, compelling brand-based propositions relative to processing. It is as if these two brands never thought about the concept. Many 60’s vegetarian and vegan constituencies understand the arguments from multiple angles having spent time thumbing through the bible of the eco-conscious, healthful dietary primer of the 1970’s, Diet for A Small Planet. Younger cohorts need this learning. Yet neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods made processing into acceptable (appealing?) messaging.

So, where are we in the future of food? Not so far off from where we were 20 years ago. However, there are still valuable opportunities for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, brands that should have broader audiences by now. What are consumers looking for in products and services and in life?

Fresh Is Fabulous

Prepared fresh every day. Made fresh. Fresh is still the be all and end all of food.

Fresh and chilled continue to be the growth opportunities

Subway has made fresh a core attribute of their brand even though many might say some of the ingredients are not that healthful.

Of course, “Fresh” is relative. Food travels. Plus, there are food miles and shelf lives to consider. Food distribution is a race against time.

For example, in a large supermarket with its own distribution system, broccoli undergoes a journey like this: farm to local warehouse to regional distribution center to refrigerated truck to regional distribution center at destination to another truck to local supermarket to backroom stocking area to floor and finally to shelf. That “fresh” broccoli can take a week to 10 days.

To allow fruits and vegetables to endure the trip, some are picked green, and chilled then warmed and treated with gases to ripen.

Packaging can be an option. Packaging is not just for ease of use but a good step for freshness. Packaging that makes food look fresh longer is good. Farmers’ markets are increasingly popular.

Convenience Is Critical

Convenience foods: What is convenience?

Convenience is not the same today as it was fifty years ago. Convenience used to just mean “ease of use.” Make it easy to prepare; make it fast to prepare. TV dinners, cake mixes, Jello.

Many of today’s consumers do not cook, do not know how to cook, and do not want to learn. Not having to cook is a commodity claim. Today’s definition of cooking a meal is really assembling a meal… putting together already-made foods. Or the paint-by-numbers approach of meal kits such as Blue Apron.

The food industry knows that consumers want hot food on the table no more than five minutes after they begin preparing and never more than 20 minutes.

And, then, there is the powerful triplet of Ease of choice, Ease of use, and Ease of Mind. Food must be easy to choose. That means all the information must be understandable and believable and, preferably, with all ingredients recognizable. Food must be easy to use. Only the brave choose Julia Childs. And, finally, there is Ease of Mind. What am I eating? What am I serving to my family? Should I worry about these added ingredients? Should I worry about the added sugars?

Convenience is not just convenience any more. Today “convenience” means more than making life easy. it also means putting the consumer’s mind at ease.

No functional and no emotional hassles. No time, no fuss, no worry. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods should own this idea of ease of mind. But, they do not. In fact, their ingredient lists and manufacturing procedures belie any ease of mind. The CEO of Impossible Foods may think his products are not processed in the traditional sense. But, for consumers, these are processed foods. Convenience means quick-fix entrees and side dishes requiring little preparation. But also flavors, exotic, do-it-yourself doctoring with diets aimed at reducing blood pressure or cholesterol, and farm friendliness – a preference for foods deemed closer to the farm and less processed.

For those who made it through high school Latin, the original Latin meanings for “convenient” are utilitas or commoditatis, meaning advantageous to me, fitness, benefit, comfort. Therefore, convenient will no longer just mean fast and easy. If the food is organic and available, if it is healthful and clean and locally grown, my food is to my advantage.

Ease of mind is a critical component for the future of food. We want to be comfortable with our choices.

Comfort

This ever-changing world in which we live is also an uncertain and volatile world. The events that happen around us cause stress and social tension. In an increasingly fast-paced, out of control, disordered, uncertain and often confusing world… there is a need for comfort.

We need security, as well. We have a desire for physical and emotional safety and food security. We are aghast at the number of food recalls we face every day. People are asking to be insulated from the scares. Not just food safety but the unknown.

Two decades ago, US health officials said that bacteria, viruses and parasites in foods cause approximately 76 million cases of illness, 325,000 hospitalization cases and 5,000 deaths each year. Who can imagine what these numbers look like now?

So, comfort on all dimensions physical comfort, mental comfort and even intellectual comfort are all desired. We want to avoid feeling stressed out or out of control.  We want to feel relaxed, reassured, recharged and revitalized.

Comfort means feeling safe, having knowledge, well-being, sustainable, authentic.

It is comforting to know that we can feel comfortable with the food and beverage products we consume. It is comforting to know that our food and beverage products are safe.

Can technology make food safer? Is more technology, more processing? Should we fix the food or fix the way the food is grown or processed? Does my food/beverage come from nature or is it man-made?

Sustainability

People are becoming more concerned about what we are doing to our planet and its populations. People want to believe that they are helping to keep things going without degrading what is around them:

We live in an age when processed food is made to be better than the whole food on which it is based.

Modern industrial agriculture is incredibly good at the mass production of low-priced commodities. There is incredible single-minded efficiency. But, to many, this industrialization is at a significant cost. Maximizing production at all costs. And, yet, the smallness of production cannot fill our needs.

Production for the sake of production, processed production, mass production for mass markets, we wind up asking ourselves, “when did the modern ways we produce our food become a negative?”

For example, the meat industry is all about efficiency. Yet many see these behaviors as shortening the animal’s life on earth. Further, issue such as hog farms adding toxic wastes to our landscapes is a negative.

Specialization, monocultures and the increasing urbanization of society means that farming is seen as just one more service industry. So, we are witnessing the decline of the small family farm.

There are movements to reduce the use and waste of non-renewable resources in the growing and processing of foods. Some concerns remain such as toxic clean-up, safer pest control

We also want to eliminate genetic pollution and disease resistance. But, these take methods contrary to safety perceptions.

Climate change issues such as frosts, hurricanes, fires, mud slides, long, colder winters with hotter summers also affect our views on food.

Social Responsibility

Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods can combat the misinformation and correct their messaging information by truly understanding that consumers want to feel confident. Consumers want all three dimensions of ease. Consumers want to feel confident that they are doing the right thing for themselves and for their families. They want quality, convenient food choices that are great value and they expect the food they eat to be safe. Consumers want to know where their food comes from and what has happened to it on the way to purchase. Consumers want assurances. Ease of choice, Ease of Use, Ease of Mind.

When Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods communicate to customers, the goal should be to arm them, not alarm them. That is arm consumers with the proper knowledge about the offerings so consumers can be comfortable without being cautious. So consumers  can enjoy what they choose to eat, knowing they have made the right choices. The future of food is ever-changing. Brands have to keep up by keeping on the evolving definition of ease: ease of choice, ease of use and ease of mind.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

• Consumers have changed
• The levers of a purchase decision have changed
• Consumer relationships with brands have changed
• The dynamics of influence has changed

Far too many brands remain tethered to a legacy philosophy of command-and-control, awareness-chasing marketing. This way of thinking interferes with the ability to form vibrant, healthy relationships with consumers who look for added meaning from the brands they care about.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

• Our mission is to provide the tools, thinking, and pathway to a more successful future of sustainable brand growth. Here, we summarize the elements of new brand marketing based on a more human-like approach to creating brand relevance and resonance.

This Didn’t Happen Overnight… A Decade Of Trial, Error And Refinement

For 10 years we have studied and worked to construct a new, improved brand building system, one that is grounded in the latest science-based understanding of consumer behavior and the prevailing impact of modern culture on business. You might agree culturally informed brands are the ones that will rise to dominance in their categories due to enhanced relevance and resonance.

This post is truly a call to action to let go of past beliefs and brand building behaviors, dominated mostly by transactional thinking and feature/benefit selling. The old way of doing things has inadvertently held brands back from what they desire most: attracting legions of devoted believers, ambassadors and evangelists.

The Truth About Brands In The Era Of Consumer Control

Sustainable, lasting brand relationships are built now on admiration and trust and will produce significant financial premiums. They also uniquely deliver higher margins and traffic. By virtue of their inherent stickiness, they work progressively to roll-back the costs of promotion while improving ROI and bottom-line performance.

Perhaps most important of all, they create the opportunity for transcendence – the state of being admired – where consumers “join” the brand as members, not merely customers. It is that intersection between “why” and passion where people find affection and the basis for a relationship with brands they care about. We express it this way because the world has changed and relating to a brand is now fundamentally the same thing as relating to a person.

Key insight: To secure the opportunity for sustainable brand relationships, we have a responsibility to bring added meaning, trust, and belief to the forefront of the relationship. Of note, we have been afforded an incredible opportunity to build deeper connections at a time when consumers are searching for guidance. What’s driving this openness to a relationship?

Uncertainty – people crave certainty in their lives, we can help provide it
Disconnection and isolation – inadvertent consequence of over-indulgence in social media
Absence of trust – bad business behaviors are writ large for all to see, all too often
Fear of the unknown – climate change deniers scoff at California wildfires – how is that possible?
Existential threats – heat waves, floods, weather anomalies, fires, droughts
Lack of control – we want to restore a sense of control in our lives
Financial and time pressures – mental health challenges are at an all-time high

However, many brands are not positioned correctly, and remain focused on transactional ‘better than’ stories. They lack higher purpose and a defined mission that should inform their positioning. Thus, they are not truly differentiated and focus instead on trivial points of bitterness. Consequently, they are not set up to provide deeper meaning to their customers and in so doing fail to attract evangelists and advocates who would otherwise “join” the company’s mission.

In Sum, Where Things Can Go Off The Rails:

Focus on ‘better than’ thinking vs. uniqueness and differentiation
Chasing awareness over relevance and deeper meaning
Absence of customer centricity
Higher purpose is missing or mis-applied
Brand narrative is not emotionally compelling
At risk of commoditizing their own category through competitive comparisons

An Improved Path:

1. Build stronger more engaging and profitable brands that are better positioned, more relevant and purposeful.
2. Discover/enhance/strengthen the strategic foundation, install customer centricity and higher purpose, while refining and improving the brand story.
3. Translate a highly differentiated brand into a transformational business by focusing on the customer and building emotional connections through the brand’s core “why” and related value proposition.

Resulting In A Healthy Brand:

• Defined higher purpose, value system, and deeper meaning
• Has cultivated a deeply resonant brand “why” that influences its core strategies
• Customer centricity and focus on enabling core user lifestyle aspirations and values
• Not pre-occupied with selling product features and benefits
• Recognizes the power of emotion to inform brand choice and purchase decisions
• Experiences sustainable growth and rapid acceptance of innovations
• Attracts a vibrant base of evangelists, enthusiasts, and ambassadors

What Is Customer Centricity?

Perhaps the most important characteristic of a healthy brand is the priority given to consumers who sit at the center of strategic planning, while all actions and activities operate in service of a devotion to serving the consumer’s needs.

If you ask marketers if the consumer is their top priority, many will say yes. Yet on closer examination we find the consumer is buried under other imperatives that put greater emphasis on brand self-promotion and a priority on balance sheet imperatives. This usually results in a transactional type view of consumers as audiences to be “sold” on product features. Brand storytelling is often inward-facing and the consumer — their hopes, beliefs and aspirations – remain secondary.

Creating “Vows” To The Consumer

However, consumer centricity is the strategic fuel that powers all successful brand-to-consumer relationships. To help enable this dynamic we believe brands should consider making vows much like the ones we tell our spouses at the start of a marriage.

The promises we make during a marriage ceremony are intended to be binding and foundational. Here are five areas of commitment – vows — that brands can deploy to build a relationship with consumers that reinforces the practice of consumer centricity:

Truth – fundamental to any trusted relationship is a commitment to honor the truth at all times
Honesty – disclosure and openness are critical to a long-term healthy relationship
Priority – when consumers matter, their priority in the business plan is always number one
Faithfulness – steadfast and unshakeable in the resolute commitment the consumer’s wellbeing
Devotion – helping people achieve their dreams and aspirations as an enabler of their journey

Can you make these vows to the consumer and endeavor to keep them? The expression of these commitments goes a long way to codifying the priority consumers receive at the center of your business universe.  This is how transformational relationships are formed with your customers. The focus on consumer priorities becomes a flywheel that sets everything else in motion. Vows represent a deeper and heartfelt commitment. It’s how you felt on the day you made them to your better half.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Robert Wheatley, CEO of Chicago-based Emergent, The Healthy Living Agency.

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

1. What Assumptions Will You Prove False?

It’s so very easy to accept historical assumptions about an industry. When I’m speaking in front of a new audience, I’ll often begin with an exercise that asks them to think about solutions for an industry that they’ve probably never worked in, and still the answers are so traditional. Yet a simple change in reference to shake their assumptions then creates totally different options.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

What can you do to let go of your old assumptions? A few suggestions:

– Look at how your industry functions in a totally different country, or at how an analogous industry works (for example, large hospitals can look at large banks and vice versa).
– List out assumptions and play with which ones you can reverse.
– Imagine you were an entrant into the industry starting from a totally different place (Amazon, a start-up, etc.) and think about what you’d do.
– Really stand in your customer’s shoes and consider all the different ways they might get their jobs done.

Assumptions box us in, and they’re so powerful because they’re so invisible. Making them explicit is a critical way to defang them.

2. What New Advantage Will You Create?

We spend so much time focused on maximizing the advantages we have. That’s great, but it leaves a great deal unexamined. Do you really think that your industry will function the same way 20 years from now? What new advantages might spring up to reshape the playing field? What can you do today to foster those?

As Clay Christensen chronicled extensively, industry giants aren’t usually toppled by other Goliaths. It’s David, competing asymmetrically, who knocks them out. How can you be David?

3. What Will You Walk Away From?

Companies – even, admittedly, boutique consulting firms like the one I lead – find it so hard to STOP doing things. Yet, no matter the level of our ambition, we just can’t do it all.

Be disciplined about finding things to halt. What takes a lot of attention or resources, looks like a continued struggle, and has few surprises yet to deliver? You can’t start great things if you don’t cease doing others.

ACTIVE VOICE. It’s a philosophy of living and a strategy of managing. Let’s make 2025 a year of being ACTIVE.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Stephen Wunker, Managing Director of New Markets Advisors and Author of The Innovative Leader.

The Blake Project Can Help You Create A Bolder Competitive Future In The Jobs To Be Done Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Accounting standards in the United States prescribe that brands only appear on the balance sheet as the result of a purchase transaction. As a result, most brands, such as Coca-Cola or Procter and Gamble’s Crest do not appear anywhere on the balance sheet. Brands that do appear on the balance sheet as the result of a purchase transaction can never increase in value on the balance sheet; their value can only change through a reduction in value or write-down. This is how accounting treats brands even if revenue and margins, and future discounted cash flows increase dramatically. Thus, the value of a brand created by a firm is not reflected on the balance sheet, and a brand that is acquired and placed on the balance sheet can only go down in value. Given this state of affairs, it is perhaps not surprising that brands and branding are poorly understood, even by experienced managers. This could be just a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind, except the costs of brand building and maintenance are always highly visible and easy targets for cuts. It also does not help that much of the return on investment in brands occurs in the future, rather than immediately (though there are also immediate measurable outcomes as well).

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

Of course, many savvy investors do understand the value of brands. The consulting firm, Brand Finance, has tracked the financial value of thousands of brands over time. In one historical analysis Brand Finance found that companies with the strongest brands generated twice the average return of  all S&P 500 firms. Similarly, the marketing research firm, Kantar, tracks the value of the top 100 brands through their BrandZ methodology and has consistently found that stronger brands out-perform the S&P 500. The Marketing Accountability Standards Board has directly addressed the financial value of brands and has developed best practices for both reporting the financial return on brands and for brand management.

MASB observes that there are five factors that contribute to the measurable financial value of a brand: volume, margin, mix, cost, and optionality. These are not just indicators of value; the represent tools for the management of a brand’s financial performance.

Brand preference can translate into greater sales volume and more revenue as consumer preferences are translated into more purchases and greater market share. However, strong preference also often means that a brand can command a price premium, require less price promotion to incentivize purchase, and can be more resistant to competitors’ price discounts. Such pricing effects also increase revenue. The relationship between volume and price also gives the firm the flexibility to trade off higher volumes for greater margins and generate higher sales volume and market share by reducing margins. Such flexibility can be an especially useful management tool in highly competitive markets and in cases of economic downturns.

Accelerate Your Job Search With Marketing’s Most Advanced AI Career Coach

Mix is also a useful management tool and refers to the ability to serve customers with different tastes and different preferred price points. A portfolio of brands provides the means to migrate consumers from one product to another within the portfolio. Thus, younger, price-sensitive consumers may be moved to higher quality and higher margin products as they become more affluent. Similarly, a lower-priced product provides a place for consumers to trade down to in the face of economic downturns or just a change in preference for a lower-priced, more functional product.

While branding is often associated with higher costs, e.g., more advertising, more expensive product or service, and greater distribution support, among others, effective branding can influence a variety of costs, including may non-marketing expenditures. A strong brand may provide a platform for R&D efforts and product improvements that are less expensive than creation of a new-to-the-world product. Reminder advertising and distribution support is less expensive than advertising and obtaining distribution for a new-to-the-world product. Strong brands can have a positive effect on lenders and investors, which can reduce the firm’s cost of capital. Pride in a brand can even translate into more effective and efficient employee recruitment and retention and reduce the associated costs of recruiting.

Finally, a brand can create options for the firm to exploit. Such “optionality” refers to opportunities to leverage the brand for new opportunities through brand or line extensions. Such options can be especially important drivers of revenue growth in some businesses. For example, Disney routinely leverages its film properties through merchandising deals, new rides at its amusement parks, and tie-ins with its hotel and cruise offerings. Similarly, Apple has created a highly integrated eco-system that ties hardware, software, content (such as music), and even retailing together. Such options, even when not yet realized, have real value but are often overlooked in discussions of brand management.

Given such power to influence the financial health of the firm, it is surprising that most discussions of brand management primarily revolve around marketing communication. Communication is important, of course, but branding is more than slick advertising. It is a way to do business, and a very profitable way to do business if done well. Marketers who focus on the creation and maintenance of brands would enhance their contributions and credibility by communicating to CEO’s and CFO’s how branding contributes to financial performance, increases financial leverage, and provides tools for financial management.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Dr. David Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Marketing and Business Law, Loyola Marymount University, Author, Financial Dimensions Of Marketing Decisions.

At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable at critical moments of change. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers