“Advertising is the price you pay for being unremarkable…”

I acutally think that it was Jeff Bezos of Amazon who said this. His quote was, “Advertising is the price you pay for having an unremarkable product or service.” He made this statement as he was talking about the Kindle and any potential competative threats.

If you brand is remarkable then advertising isn’t one of the marketing necessities, it’s simply an extra.

Here’s my distinction between brand and advertising, and I’m sure this is how you see it too, actually: the brand reflects the company/product’s excitement, whereas advertising is (or ought to) generate excitement among the brand’s consumers.

The brand development process is the opportunity for companies to reflect and do their “navel gazing.” It’s all about them and coming to conclusions about who they are. Without sounding too woo-woo about it, the brand is based on existential thinking, and its assets (e.g. logo) are the outcome of that self-knowledge. Obviously, consideration must be given to its consumers and competition too, but all that is secondary.

Once all of that has been done, the company (hopefully) will become excited about who it is and can enter the market with confidence and panache. At that point it can begin advertising, generating excitement among consumers.

My analogy is the single guy. While alone (or on his therapist’s couch), he gives attention to himself, getting to know himself alone. But once he’s at the the singles bar, he doesn’t have to think about himself (or, god forbid, his competition) and can focus his attention on The Ladies. The guys who get that process backwards end up wearing beer goggles as a brand asset.

Brand-ING, of course, bridges those two spheres, but, it is still weighted towards the product, while advertising is all about the consumer. Branding > Branding > >Marketing/Advertising > Sales work on a continuum pretty much in that order, with the branding process being about the company and product.

I thought the opposition would fizzle out quite quickly but it seems like it’s being bolstered by many on the discussion threads who are not Timbers fans but empathize with their situation. These diehard Timbers fans, agree or disagree with their behavior at the unveiling, are a big part of why the club exists in Portland. I think that is why the sense of betrayal at not being included in the process has really fanned this outrage.

Brand tweaks are not without precedent in MLS. Ownership was steering the Houston Dynamo and Seattle Sounders down different naming directions before the fans stepped in and demanded a change. A subtle tweak of the logo seems a lot less of a tweak than a wholesale name change.

The latest news is that members of the Timbers Army are going to be meeting with the Front Office to have their interests conveyed. While this may be a token gesture, it is significant in the sense that Merritt realizes he needs to give the disgruntled fans a sense their voice is being heard so they can finally get closure. However, I think if opposition continues, which I think it will, don’t be surprised to see a logo with new tweaks following the Timbers’ first MLS season.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=101065469943747&ref=ts

The point about asking fans to help develop or vote on the logo – the crowdsourcing concept. From a design perspective, while it may generate buzz and some type of involvement, it doesn’t necessarily yield the best design. And it devalues the practice of good design, in my opinion. But, voting at least engages those who have the biggest interest and brings your brand ambassadors into the fold and allows them to help evangelize the brand (regardless of the logo that’s selected). There’s commentary taking place on Facebook currently. A page was set up by those most vocal about the new logo. They are ALREADY putting out alternatives and talking about going back to the old logo. But the underlying messaging are even more interesting and all center around the fact they feel that they weren’t part of the Portland Timbers’ change. They feel left out and are now voicing that frustration.

Thanks Beth for the great comments.

Thanks Joel for the thoughtful commentary.

A great example of how brand identity does not create brand relationships. I think I heard just as many people cheering as not at the unveiling. That says a lot.

What gets me is the “sell” they used to convince people that this new logo was *the colors!* *the history!* etc., etc. The average bear doesn’t understand what goes into brand identity…so why sell them on it? I get the sense that video was more to prove agency worth than to relate to sports fans. A public dog & pony show…what a shame.

Today, I really don’t think identity matters half as much as marketers think it does. I agree with Jeremy and Joel, but I’d say not “The power of the brand is in the product” but “The power of the brand is in the consumer.” Customer/prospects/clients buy what they want/need to fill a need or feel satisfied and we need to start there (outside-in focused). If they aren’t buying it doesn’t matter what product or identity exists.

If The Timbers have such strong brand relationship built up (i.e. brand equity), why bother with a new logo? Their fans would have supported them either way (I would assume). Or, how about asking your fans to help develop the logo…or at least vote on it in some manner.

There is a lesson to be learned here. Thanks Kim!

Beth Harte
Serengeti Communications
@bethharte