marketing inspiration and ideas for growth-minded leaders

B2B Branding on the Web. How Do You Measure It?

Posted by Todd Miechiels in B2B Branding, B2B Marketing Strategy on Nov 10th, 2007 | Comments

For 10 years I’ve watched hundreds of companies and their various agencies and consultants go through “branding exercises”, “repositioning sessions”, “corporate facelifts”. Everybody thinks they can do it, precious few probably know how to really do it effectively. Every company gets to that point (sometimes several times) where they are compelled to spend lots of time, and in some cases, lots money to redo, or update their brand. But that begs several questions (assuming it’s being done for fiscally responsible reasons and not just because someone feels the ‘old brand’ just isn’t fresh anymore.)…

How does one benchmark the effectiveness of the B2B brand? What metrics should be used?

Wouldn’t it make sense to first do a ‘calibration test’ of sorts? Isn’t there some way to see how well aligned your prospects’ (and best customers’) perception of your brand is with where your company feels it needs to be, before going back to formula?

How would a ’successful’ rebranding be defined? What numbers would be looking to lift?

I’m pretty fascinated by this even though I don’t consider myself a branding strategist by any stretch of the imagination. But, with the emergence of internet marketing and the ability to quickly get different concepts, value propositions, and market positions in front of very specific audiences; combined with the rate and accuracy at which data can be collected and analyzed, we all must become micro-brand strategists and analysts. No company can afford to pay an agency to ‘brand’ the company and live or die by it, sitting up there on the web stagnant with success being measured by how slick or cool it looks. The swifter, web savvy leaders will demand to take advantage of the advances in web-based testing and survey tools, social marketing, interactive polls and focus groups. Some old school marketers or executives may think such tools are only for the biggest enterprise companies, but we all know better; it’s all at everyone’s fingertips just waiting to be used!

Hopefully this post will get around and people will spur up a debate, I know I’d like to sit back and absorb it all!

  • Forgive me if I've misread your point, but you seem to imply that a brand is synonymous with a logo. A re-branding = a new corporate identity.

    The name and the logo of an organisation is of course an important aspect of a brand, but it is simply the visual expression; the tip of the iceberg. Below the waterline lies the substance of a brand which to me comprises three promises:


    This is what we stand for as an organisation
    This is how we will behave in our dealings with you
    These are the benefits (tangible and intangible) of working with us


    An organisation can 're-brand' all it likes but their customers will see through the gloss of a new logo. If change is required it needs to come at a much more fundamental level. An organisation with a strong brand realises this and ensures that:


    Its promise is relevant to a real need
    Its promise appeals to the rational and the emotional
    Its promise is unique
    Its promise is clearly and consistently articulated
    Its promise is delivered; always
    It is in a state of constant evolution to remain relevant
    Its promise is based on a deep understanding of customers and competitors


    As for measurement of a brand we've some white papers you might find useful on our website - B2B marketing research white papers.

    Andrew

  • I love this as a topic. It is a tough one for us Branding & Design companies. What is the ROI on a business card that costs $1.00 versus one that costs $0.10? The $1 cards cost a lot more in bulk, but there nice to have when giving one to that client worth $50k in revenue to your company.


    Here would be an interesting project to try. Take a standard Landing Page maybe that uses PPC to attract visitors. If the brand and visuals there aren't what they should/could be, then upgrade them. Then every day switch back and forth from the old look to the new look. See if you can see differences in numbers from day to day. Does the new brand/look lead to more inquiries from potential customers? Do it for 2 weeks and see what happens.


    Thoughts?

  • All good points.

    It's interesting to me how we in marketing and advertising all discuss 'brands' and yet the very word has become so iconic that it begins to have very loose definitions and non-specific, very relative details.

    I think an important point is that as the pace of business quickens and the numbers of brands multiply, its customers and not companies that decide which brands live and which die.

    As things speed up, each unit of time becomes more valuable. And since brands are like shorthand for approaching and understanding 'what's in it for me' (as a customer/consumer), the simpler, more compelling brand EXPERIENCES (having to do with the integration and synthesis of conscious, planned, unplanned and unconscious elements) wins.

    We're living faster, and we live in a world of MORE. Today's real competition, so pervasive it's not even really discussed, is CLUTTER. Product clutter, company clutter, feature clutter, ad clutter, message clutter, technology clutter, media clutter.

    And we all seem to want to fight clutter with MORE clutter. Only the brain deals with clutter the best way it can -- by blocking it. What's left is what's useful, interesting and what can be easily labeled and stored. Once a label goes on and the brain box is filled, most of us don't easily change our minds.

    What's a "brand"?

    The best and most realistic definition I've heard: it's a person's gut feeling about a product or service or company. It's not a new logo or advertising or program or technology or technique. Those things are controlled by the company. People, I think, actually co-create brands to bring order out of clutter. It's like the word "reputation". Brands ultimately lay outside of company control. The best we can do is influence it by considering the reason behind a brand. Brands are not what you say it is -- it's what THEY say it is. And like people, brands have karmic responsibilities. Promising more than you can deliver causes suffering, inside and out. Companies serve at the pleasure of their customers.

    What's the GOAL of branding? To delight customers so MORE people buy MORE things for MORE years for HIGHER prices.
  • Todd, interesting post. While I'm not sure how to optimally measure the affect of a brand, I do have opinions about its importance.

    John Quelch, a Professor at Harvard Business School, and director of WPP Group plc has written about "How to Build a B2B Brand". Dr. Quelch provides three reasons brand-building should be important to B2B CEOs. I will quote from his post those three reasons, and add four of my own:

    “First, most B2B marketers have to address thousands of small businesses as well as enterprise customers. They cannot do so economically using the traditional direct sales force.

    Second, if left unattended, individual managers will each do their own adhoc marketing. The result will be a hodgepodge of corporate logos, taglines and packaging. Customers will be confused and the company will look disorganized.

    Third, B2B marketers are realizing that developing brand awareness among their customers’ customers can capture a larger share of channel margins and build loyalty that can protect them against lower-priced competitors.”

    Now for my additional points:

    Fourth, selling through the channel requires a strong brand. Channel partners need a brand to promote as they (almost never) have a brand that businesses want to buy from. Business buyers are comfortable buying from a channel partner if they represent a brand with which the buyer is familiar.

    Fifth, the brand is the tip of the arrow of marketing. A strong brand enables the rest of the marketing (and sales) to get through to the buyer. The business buyer needs to know who the company is before they’ll pay attention to what they have to say.

    Sixth, a strong B2B brand enables a higher margin because the “brand promise” provides a lower risk to the decision maker, and enables that decision maker to justify their decision to others – because the brand is familiar to them as well. “Nobody every got fired for buying from IBM” is the ultimate brand promise.

    Seventh, a poor branding effort creates a poor brand promise. For example, Phil Mickelson (sponsored by BearingPoint) is probably the second best golfer in the world. BearingPoint, therefore, is associated as being the second best. Accenture is associated as being the best. Which would you want to buy from?

    Can you think of other points as well?
  • Paul, I agree with you that brands are critical. Being able to quickly communicate your position, value, in an instant is of course critical. I was saying that with the ability for marketers to get rapid, targeted data back through the use of internet marketing, brands should be tested more frequently, under more scrutiny, and creators of those brands should be held accountable for their ideas to aid in conversion and opportunities.
  • Interesting post and thought-provoking. To the contrary, I think that the situation described means that brands matter more now. The overwhelming nature of micro-communication and hyper-targeting content makes it increasingly difficult to evaluate messages on their own merit. Shorthand communications like brands are not just useful but essential to filtering and examining the content.

    I wrote a longer response to this over on my b2b marketing and branding blog.

    -Paul
blog comments powered by Disqus
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant Themes