Listen to the brand

I do a lot ot work with companies introducing their brands and products into international markets. Their are a lot of potential problems, but today most marketers are aware of the obvious ones and check, for example, that their brand name does not mean something risible or obscene in the language of their target markets, or that the colours and images will not cause offence. But we should also consider the auditory communication of the brand – does it depend upon colloquial pronunciation for example?

My parents were brought up in the pre-commercial television days. In many cases, particularly for brands and products of foreign origin, they had never heard the names pronounced. Products produced by Nestlé for example, they called ‘Nestles’.  They came from a generation with little exposure to foreign languages and in what seemed like a closed market it made little difference.

The world has moved on now and few English people will have problems with Peugeot or Stella Artois. But as much as anything this is because these are well established brands for whom broadcast advertising means we are familiar with hearing the names pronounced. For lesser brands we may still struggle with difficult names. So, when we are looking to take brands into international markets it is worth thinking about whether the brand name depends upon what may be irregular pronunciations from the English. The English ‘ough’s are obvious enough, but also look out for the final modifier ‘e’ – the one that changes the vowel sound from ‘can’ to ‘cane’ for example. In most European languages it does not modify the vowel, and is often pronounced at the end of a word.

Acronyms also fall foul of pronunciation: If your company is known as, say, HBW in England, in French it is pronounced ‘ahsh,bay,doobleuh-vay’; in German, ‘hah,bay’vay’. Having worked for many years in advertising where we love acronyms, I quickly learned the problems when announcing myself to clients’ receptionists in France and Germany.

These may seem like niceties, but for small to medium companies who are now exposing themselves to global markets without the budgets to indulge in broadcast media a moment’s thought may ease market acceptance. Would you feel comfortable asking for a product that you were unsure how to pronounce?

The brand United

“Manchester United have been rated the eighth most valuable sports brand in the world in a new study which for the first time has assessed the comparative worths of 200 brands across the sporting spectrum” (Guardian.co.uk 18 June 2009)

My mind goes back to being a small kid growing up in Manchester and being aware even then of the of how ahead of the game (no pun intended) Manchester United were in recognising the power of the brand. ‘The Red Devils’ and ‘The Busby Babes’ were already enjoying the benefits of a strong brand identity. It is easy now for fans of other clubs to dislike the success that the team and brand has had – unlike many other brands, loyalty does not engendered competitive polarisation: because I drive a Volvo it does not breed hostility to BMW drivers… nor because I shop at Sainsbury’s would I chant at Tesco shoppers (you only sing at the checkouts…). But that is the nature of sport – it is competitive. I have often usd the example of football clubs when explaining and discussing brand identities and their assets. Names, colours, badges, nicknames, songs and locations are all the trappings of identity – and importantly they are a means by which supporters define their own identities.

It is interesting to consider how the brand values of a team can transcend the issues and internecine struggles of brand stakeholders. It’s similarly interesting to reflect on how even the managerial failings of Woolworth’s owners and it’s ultimate demise could not fully erase the customers’ emotional connections and empathy. It is another example of how emotional investment in a brand can transcend the pragmatic understanding.

United are valued at $1.495bn: the valuation and the table was compiled by SportsPro Magazine. I’m not sure what methodology of brand valuation was used, but I’m sure that if a model based upon brand profile investment was used it would reinforce the power of United’s early recognition of the importance of the brand.

What is a brand?

It’s easy to come up with any number of definitions of a brand – as a simple online search will provide. Most often quoted is Philip Kotler’s: “a name, term, sign or symbol or a combination of these, that identifies the maker or seller of a product”.

I’m not totally happy with that as it is putting too much emphasis on the signifier rather than the signified in my opinion. I prefer a more experiential definition along the lines of : “a mental construct of the values, information and expectations an entity, created by experience”.

But whatever definition we use, the question of what we consider to be a brand remains. The term ‘brand’ is being used with increasing frequency in the media and is applied to all manner products, services, organisations, political parties, religions and even people.  But what do you think are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered ‘a brand’?