Mokokoma Mokhonoana || Graphic designer » Marketing

Does more backs and more macs connote superior work?

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 06 May 2010 09:09:51 +0000

A typesetter, a copywriter, a graphic designer and a photographer when working together are called a team. Likewise, a graphic designer, a graphic designer, a graphic designer and another graphic designer working collectively, are a team.

There are some things where more means better. Better product, better service, thus, a better (or rather: best) way of investing in design.

One of the things I love about the creative industry is that it’s a bit fair when coming to “whom do great ideas go to.” Working in a hundred-dollar-per-minute fancy office doesn’t connote superior work to that of a creative working from the basement.

(Although that will drive most clients the guy with the fancy office’s way)

A company with one graphic designer can, without doubt, offer a better visual communication solution than a company with a creative team made of thirty designers.

That’s the beauty of the ideas and creativity, they don’t discriminate on how deep (or shallow) the creative’s pockets are.

A great idea, is a great idea — it matters not, who the conceiver is.

I have silently observed and noticed how some design companies, like the one below, are using made-of-more-backs-and-macs team that will work on a client’s project as a means to make their offering more irresistible.

Here’s their identity design packages:

A client in need of a graphic designer’s expertise doesn’t really know (or give a damn) what goes on behind the scenes, but to most, the thought of having thirty graphic designers working on their project will definitely yield a sense of security, surety and a better end product.

But, is it fair to sort of make clients choose most expensive “design package” by merely promising them more hands working on their project, if it doesn’t really guarantee better work than that of a one, two or three wo/man team?

I’m not trying to discredit team work, nor am I attempting glorifying it — my question is, whether the promise of a large team is a justifiable client luring marketing tactic.

Since a team of thirty designers with a year’s experience each, isn’t equivalent to one designer with thirty years of experience.

Related Writings:

Between ethics and daily bread: A creative’s moral dilemma

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:12:40 +0000

The “creatives” umbrella covers a lot more that the following, but in this writing it will primarily refer and apply to graphic designers, art directors, copywriters, and photographers.

Regardless of how one decides to look at it, creatives are in the business of selling. Be it a product, service, idea, message, point of view or belief.

The food chain financial chain is rather straightfoward.

The creative employs their expertise with a objective of, in almost all cases, increasing a company’s bottom line. The company is then an x amount of (enter your currency here) poorer, while the creative’s bank balance realizes an increment of the very same amount of money — basic rule of economics.

In the context of branding, marketing and advertising, businesses are the main sponsors of creatives’ talent, be it as a team (agency) or on a personal capacity.

Entrepreneurs spot needs that are common amongst a large number of people (consumers) and then they work on means to fulfill those needs or as some may call it to fill in ‘the gap.’ That’s how businesses most business were born. And the bottom line is that businesses exist to make profit, by offering a product that’s in need or demand.

Some products are ‘needs’ while others are ‘wants’ painted as needs.

In 1964, a group of creatives gathered together and First thing First 2000 manifesto came to being. Creatives were demanding a more meaningful and socially useful usage of their expertise and imagination, instead of what they’re be hired to sell: cat food, toothpaste, cigarettes, aftershave, sliming diets etc. I totally agree with the concerns, I mean people with very little or no education have changed the world and here we have schooled people used only to sell a can of air freshener.

I’ve also came around writings by fellow colleagues questioning the moral obligations that creatives are (or should) be dealing with.

I’m writings this as both a creative and a so-called consumer, so I’ll try to be as neutral as possible.

Some people view businesses as huge evil monsters and, like with other things, there are those with conversing opinions.

The art of persuasion predominately use psychology and it is the biggest tool used in luring people in to buying things, mostly things they don’t really need, esp. in advertising. With just a few seconds of air play, an ad can leave you feeling like a failure, unattractive, a not-so-cool piece of flesh and a nightmare to the opposite sex.

Think of this type of advertising as peer pressure from ‘peers’ who like you for the depth of your pocket, not who you are.

Now this is where the questioning of morality should come into place.

Is it morally wrong to exploit human desires? The answer to that will depend on your beliefs. And since the subject matter is subjective, do we continue forcing our take down the other person’s throat or do we excuse the morally right or wrong debate and argue based on the law of the land, if we are to conclude the argument fairly?

Is it illegal for advertisers to exploit people’s insecurities and desires?

And let’s be fair enough to acknowledge that even campaigns with a good social cause make use of psychology.

How many times have you donated money simply because someone ensured that you’d feel inhuman should you have not?

As creatives we feel that our expertise should be utilized to create cultural and social projects like: street (and buildings) signs, books, catalogues, instructional manuals, educations aids, films and television features and the likes.

I applaud the creatives behind the First Thing First Manifesto for being wo/men enough to stand up against the hands that feeds them.

But let’s be objective for a second, apart from the street signs, all other projects that the manifesto demand creatives’ expertise to be used on are in one way or another selling something.

Books are not free: someone has to pay for the writers, printers and distributers. Someone will have to sell those books. Catalogues: showcasing what? Instructional manuals: whatever that the manual is intended to help the user operate is unlikely to be free.

You can argue that the instructional manuals are for educational purposes and that the education is free, but even if education was free… education equips people with skills so they can go work for profit seeking corporations — ultimately something needs to be sold to someone.

The human race faces natural disasters, crime, rape, women and child abuse, global warming etc.

Such challenges could be what we as creatives focus our energy on as suggested by the manifesto. As ‘human’ as it sounds, reality is that a living needs to be made.

Again, for one to earn, something must be sold. Skills are designed to enable one to partake in the jungle of economics.

Graphic design is also a commercial art. And in that context, it’s perpetuation is dependent on clients who has something to sell.

The challenge is that the answering to a brief is how most creatives make a living. Emphasis being on answering, and not choosing which briefs to answer to.

Are all businesses that sell to consumers evil? And isn’t the selling that qualifies an organization as a business? If so, are we as creatives also evil because in someway those businesses are our consumers? Are we less evil because our products are intangible, because we’re less manipulative in attracting our clients to hire us or is it because after work we go home and help those we’re hired to lure consume the advertising?

What is immoral? and whose definition do we judge against? The seller or those sold to?

Is the exploitation of human needs and desires an art to be celebrated or something to be ashamed of?

Is “making a living” and “financial security” dangled to creatives so they unconsciously play puppet to the so-called evil corporations?

Is the “business world” bigger than creatives? And how feasible is the “anti-selling silly things like cat food” ideology?

This reminds me of a line in some movie where a bank robber asked a bank teller “do you want to be a dead hero or live coward?”

Related Writings:

A Guide to the Business of Creativity [free eBook download]

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:41:19 +0000

As I promised, I’d love to share a book that covers the issues that I discussed in the prior post. I strongly believe that this book will be an invaluable read not just to graphic designers but anybody in the creative industry.

The book is authored by David Parrish and it’s titled T-shirts and Suits, A guide to the business of creativity. I must admit the name sounds a bit ridiculous at first but there’s a logical reason behind the title — T-shirts being a symbolism of creativity while suits symbolizes the business side (of creativity).

The author covers issues like creating financial security, intellectual property, management and leadership, marketing to name a few that are crucial to creating and sustaining a profiable creative business.

I think this is a must read for all creatives, my favourite section being, the part that we as creatives seem to overlook — creating financial security through protection and usage of intellectual property. This is a stream of income that will still flow even when you’re asleep, as it is not dependent on continuous labour.

Download Free eBook [1.9mb, pdf] or Buy a hardcopy of the book.

Further more, David Parrish runs a blog that contains new information, ideas and examples for creative people who want to make their businesses and organisations even more successful.

Please do me one favour, share this with any creatives that you know — knowledge grows when it is shared.

The more knowledgeable creatives are, the better for the creative industry and clients that we serve, so do share.

Related Writings:

Is a sale too complex to measure ROI on design, accurately?

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:30:17 +0000

If most prospect design clients share the same sentiment, with Tom De Marco, that “you can’t control what you can’t measure,” then it’s inevitable that most will believe that investing in professional design is not that much of a necessity.

One of the hardest (and in most cases, impossible) thing to measure, accurately, is the Return On Invest made on design — be it graphic design, website design, user experience, User Interface, Product design, et cetera.

This makes it very difficult for designers to sell design to prospects. It’s much easier to sell something if you can show or provide tangible proof or results.

To overcome this challenge, companies that sell lose-weight-without-a-sweat products rely on Before-and-After pictures to build credibility and ultimately motivate consumers to make a sale.

I’ve never been a woman, duh!, but I heard that the way a guy presents himself counts, big time. The “presentation” is mostly made up by the way the guy is dressed and groomed. Let’s create a scene.

We have some guy walking in a mall. And, Bang.

He sees a good looking chick, a potential daughter-in-law to his mom.

He makes a move. She ends up telling him her name.

From that scenario, it’s unlikely that the guy will know what exactly made the woman give him her attention and a chance for him to promise her heaven-and-earth.

Fast Forward. The guy and the woman are now dating.

Do we credit the way the guy was dressed?, the guy’s looks or the “your father must be a terrorist, ‘cos you’re the bomb!” lame pickup line that he used?

Can it also be possible that the emotional state that the guy found the woman in, made a contribution? maybe she was just tired of being lonely?

If the guy is interested in having as many women as he can get, and say he knew that he won all of his ten girlfriends’ hearts ‘cos of the way he dresses — isn’t it obvious that he’ll invest more time and money into his attire instead of wasting time brainstorming and memorizing cheap pickup lines, as for him they bear no fruits.

This is a very simple, some may even find it silly, analogy but I believe it’s effective in supporting the points I am trying to raise with this post.

Let’s get back to business. (business, ROI and design, that is.)

This is how difficult it is, for a seller to know exactly what made the biggest impact in getting a sale.

When a consumer buys a tooth paste from, say, Colgate, can we really measure what pushed the consumer to choose their product? Could it have been the TV ads that they’ve been constantly fed? Or was it Colgate’s slick new packaging?

Maybe that the consumer grew up in a household that used Colgate’s toothpaste religiously? Or was it that Pick n Pay had an irresistible discount on the product that day? Or maybe, just maybe, Colgate was the only brand in stock at the time the consumer made their shopping?

Or better still, Colgate was wise enough to pay a premium for their product to be shelved on the “eye level” shelves, which is regarded as the most selling shelve space? Or the product, toothpaste, is just a great product on its own?

A sale process is simple, a consumer just select a product and then pay for it, right? Yes and No.

Yes that’s a simple procedure. And No, as the selecting a product part is complicated — that’s where design (plus branding, marketing, sales etc.) plays a huge role.

After a consumer acknowledges their need for a product, they have to make a choice from hundreds (and sometimes, thousands) of brands offering the same product. Let’s make it more intense. Brands competing for the same wallets.

This is a stage where companies rely on branding, sales, marketing, design, etc to make the actual product appealing to consumers.

It usually takes more that one discipline to sell a product or service.

I guess that’s what makes it even harder to measure returns from an investment made on design.

When great packaging attracts a consumer’s attention plus instill trust, and then, the consumer ends up buying the product.

What gets the pat on the back, design or the store manager for offering a 25% off discount.

Design does not exist in isolation. And usually when it contributes, usually the most, to a consumer making a sale, disciplines such as advertising, sales and marketing are usually praised.

Seth Godin, a marketing expert, mentioned “Marketers take a lot of credit, because marketing is near the end of the game.”

If it’s this hard (or impossible) to tell which discipline pushed a consumer to make a sale, how possible is measuring ROI — made on design?

Related Writings:

How Avis made the best of — not being the best

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:46:35 +0000

We all want to be known as the first, best, or biggest — don’t we? If someone has already been labeled that before us, what do we do? We work hard, in trying to overtake them.

Well not Avis. Instead, Avis searched for a silver lining in the cloud they found themselves in.

Avis admitted that Hertz was the first car rental company in the world, and consumers were aware of that too. This positioned Hertz as a market leader in the minds of those that matters the most, consumers.

Your typical competitor would have not hesitated but spend all their marketing efforts on trying to overtake Hertz to take their number one spot in the minds of consumers.

Avis instead decided to look for a reason to appear better than Hertz without looking ‘bigger’ than them. Avis decided to publicly acknowledge Hertz as number one and proclaim that their company was second. This was not an easy task as publicly referring to themselves as No.2 could lead to consumers thinking their service is second-best.

Avis then explored opportunities and competitive advantages of being second best, which led to their famous slogan: “we try harder.”

Their slogan is effective because it’s simple, meaningful, memorable.

Avis promised to please even more than the leader, Hertz. And people responded positively to Avis’s sincere desire to please.

Take a look at the execution of Avis’s brand positioning strategy below:

Their initial ad campaign had what most called the most famous last line in advertising history:

“The line at our counters is shorter.”

I really enjoyed reading about Avis and how it positioned themselves — and It would have been ‘greedy’ of me not to share this with you, especially those who weren’t familiar with Avis’ brand positioning strategy.

The power is in their simplicity, I doubt there’s any “comeback” that Hertz can do that will stick in the minds of consumers like Avis’s brand positioning.

This is brilliant!

Related Writings:

Modern psychology slowly dictates how and what creatives sell

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:57:44 +0000

As advertisers, marketers and graphic designers, to name a few, we are all in the same business. The business of selling.

We are employed to communicate our clients’ brand message/promise, which is usually their sales pitch for their product. Research has enabled us to recognize the product’s targeted market’s behavioral patters. This sort of pushes us to think of design from the consumers’ point of view.

When selling a product, we are now forced to focus on what the consumers want or want to hear instead of selling the ‘real’ benefits of a product.

Usage of modern psychology is advertising, marketing and graphic design has contributed much to understanding of people’s motivations to buying, which is mostly unconscious.

This has in a way has made the ‘traditional’ focus on a product sold, seem less effective.

Obviously, this affects the tone and imagery used in the selling materials we as ‘sellers’ create. Companies has shifted their focus and brand promise to try exploit common human desires to be: beautiful, successful and socially acceptable.

Brands that makes soap has shifted from selling what their product achieve, cleanliness. They instead focus on selling beauty.

Deodorant companies no longer promise consumers good hygiene, they now sell popularity, especially by the opposite sex.

Now when a creative gets employed to sell a male deodorant, the visual focus is no longer solely on the deodarant but some guy with few females behind him, drooling.

Related Writings:

Price is the communication of the value of your brand

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:03:40 +0000

Your brand possesses an assortment of attributes and meanings. Your brand connects with your consumers in both rational and emotional ways. Your brand also provides financial value for the company. Your brand is the source of your company’s profits. Your brand’s attributes, meanings and rational and emotional connections are sold, via the marketplace, to your customer.

When a family goes to Disney World, they are buying the park, the exhibits, the rides, the food and the employees who ensure everything is running smoothly. They are buying entertainment. They are buying memories. They are buying an icon of childhood. They are buying being a good parent. All of this represents value to the customer – value worth paying for. Disney creates this total experience in part because it reflects who it is as a business, and in part because this experience is desired by a segment of the market. Disney is investing in a brand experience that people find desirable. The price of Disney adventure should be commensurate with the value it has created.

Price is the cost of the bundle of attributes and meanings called “your brand”. The price you charge reflects the value of your brand – whether you intend it to. The greater the perceived value, the greater the price your brand commands.

The more you have distinguished yourself from competitors, the less vulnerable your brand is to their pricing strategies.

When you price low to gain market share, you say to potential customers, “My brand is not worth much.”

When you discount your service to meet short-term sales goals, you declare, “My brand is usually priced too high.”

When you regularly offer coupons on your product to attract price-sensitive consumers, you fail to appreciate the value the brand represents for loyal customer base.

Price represents more than just money from a sale. Price is more than just cost plus 25% markup. Price represents the value of your brand’s attributes, associations and meaning.

Often, companies feel competitive pressure to reduce the price of their brand (either directly by lowering selling price or indirectly by raising discounts). A mistaken emphasis on market share sales volume (rather than profits) drives this pressure. A desire to expand the appeal of the brand also leads management to reduce the price of the brand. But these actions communicate directly the value of the brand - and will have long-term consequences.

Izod Lacoste drove itself to the brink of extinction through price reductions. Created as moderately upmarket brand of clothing, General Mills bought the brand in the ’80s. Intent on capitalising on the positive image of the brand and maximizing sales, General Mills lowered the quality of the clothes, expanded distribution and reduced price.

In short run, this worked as the brand became more accessible to a larger market and sales increased.

However, this move planted the seed of the brand’s demise. Izod’s reduced exclusivity and lower quality made the brand less appealing to its traditional constituency. And, as the brand held less value to its more affluent market, it because less appealing to the masses – whose original attraction to the brand was a status symbol. The lower the price, the less valuable the brand.

Reducing the price of your brand seems appealing in the short run – having potential for increased sales, and being more appealing to a larger market. But caution is in order. In the long run, as your price erodes, your brands erodes.

What is your brand known for? What key associations, emotional or rational, have you developed around your brand? Developing satisfying answers to those two questions is the essence of strong brand management. In developing your brand meaning and attributes, focus on those things that your target consumers values so much that they are willing to pay for them.

Starbucks has created a brand experience in the US that commands four dollars for a cup of speciality mocha.

One goal of marketing is to give consumers a reason (or reasons) other than price to choose your brand.

Your brand’s meaning is one of these reasons. Callaway‘s innovative over-sized drivers give some golfers a reason to prefer its brand (and pay a significant price premium).

Pricing decisions are not simple. There are a number of factors to be considered. Are your competitors moving up or down with prices? What is projected for your labour and material costs? Do you have a sense of price elasticity? (are consumers relatively sensitive or insensitive to price?) for your brand? Are there industry watchdogs influencing price? Are achieving your profit objective?

One important factor is the signal your price communicates regarding the value your brand provides.

The better your brand connects with your customers, the more indispensable your brand becomes as part of their life. The more emotionally connected your customers become to your brand the better your brand meets the needs your customers have, the more pricing flexibly you will have.

~•~

This chapter is part of Truth about brands review thus copyrighted to its authors.

Related Writings:

iBurst, an internet service provider fails to make use of the internet!

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:26:23 +0000

I think iBurst is taking a typical ‘government mentality’ approach towards building their brand, a mentality where the public or rather customers in their case are attempted to be pleased with numbers instead of quality.

As an iBurst customer, there are only two types of emails I get from them; invoices and newsletters telling me how much they’re growing, stating the number of new areas that they now cover. The number of new base stations adds no real value to most existing clients, a better customer service would be a great start!

There are a lot of iBurst clients who are unhappy with their service and more importantly their support system. On average an unhappy client will contact their service provider for support first and if their complaint is not solved or attended to that’s when a client’s frustration gives birth to ‘bad mouthing’, an action that could paralyze a brand.

Social media created opportunities that enable companies to know their customers’ needs, expectations and frustrations better.

iBurst seems to have ignored this phenomenon!

Let’s take Twitter for example; my guess is that the number of iBurst subscribers who uses twitter aren’t more than those who don’t. But I believe those on twitter might consume more bandwidth as there’s usually a lot of ‘links sharing’ that accompanies most twitters’ status updates. Which would make them one of iBurst’s top consumers (pun intended).

Now let me do some work for iBurst! I searched ‘iburst’ on twitter status updates and this is the type of consumer remarks you’ll find:

A friend made the following status update through twitter, which automatically updated his Facebook status via TwitterSync (bad mouthing reaches more audience):

Word of mouth is two-fold; a consumer can either refer their friends to a brand or warn them to stay far away from a brand as possible. Which of the two sides a brand falls under depended purely on the customer’s level of satisfaction with a brand’s product or service!

Consumers tend to trust their friends’ referral to a brand more than company’s brand promise:

iBurst is losing a lot of existing and potential customers to their competition:

What iBurst doesn’t realize is that while their marketing efforts might them bring more clients, their lack of support is chasing existing clients away. And apart from the cost of acquiring new clients being more expensive than keeping existing ones, their brand’s image is suffering from what will be hard and maybe impossible to erase from consumers’ minds, a place where a brand resides!

Unfortunately for iBurst, its competitors are ‘social media’ literate. Below is a good example of a competitor utilizing social media:

The opportunity:

The reaction:

The capture:

And the result:

Not only did iBurst lose a customer in the above case, their competitor also got free publicity plus referrals.

How does an internet provider fail to utilize the internet?

I have never heard of a chef die of starvation!

Related Writings:

Quality is not an effective branding message

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:41:59 +0000

Quality is a great statement to make about your brand. It is even better when your costumers make that statement about your brand for you. Yet, having a quality product or service is not the end of branding efforts, but only the beginning. Quality just gets you in the game and brings your brand into consideration. Brands that are not delivering a quality product or service consistent with their price will disappear (think of the Yugo!).

Attention to quality is fine. Marketing managers get into trouble, though, when they believe that quality is the basis on which their brand competes in the marketplace. Brand managers too focused on a quality message send their brand adrift without much meaning.

“Our brand is the quality leader,” they might say. Or “our customers buy our product because of its quality”, you may sometimes hear.

All of this may be true. But what business openly proclaims to have a shoddy product or mediocre services? Sure, Boeing builds quality planes… but then so does Airbus. Anheuser-Busch is definitely an excellent brewery… but so is SABMilller. This abstract notion of quality doesn’t go far in differentiating brands. It can be difficult for brand managers to see clearly that their competitors’ offerings are often of quality similar to their own.

If you and your competitor both offer a quality product (as likely the case), why should someone choose your brand rather than your competitor’s? What meaningful point of difference do you offer? What emotional connection have you made? What unique imagery have you built around your brand?

Heinz is not the only company to make quality ketchup. Heinz, however, has created a point of difference with “thick”.

Quality means a different things to different people. For some, a quality watch may mean “rugged”; for others, it may mean “accurate”; and for still others , it may mean “high status”.

Quality is an abstract concept referring to many different dimensions of a brand’s performance.

An effective positioning is tangible, clear and concrete. Concepts such as “fast”, “reliable”, “fun”, “youthful” and “safe” vividly portray the benefit delivered by a brand.

Quality is expected in a brand. Although the level of quality expectations varies by price (you expect a £400 DVD player to be of a higher quality than a £100 DVD player), consumers fundamentally expect a quality product. Most companies are operating consistently with basic consumer expectations around quality. (if not, they aren’t in business for long!)

Quality doesn’t differentiate brands.

The Nissan Navara, Mini Cooper, Honda Civic and Lexus LS460 are all “quality” cars. But simply noting they are all quality cars does nothing to reflect the different experiences each provides. The Honda Civic delivers on basic reliable transportation. The Mini Cooper represents a fun small car. The Lexus LS range promises a “high performance saloon”. Each of these brands has its distinctiveness and is aimed at different people. “Quality” does nothing to reflect the differences and distinguish these brands from each other.

Why be so vigilant about avoiding quality as a branding message? Because it is so easy to fall back on. Positioning your brand’s key message is a critical branding decision. Choosing an effective positioning requires making a tough choice from among several good alternatives. Should a bank position on low rates? Should a bank position on individualized personal service? What about accessible ATMs? Or perhaps simplified e-banking?

Each on of those positioning alternatives will have its detractors. It is bad to compete on price.

Personalized service will be too expensive to deliver and isn’t key decision criterion for 55% of bank customers.

Accessible ATMs as a position seems so 1990s. Positioning on e-banking doesn’t create the right emotional bond with customers… and on and on. Inevitably someone will suggest positioning the bank on quality. How can anyone object that? It sounds great and fits perfectly with the bank’s mission and vision statements. But what does it really mean?

Quality in manufacturing is important. Quality in customer service is important. Having customers view your brand as providing good quality for money is important. Quality is a way to be. It is not a branding message.

Your branding message should communicate your brand’s uniqueness.

People need some reason to nudge their choice towards your brand. Quality is necessary for your brand to be considered, but it is not sufficient to warrant a purchase.

~•~

This chapter is part of Truth about brands review thus copyrighted to its authors.

Related Writings:

Book review: The truth about brands

Mokokoma Mokhonoana — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:40:57 +0000

I would like to share The truth about brands one of the books that kept me busy during my festive holidays, which is by far one of my best buys. The book is made of 51 “truths” each chapter incorporates a technique and a real brand case study backing the “truth”.

The chapters are kept short and straight to the point, which makes the book quite an “easy” read. The book is A5 sized with an average of two pages per chapter (which is equivalent to one A4 page covering the entire chapter).

The authors covered a lot of myths on branding that most marketing managers often practice. Reading this book will also help you in avoiding common branding mistakes that could easily have a permanent damage to your brand or those of your clients. You’ll learn how to use all the key elements, including packaging, advertising and pricing, to ensure your brand survives and thrives.

Since it takes a broad range of expertise to build and maintain a brand; marketing, graphic design, art direction, advertising etc. I’m confident that this book will appeal to a wide range of professionals.

I’m so impressed by the book that I decided to take a different approach as to how I review it. Instead of me telling you a lot about the book I think that the best way for you to have an idea of how great this book is, is for me to allow you to read few extracts from it.

As a result I’ll post one full “truth” every Thursday for the next 6 weeks starting from today.

The other 45 truths will only be available to those of you who will buy the book.

The chapters will be published in the following sequence:

Quality is not an effective branding message

Price is the communication of the value of your brand

Beware of the discounting minefield

The retail experience is the brand experience

Is your brand different? If not, why will someone buy it?

Packaging protects your product; Great packaging protects your brand

All chapters are obviously copyrighted to the authors; Brian Till and Donna Heckler. I’m only publishing the few chapters to share, educate and offer you a “test drive” and hopefully you’ll consider investing in this book.

Related Writings: