Search CompleteMarkets

... Scott Bebury, "Branding is overrated. On average, U.S. corporations lose half of their customers every five years, half of their employees every four years, and half of their investors every year. This doesn't sound like a lot of loyalty to me." Although this might be true, it has nothing to do with branding. Even a great brand can fail if market conditions change suddenly. A poorly identified or poorly executed brand concept will cause consumers to defect. Defection doesn't mean that branding itself is bad. By blaming branding, we're throwing out the baby with the bath water. MYTH #3 : BRANDING CHANGES CONSUMER BEHAVIOR Most people believe that the brand itself drives consumer behavior. In fact, the opposite holds true: Knowledge of consumer behavior drives branding decisions. E-bay's auction concept stemmed from their realization that consumers love the excitement of auctions and wanted to buy used merchandise at a reasonable price in an easy-to-use format. MYTH #4 : FOCUSING ON PRICE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH BRANDING There's a belief that a price-focused company ignores branding. This is nonsense. The meaning of many brands is built on such associations as "economical" or "low price" (think Sauve or Priceline.com) . MYTH #5 : THE FAILURE OF A BRAND MEANS THAT BRANDING DOESN'T WORK Sari Kalin writes that Pets.com's sock puppet, accompanied by millions of dollars in advertising, weren't enough to ensure its fortune. He asks whether the demise of Pets.com means the demise of branding. Hardly. Brands fail for a variety of reasons. Perhaps a brand's advertising is inadequate, confusing, inconsistent, ...

... beginning of 1984, the principals entered into an agreement with our firm, ARI Services, Ltd., under which we now manage the agency and share in its ownership. The bank holding company principals retain ownership of the business that was on the books at the time the agreement went into effect. All new business is owned jointly by them and our firm. In this article, I'll explain how we sell insurance through this arrangement and share the proceeds from this business with our partners. Although this relationship is still in its infancy, I think it's safe to say that it has tremendous potential for our firm; and I have yet to see any serious drawbacks. ARI Services, Ltd., came into existence in 1981 in a merger of four firms. It has divisions dealing with auctioneering services, real estate, and insurance. We have premium volume of about $1.75 million. I am one of five owners of ARI Services and am in charge of its insurance operations. The bank agency that ARI Services now manages was operated for years as a profit center by the principals of a local bank holding company. The owners realized they lacked the time and expertise to develop the agency as fully as possible. They believed the agency had potential, however, and wanted to maintain an incidence of ownership in it. That left them with two options: Hire professional people to operate the agency or contract with a management service, which is essentially what they did by entering into an agreement with ARI Services. We were on good terms with the bank and its owners even before ...