Kranz On Copy: Insights and answers on copywriting and writing copy

You can't.

You can create images, write messages, craft missions, and position yourself out the whazoo, but you cannot build a brand.

Only customers can build a brand. A brand is a perception, and the only perception that counts is the one in the mind of the customer -- not in the marketer's fevered imagination.

In a reply to my previous post on Marines and branding, Mark Merenda reasoned that there's little significant difference between a Marine and a soldier (though I know plenty of military men who'd argue otherwise), so the perceived difference must be attributable to better branding.

I don't deny that the Marines have a great brand. But what interests me is the "how they got there" -- how the brand got built. Was it through smart brand thinking -- or something else?

Consider the Marines. They didn't institute a boot camp four times as long as the Army's to build brand. They didn't establish their "first line of attack" combat ethos to build brand. They didn't assume many of the military's most dangerous tactical challenges to build brand.

They did (and do) these things because that's their purpose, their character. The Marine "brand" we esteem now emerged, over time, as a consequence of their actions. Actions that were determined, in turn, by the quality of their character.

Consider, too, the brands that are frequently hailed as great American icons: Coca Cola, Harley Davidson, McDonalds. They didn't start out by hanging shingles that said, "We're an American ideal. Consume us, consume our heritage." They attained their iconic status over time, after being consistently true to their purposes generation after generation.

True, much of their success can be attributed to quality and persistence. Some can be linked to shrewd business practices. But in the final analysis, a good chunk of their success is beyond the reach of planning and rests in the hands of providence, of sheer good fortune: Their brands "stuck" where others sank into obscurity.

A brand is to a business what reputation is to character. With every action we take, and with every word that passes our lips, we're responsible for our character -- it is what we make it to be. Reputation dwells in the perceptions of others. Certainly character and reputation move in relation to one another, but it's a complex dance and reputation is a capricious dance partner.

That's why most branding efforts are entirely misguided; they attempt to control what they cannot -- reputation -- while failing to address the substance of what they can control -- their products, services and business practices. Too often, branding wizards fail to dazzle consumers while blinding businesses with their own spells.

In recent years, the brands that have succeeded most are the ones that delivered best. eBay is a hit, not becuase of any ad, logo or tag, but because it superbly executes a brilliant idea -- an international yardsale, an economic republic of everyman. Starbucks took off because it offers a premium coffee to an audience willing to pay more for it (and has a roll-out strategy that brings the two together). Microsoft? Gates made the right moves where others, including seasoned pros like IBM and brilliant contemporaries like Apple, were tangle-footed, committing themselves to computers instead of operating systems.

In the end, I don't deny that great brands exist. I just question the plausiblity of "great branding."

Build a great business. Then maybe, just maybe, a great brand will come.