Branding. It’s not just for cows. While I have not consulted
a single scholarly article (or Wikipedia for that matter), I feel fairly certain
that the term branding likely came from the concept of burning a mark into a
cow for proprietary reasons. Because the initial idea was that if your cow had
your name, and your neighbor Dave’s cow had his, you’d be able to tell them
apart. And, when you went to sell them for meat, milk or any other (legitimate or
illegitimate) use, buyers would know whose cows they prefer, based on the name
marked into them.
But say you found an unmarked cow out to pasture. You know all
your cows are accounted for, but you know Dave’s are not; so, this must be his
cow. Putting morality aside, you choose to brand Dave’s cow with your name,
because if you sell more cows you make more money. But, when you sell Dave’s
cow, your buyer comes back disappointed, because let’s face it, Dave has lesser
quality cows. What does that say about your brand? Do you think your buyer may
be a little more hesitant in the future, because now he questions your quality?
So when you think about it, the idea of branding a cow is
perfect example of what a brand really is: a word or visual representation of
what something means. A brand is not a logo. It’s not a name. It’s the
attributes those elements conjure when you see or think of them.
Big deal, right? Well yes, actually. Because many companies
assume they can just change their name and “rebrand” but it doesn’t work that
way. If Walmart changed its name tomorrow, but did nothing to promote the
meaning/feeling/value of the name – it’s not likely that they’d begin
attracting customers who usually shop at Neiman Marcus. If Walmart wanted to
attract a different clientele, it needs to go beyond its name and change its
image. So, while a name can be a hindrance, changing a name alone will not
solve the larger issue of brand, or brand image.
Just some branding food for thought, although maybe we will
skip them hamburgers this time around.
