Real-World Education for Modern Marketers

Join Over 600,000 Marketing Professionals

Start here!
Text:  A A

The Two Laws of Branding From the Inside Out

by   |    |  6,281 views

If you've read any books or articles by branding gurus, they've likely suggested that businesses need to identify what it is that differentiates their brand—what makes it unique and valuable to current and prospective customers. That is an important first step in the branding process.

The problem, however, is that the majority of businesses struggle with the task; they aren't able to easily identify what makes their brands valuable. They end up with generic, vague statements about "superior customer service" and "high-quality products."

Those businesses, branding experts suggest, have a branding problem. And the solution they typically recommend is to go back to the drawing board and take another stab at identifying the brand's differentiating quality.

That's where the conventional wisdom is wrong. If you struggle to find answers to "the question," and if, in fact, several unique brand attributes aren't all bubbling to the surface vying to be the No. 1 attribute, then you don't have a branding problem, you have a business problem.

It's your business—not the brand—that isn't offering anything of unique value, which leads me to the most important "law" of what I term "organic branding."

1. A great brand must start with a great company that offers great products and services

Yes, I said it. A company's products and services and the way the company delivers those services are more important than the brand and how  that brand is marketed.

Urging companies that aren't "great" to develop a compelling brand reminds me of the old saying about putting lipstick on a pig. Such companies are commodities, and trying to brand a commodity is an uphill battle. Those businesses first have to fix what it is that they're offering the consumer.

The branding process, in other words, must start from the inside out.

To suggest, as I have, that the product is more important than the brand is blasphemy in branding circles. Branding experts insist that customers must have an emotional connection to a brand if that brand is to be successful—e.g., that emotional connection is what drives them to pay $4 for a Starbucks coffee.

That logic is mistaken. People pay $4 for a Starbucks coffee not because they've made an emotional connection to the brand but because they've made an emotional connection to the product. Starbucks customers love Starbucks coffee. They may love the brand now, but they fell in love with the product first.

Branding experts are confusing the brand and the product, which brings up the second law of  organic branding.

2. Customers must have a connection to a company, its products, or its services before they can make a connection to the brand

Before there was a great brand there was a great company that provided great products or services. The branding came later.

Look at just some of the great brands: Apple, Google, Disney, Honda, Wal-Mart, Starbucks. There's a reason why people love those brands, and it has little to do with branding.

Google is the most popular search engine despite almost no efforts by the company to build its brand. The extent of Google's overt branding efforts is the logo on its home page. Google didn't worry about branding; it worried about creating a product that was superior to its competitors' and provided a greater benefit to its customers.

Google put its energy into refining its algorithms to produce the most-relevant search results. Google users fell in love with Google because it helped them find the information they were looking for better than other search engines did. In short, Google users fell in love with Google's product before they fell for the brand.

In the same way, people fell in love with Starbucks' tasty lattes, Honda's dependable cars, Apple's simplicity (its design and ease of use), and Wal-Mart's low prices.

There are exceptions to the rules, of course. Some companies that sell commodities and put huge sums of money into building brands around those commodities are successful. If you've got the marketing budget of a Nike, you can take that approach; otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it.

Further support for the "product first, brand second" argument is that brand loyalty can be so fleeting. The automobile industry is an example: Its brand loyalty is at an all-time low. that's because more companies than ever before are making high-quality cars, and buyers are flocking to quality, not brands.

Hyundai's recent success demonstrates the tendency for customers to flock to quality over brands. In less than a decade, Hyundai went from having no status to Top 10 status. And it had nothing to do with branding. It's because Hyundai used to make lousy cars that fell apart, and now it makes cars that win awards for quality at prices lower than its competitors'.

Branding—and Differentiation—Do Matter

I'm not saying that branding isn't a critical part of the marketing process—it is. A strong brand, one that is easily recognizable and communicates the differentiating value of a company, product, or service is invaluable. It puts a face on the company and enhances the consumer's ability to recognize and connect to that company.

That identity lays the foundation for all of a company's marketing efforts. The argument isn't to not brand; rather, it's to realize the limitations of a brand on its own and the importance of the true value the company offers.

So if your business has trouble answering "What differentiates your brand?" look first at what differentiates your business, products, and services. Look at all the ways that you could possibly provide your customers with greater value compared with your competitors.

Here are just a few ways to differentiate your business:

  • Provide faster production and delivery service, higher-quality materials,  and 24/7 customer service
  • Make house calls
  • Offer lifetime warranties, money-back guarantees, and better manuals and operating instructions
  • Provide features that your competitors don't
  • Offer lower prices
  • Deliver your product to customers' front doors
  • Package your product in a unique way
  • Follow up with your customers via phone or email
  • Provide empirical evidence demonstrating your superiority
  • Offer a free service in addition to your core service

Those are just a few ideas. Develop your own list, and identify the areas that provide the greatest value to your customers while being the most feasible for your company to deliver on.

You can't ignore differentiation. Until your business, products, and services clearly demonstrate unique value to your customers, your branding efforts will have to wait. Otherwise, you'll simply be putting lipstick on a pig.

Join over 600,000 marketing professionals, and gain access to thousands of marketing resources! Don't worry ... it's FREE!


We will never sell or rent your email address to anyone. We value your privacy. (We hate spam as much as you do.) See our privacy policy.

Sign in with one of your preferred accounts below:

Arie Opps is president of Illuminate Marketing (, a Toronto-based marketing firm specializing in marketing research, branding, and marketing strategy. Reach him via or 416-512-0986.

Rate this  

Overall rating

  • This has a 4 star rating
  • This has a 4 star rating
  • This has a 4 star rating
  • This has a 4 star rating
  • This has a 4 star rating
7 rating(s)

Add a Comment


  • by Derek Lunde Tue Mar 16, 2010 via web

    Great article, and good reminder about the priorities for goods producers. I was hoping to see a correlation to the services industry. In the professional services sector everything we are selling is informing and shaping our brand.

    It may mean that on the services side of things, companies need to focus first on their process for service delivery.

    However, our people, portfolio, and end "products" are all a result of relationships and trust that we have to first build with our clients. So, while I agree that products must come first before going straight to brand development, we should consider that in the services world - sometimes all we have to sell is our brand.

  • by Debbie Meltzer Tue Mar 16, 2010 via web

    Agree with some points but would like to point out some corrections:
    1. Google invest heavily, timewise and budget on branding, from advertising at the Superbowl to sponsorships and lets not forget new merchandise, internal branding and more...
    2. Hyundai did produce great cars years ago. In fact the first batch of Hyundai Accents, delivered over 15 years ago, quality wise are great cars.
    Actually Hyundai represents the antithesis to your claim: It just shows how a good quality product did not receive its "deserved" recognition due to lower profile branding.
    Talking about organic branding - suggest going back to the UVP - get that right and you have set the corner stone for brand development.

  • by Warren Schirtzinger Tue Mar 16, 2010 via web

    isn't it amazing how little real change there is in the field of marketing!

    E. Jerome McCarthy created the 4 P's of marketing based on material developed in the 1940s. It's basically the foundation of the ideas presented in this article. The first "P" is product...and you can't really do much with the last "P" (promotion) until all other areas of the marketing mix are established.

    The same concept (product comes first) was used by Regis McKenna through the 1970s and 80s in Silicon Valley. Regis always said, if you have a great product, you don't need branding/PR.


  • by Ellie Tue Mar 16, 2010 via web

    I really want to believe that this is true. I want to think that having the best product and best service matters but I am not totally sure it does. In many ways branding is what saves commodities from being viewed as a commodity.

    Thinking back to when google first showed up in 2000 or so, on a mass scale, I seem to recall being told it's "the best" when really there were lots of little search engines that my computer geek friends knew about that were just as good or better. But momentum grew for google, I mean it's "the best" right?

    I think Google certainly provides value and works very hard to keep coming up with products but I also think they pushed the promotion angle hard as well.

    I'm on the fence here. Though in my core I would like to think the good products prevail, there's all kinds of piggy products with lipstick on on them that do great.

  • by Coreen Tossona Tue Mar 16, 2010 via web

    Arie, I think you said it all here. I just wrote a blog post on taglines--which are the short version of how companies differentiate themselves--and I was thinking about how many companies have trouble articulating what they do best. And also, like you said, you can't have a great brand without offering great products, service, etc.

    Loved your post. A lot of great detail in it. I hope many people read it--because they need to!

    I do like Debbie's comment above too about how Hyundai had a quality product, but until recently, suffered from a low-profile branding. That sounds like a terrific topic for another blog post.

  • by Ali Faiz Wed Mar 17, 2010 via web

    Arie, Thank you and congradulation for writing an excellent article. It shows the reality behind exaggeration of branding concept and customer values...delightful reading!

  • by Arie Opps Thu Mar 18, 2010 via web

    Debbie, I'm not sure I agree with you.

    While Google may have started advertising over the past year or so (maybe longer?), they became a known entity and valued brand long before they conducted any branding efforts. Their product was better, word spread, and their brand grew organically.

    Regarding Hyundai, it's very well recognized that Hyundai's first generation of cars in North America were complete lemons - they rusted, were unreliable and didn't perform well. The company acknowledged this themselves when they changed management in the late 90s.
    Since then their products have improved immensely as has their brand equity.
    Is their brand equity now lagging the product's quality? Yes, I agree with you there, but that's what happens when your product is that bad for that long; the brand gets damaged and it takes time for that memory to be replaced.

    Ellie, you're right. There are pigs with lipstick out there that are succeeding. I just don't recommend that approach. It requires deep pockets and constantly facing an uphill battle. Better to start with a good product first and let the branding flow from there.

    Thanks for the comments!

  • by Adrian Jobson Mon Apr 5, 2010 via web

    "Thank God" - someone with some common sense and the courage to tell a simple truth. Good brands need good commodities or services. The notion that brands are somehow cerebrally separate is fanciful at best.

    I like your artlcle for its simplicity and honesty. Far too many in our industry are either unwilling or unable to bring themselves to state "what the "Emporer" needs to hear.

MarketingProfs uses single
sign-on with Facebook, Twitter, Google and others to make subscribing and signing in easier for you. That's it, and nothing more! Rest assured that MarketingProfs: Your data is secure with MarketingProfs SocialSafe!