These are some questions that perhaps Wall Street is asking about Target. While Walmart has performed admirably and is suggesting a rosier future, Target is in the corner with Macy’s and other retail establishments with less happy results and guidance.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

The New York Times described Target’s November 2024 earnings call with analysts as follows:

“Target rattled Wall Street on Wednesday with a downbeat earnings report showing a sales decline, lower profit and an unwelcome buildup of unsold inventory. The company also cut its forecast for the full year, a bad omen ahead of the critical holiday shopping season.

“Target’s stock plunged more than 21 percent for the day, a loss of nearly $12 billion in market value and its biggest slide in two and a half years.

“Sales at Target stores last quarter fell 1.9 percent from the same period last year, offset somewhat by a 10.8 percent rise in online sales. The company said it expected sales to be flat this quarter and cut its forecast for full-year profit, almost entirely reversing an increase announced just three months ago.”

Since November, Target performed well over the holidays. Target executives announced that holiday sales were better than expected. But, Target did not alter its outlook. This is probably due to the fact that even with nice sales over the holidays, Target warned investors that profit would be under pressure. As Barron’s, the financial newspaper, stated, the fact that was a “… stronger top-line performance won’t necessarily trickle down to the bottom line this quarter.”

When Target was a shopping mecca, its draw was the ability of anyone to own stylish, timeless design at affordable prices. Anyone could buy a few items and make a room look as if that room walked off the pages of House and Garden magazine. Design for the masses made Target. The iconic product was the Alessi teapot.

If you think the idea of design for the masses is irrelevant, think again. The Franklin Mint made a mint focusing on art for the masses. Paintings, Princess Diana memorabilia, elaborately-carved chess sets and American Eagle sculptures were highly prized, bringing art lovers with tiny budgets great joy.

Target won customers of all incomes because its promise of stylish design at affordable prices was relevant and differentiating, something neither Walmart nor Costco could promise. And, Target had a reputation for quality, leadership and trustworthiness. Buying an item from Target announced to others that you had taste, that you knew style and that you were a rather smart shopper. It was not an embarrassment to have a designer item from Target, rather a badge of honor. People were OK with saying that they had been shopping at Target.

All of Target’s brand promise is now gone.

Now, Target’s promise is more generic. According to executives responding to analyst questions on the November earnings call, Target promises, “…affordability, newness, seasonal relevance and ease.

Furthermore, the concept of Target value is now price and deals rather than the worth of owning something incredibly stylish and coveted at a great price. Target executives indicated the following: “a singular focus on value that includes low prices and compelling deals, combined with an elevated assortment and experience.  …. we’ll continue to lean into innovation and newness and value.”

The New York Times wrote about Target’s laser focus on price and deals:

“Target’s troubles have come as it focuses on cutting prices to win over shoppers squeezed by inflation. Last month, the company said that it would lower prices on more than 2,000 items, including Crisco vegetable oil, cat litter and a Bluey toy fire truck, and that it would have to cut prices on 10,000 items by the end of the year. Although the number of visits to Target increased 2.4 percent last quarter, the average amount that customers spent decreased 2 percent.”

Target’s improved holiday 2024 season belies the fact that Target’s growth was unprofitable growth. All of these sales and discounts negatively affected Target’s margins. Even with all of the holiday sales, Target did not change, and could not change, its profit guidance. CNBC reported this unprofitable growth as follows:

“Discounts and sales events have remained a significant sales driver as consumers emerge from a more than two-year stretch of high inflation. It’s unclear how much those deals will cut into Target’s … profit margins, and whether sales will keep improving if promotions fade away.”

Deals create deal loyal customers, not real loyal customers. And, deals mean less profit and lower margins. Wall Street understands and punished Target by sending Target’s shares downward almost 3%. One thing Wall Street watches is a brand’s margins.

Target was never about deals. Target’s promise was always about great brand with great prices. And, that great brand promise was relevant and differentiated.

Somewhere along the retail road, Target decided to compete with Walmart and Costco where varieties, groceries and low prices rule the roost. Target lost its brand promise. When it came to design, especially in fashion, Target gave away stylish for trendy. Target went all-in on trendy. Target CEO, Brian Cornell, focused on trendy, current fashion over Target’s heritage of “affordable” stylish fashion.

Trendy and Stylish are two very different things. The difference? Trends are temporary. Style is eternal.

Being stylish about expressing your personal taste is about your own authenticity; being  true to who you are. Trends come and go. Style does not. It is just not inspiring to see people wearing the latest trendy item promoted on Tik Tok. To be stylish, a person chooses fashion that reflects their own preferences and tastes. To be trendy, means, choosing clothing based on what is popular at the moment. Trendy dressers choose the identity reflected by the clothing. Stylish dressers choose clothes that reflect their own identity. Claire’s, the tween-teen mecca, is an extraordinary example of self-expression of one’s personal style. Claire’s promise is all about being who you are and being self-expressive.

A brand promise is not a theoretical construct; not an arty, ad agency visualization. A brand promise is a brand’s direction. A brand promise summarizes in a brief sentence (or two) the special contract that exists between a brand and its customers. A brand promise describes what a brand is intended to stand for in the mind of a specific group of guests and/or prospects. By consistently living up to the brand’s brand promise, brand owners ensure that a brand will be relevant and distinctive. A powerful brand will have a powerful brand promise. A powerful brand creates brand value. Without brand value, there is no shareholder value. Perhaps this is what Wall Street is waking up to now when listening to Target’s earnings call.

Target not only decided to compete on groceries and large-scale items like Walmart and Costco, but in fast fashion trends like H&M and Zara. As Target’s Chief Commercial officer told analysts, “I do think what differentiates Target is our multi-category business.”

To be fair, Kohl’s is in a similar situation.  Under its previous CEO, Kohl’s decided to ignore its current customers and its promised experience while catering to new customers who did not shop there and did not love Kohl’s. The new Kohl’s approach was to remove inventory that drew its long-time loyalists while substituting Sephora stores and Babies R’ Us stores inside Kohl’s. The idea was to attract younger customers. Instead of modernizing the brand promise, Kohl’s decided to ditch its promise for one that would be attractive to new customers: customers who care for Sephora and Babies R’Us rather than Kohl’s. Sales tanked. And, as Kohl’s learned, it is more expensive to attract new customers than to keep current customers.

Of course, brands must have loyal customers and new customers. But, focusing on new customers at the expense of existing customers is a mistake. This is why it is always necessary to keep a brand promise updated. A brand cannot afford to lose loyal customers. Target’s loyalty program demonstrates how critical the loyal group is for brand profitability and stability.

Trying to be what you are not while not being who you are not only turns off your core base of customers but makes your brand a poor follower, even a commodity. You will have customers who like you a little. But, you have lost the customers who love you a lot. This is a recipe for unprofitable growth, as Target is experiencing.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

It is true that Macy’s is – and has been – struggling against the powers of “e-commerce giants, big-box retailers and direct-to-consumer brands.” Broad, general retail, such as Macy’s, has suffered for some time. For a while, it seemed that Macy’s was actually making progress in a difficult retail environment. In fact, prior to the pandemic, Macy’s was implementing a turnaround strategy, an initial part of which was a specific focus on the 10% of loyalists who account for close to 50% of Macy’s sales.

This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.

To be fair, Macy’s is not the only mall retailer having difficulties. The Wall Street Journal observes that Abercrombie & Fitch, Foot Locker, Kohl’s and Nordstrom are struggling with mixed performances. Retailers say that cautious shoppers seeking lower prices are the main reason for dimmer guidance for the near future.

Clearly, Macy’s problems are not mere brand problems. The operations and fiscal issues are overwhelming. Macy’s has focused on cost-cutting including closing underperforming stores. Having said this, even if Macy’s figured out its operational and financial problems, Macy’s would still have cloudy future guidance. Macy’s executives say that the brand is improving its brand experience by increasing marketing spend and reimaging its displays. Nice. But, displays and marketing need a basis, a brand brief for these changes. Macy’s needs to figure out what the Macy’s brand means to its target customers.

Macy’s needs a brand promise.

A brand promise is the relevant, differentiated, expected total brand experience. Brand promise is not a generic statement. A brand promise articulates who is the brand’s target audience in terms of their personal values? What it is that these customers seek – the emotional and social rewards of using the brand? What is the personality of the brand that is so attractive to these customers? And, what is it that the brand Macy’s does so well, the brand’s functional benefits? Only when these questions are addressed can Macy’s identify the brand features that support the articulated expected experience.

The current Macy CEO believes that Macy’s offers quiet luxury. Quiet luxury is apparently associated with the purchase of handbags and shoes. Luxury is a difficult level to achieve. Macy’s heritage has never been one of a luxury experience no matter how quiet. Furthermore, attempting to reach a luxury proposition is a challenge for a brand that is not really perceived as luxury. Just ask Burberry, a brand that has spent a few years trying to reposition itself as luxury and not succeeding. Assigning more staff and having more varieties of shoes and handbags, as Macy’s is now implementing, is not particularly relevant and differentiated. Just ask Nordstrom.

Macy’s has a storied history. And, it once had a galvanizing, appealing brand promise.

Macy’s has always been one of those brands that satisfied a paradox promise by offering both high-end products along with mass products and services. The high-end products provided an aura of quality and style to the Macy’s brand. The mass products provided accessibility and affordability for the majority of their customers. The optimization of these two conflicting benefits made Macy’s a powerful brand with a promise of affordable glamour.

In its heyday, women flocked to Macy’s because of this brand promise. Buying something from Macy’s gave even the cash strapped buyer a sense of style. Women also shopped at Macy’s because it was a very comfortable and friendly place to be. Macy’s treated women well, whether you were a customer or an employee. Brands need to deliver on more than just functional benefits: brands must deliver on emotional and social benefits as well as personal values. And, brands today, must deliver to customers and employees.

Macy’s did this.

Macy’s was a training ground for, and a promoter of, women in business. This distinctive heritage is timely and relevant today. Even though the majority of Macy’s most profitable customers are women, it is important to recognize that Macy’s was also serious about employing women and promoting them.

In the 1940’s, R. H. Macy & Co. established an Executive Training Squad. In 1947, it hired a young woman with a law degree from Columbia University – one of only 6 females in Columbia’s law class. At the time, law firms did not see a reason to hire female lawyers, so this young woman thought Macy’s program would be a good fit as the store employed a disproportionate number of women.

Instead of being at a law firm, this woman thought she might become an executive where she could use her legal training and law degree. Soon after joining the Squad, the young woman became the assistant to Macy’s labor-relations director. Fifteen years later, she was vice president for employee personnel. By 1970, she was Macy’s senior vice president of Macy’s New York division for labor and consumer relations, the only woman in the division with this title. She spent her hours negotiating with the Teamsters and other unions on behalf of Macy’s 20,000 employees, most of whom were women. She also became a Director in 1970.

During her career at Macy’s, she was a mentor to many women forging careers and looking to work in management in or out of retail. She loved seeing these women advance to leadership positions. She knew hundreds of rank-and-file Macy’s employees, many of whom she helped in numerous ways and who were incredibly loyal to her over the decades. All along the way, Macy’s supported her, promoted her while supporting and promoting other women into executive ranks.

This woman, G. G. Michelson (Gertrude Geraldine), stayed at Macy’s for her entire career. But, over the years, she also joined the Boards of many other companies such as General Electric, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Quaker Oats, Chubb Insurance, Spellman College, The RAND Corporation, The Stanley Works, Irving Trust and Harper & Row. She was often the only female on these Boards. In her obituary in 2015, The New York Times stated that she was the “Macy’s Executive Who Broke the Glass Ceiling.” And she did. She was able to do this because Macy’s provided an environment where her skills and drive were able to flourish. Her gender was not an issue. Her abilities did not scare off Macy’s other executives. She won over people who were skeptical of and unaccustomed to work with women executives.

Recently, Molly Ball observed in The Wall Street Journal that women are increasingly wielding power in politics. Without being political, Macy’s might reconsider recognizing its powerful promised experience by updating or modernizing its provenance. As Macy’s seeks to revitalize and turn around the brand, Macy’s should not forget that its brand promise of providing a shopping venue for affordable glamour should also include its history of fostering employment and opportunity for women.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

The Blake Project Can Help You Differentiate Your Brand With An Ownable Promise In: The Brand Positioning Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Cars are for driving. It is wonderful to drive a car that is luxurious on the inside. It is wonderful to drive a car that is quiet inside, shutting out all of the street and highway noise. It is wonderful to drive a car that has all the appurtenances of class and status. These are benefits – functional, emotional and social – that we may look for in a vehicle.

But Lincoln does not tell us about these benefits. Lincoln as Sanctuary is left up to the customer to imagine. A brand must own a promise. A brand must have a relevant, differentiated promise that is created by the brand owners. A brand promise relevantly differentiates a brand from competition. Vague Sanctuary can easily be understood as a benefit of a competitor, Lexus, for example. The brand promise describes the relevantly differentiated experience that customers can expect time after time.

Brands that have opted for letting the customer decide what the brand stands for tend to regret that stance.

Take Infiniti.

In 1999, Nissan began advertising its new luxury vehicle, Infiniti. The ad campaign was gorgeous photography of the car in the woods. The lighting was exquisite. The door handles were remarkable. The feeling was one of, well, sanctuary. There were no words about the benefits of the vehicle. There was just the beauty of the design in a beautiful setting.

At the same time, Toyota’s new luxury vehicle, Lexus, was also introducing itself to the American public. Unlike Infiniti, Lexus focused on the vehicle’s sanctuary-like ride. One of the ads showed champagne classes on the car’s roof never wavering even over a rough road. Another referenced its quiet interior.

For all of the amazing market research at Infiniti, its lack of focus on the actual benefits of driving an Infiniti put the brand at a deficit relative to Lexus. Lexus took off; Infiniti languished. At one point, almost a decade later, there was consideration given to eliminating the brand.

Back to Ford Motor Company, owner of Lincoln.

In the mid-2000’s, Ford Motor Company created a campaign for Mercury – the now defunct brand, a relative of Lincoln. You bought your Mercury at the Lincoln-Mercury dealership. Ford was not able to articulate what exactly Mercury stood for… so in its campaign, the tag line was “Imagine Yourself In a Mercury.” If Ford could not tell you what Mercury was, at least you might be able to create some fantasy. Mercury faded away into automotive history. People may have loved the vehicle, but not even Ford could articulate what Mercury stood for in the customer’s mind.

Why is this history important?

With the current Lincoln campaign, Ford is channeling the same approach as Infiniti and Mercury. Let the customer imagine what driving a Lincoln is like based on beautiful photography, serene-hip music and lofty, resounding, yet amorphous wording. Sanctuary sounds wonderful.

For example, we hear:

The legacy continues. Innovative design is in our nature, and we can’t wait for the road ahead

We’ve shaped one century. Let’s define the next.

The power of sanctuary…

Here is a truism. You know a brand has no idea what it stands for when the words, “the power of…” are used. It is one of those catch-all phrases that ad people use when ideas escape them.

So, what is a Lincoln? A visit to the Lincoln website tells us that the power of sanctuary is elevated peace while driving. The definition ends there. It is up to you to imagine just what peace-while-driving is all about. There is a heavy focus on peripheral services called membership such as Lincoln Access Rewards, Lincoln Access Rewards Visa Card, Travel Benefits, Roadside Assistance, Concierge, Insurance. There is an app – Lincoln Way App – and pick-up/delivery for service visits.

But what about the vehicle? How does it drive? What exactly is a peaceful interior experience? Are small children part of this peacefulness?

Does this mean that the cars themselves are not unique? Does this mean that because designers and marketers could not articulate the Lincoln brand essence they decided to focus on non-vehicle services? Does a focus on the inside of the vehicle mean that the actual vehicle itself delivers benefits and features that are not relevantly differentiated from competitors?

Features can be copied. A relevant, differentiating brand definition can be owned. Brand features are the key service and product elements that make the brand promise credible. But what is the brand promise?

Lincoln’s provenance is a business built on quiet, honest, affordable classic beauty. There was no ostentation. Originally, the Lincoln vehicles were practical prestige with luxurious functionality. Although its drivers appreciated the cachet and status, they did not want to feel embarrassed or guilty while on the road. With subtle, classic elegance and a contoured grace, these affordable luxury vehicles were impressive and distinct.

Somehow, in today’s world, this provenance is missing in Lincoln’s brand articulation. There is no reference to Lincoln’s classic beauty expressed in a contemporary manner either in its public design description or in its articulation of its reason for being. Leaving the brand promise up to the imagination of the customer creates a brand that has multiple, individual meanings. Hoping that this approach will rev the engine of enduring profitable growth in a highly competitive marketplace is a lot of gas.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Larry Light, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

The Blake Project Can Help You Differentiate Your Brand With An Ownable Promise In: The Brand Positioning Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Observers, investors and analysts agree that Beyond Meat is a troubled brand-business in need of a turnaround. In yet another analysis of Beyond Meat on CNN, there was the familiar litany of issues. As CNN points out, Beyond Meat is facing a “waning” of interest in plant-based meat products. Part of this is due to price points and customers’ desires to fall back on less expensive alternatives. With prices high, people have been cutting back on dining out. This impacts Beyond Meat’s non-grocery channels. There have been some C-suite resignations. And, there has been a recent report on the hygiene of a processing facility in Pennsylvania. Adding to these woes is the fact that McDonald’s has not added the highly touted McPlant burger to its menu in the US, while Dunkin took its Beyond Sausage breakfast sandwich off its menu.

CEO, Ethan Brown reiterated most of these issues in the earnings call. Mr. Brown stated, “As consumers intensify (their) focus on making ends meet, health and environmental considerations take a back seat. This phenomenon makes it more difficult to broadly convey our core value proposition to the consumer.

“To summarize the current situation, we face an economy where blistering inflation pressure is shifting consumer behavior in the grocery store, category where competition has dramatically increased despite a broad and precipitous category slowdown and a consumer base whose focus understandably turned to fulfilling immediate basic needs of pursuing the broader benefits that represent our core value proposition.”

In a turnaround plan, the first step is to stop the bleeding. Mr. Brown stated Beyond Meat must “…significantly reduce operating expenses, while focusing on a more narrow (sic) set of strategic partner, retail, and food service opportunities and utilizing lean value streams across our beef, pork, and poultry platforms.”

Second, Beyond Meat will “… aggressively manage down inventory and rationalizing our production network..” This is due to “…more moderate volume assumptions to improve overhead absorption, address underutilization fees, and support margin improvement.”

And, third, Mr. Brown indicated that Beyond Meat would apply “…a laser focus to our sales and marketing activities, emphasizing those opportunities that we believe strike the right balance between restoring near-term growth and nurturing our most valuable long-term opportunities.” This means “restoring growth in retail and food service, through a series of targeted innovation, sales and marketing execution.”

All of these are important strategies. When a brand-business is in trouble, focusing on Financial Discipline, Operational Excellence and Leadership Marketing are critical for a turnaround.

Financial Discipline is priority number one. Make money. Get back to profitability. Eliminate waste. Improve productivity. Every brand needs to earn the right to continue to grow. Financial Discipline is more than cost cutting. It is also a focus on building brand value. Cost cutting takes you only so far. Brand value contributes to quality revenue growth.

Operational Excellence means focusing on delighting customers so that an increasing percentage of customers look forward to purchasing more often. Operational Excellence involves creating an efficient and effective balance between meeting customer expectations and minimizing waste. When managed properly, Operational Excellence both decreases costs and improves customer satisfaction. And, this in turn helps generate quality revenue growth leading to brand value.

Leadership Marketing means focusing on building the relevant differentiation of the brand. Innovation and renovation are important. But, so is clarity of the brand’s Purpose and Promise, both internally and externally. Articulating the brand’s Purpose and Promise help to increase brand value.

Thus, here is what Mr. Brown’s turnaround plan lacks. There is no mention of the brand-business’ Brand Promise. Mr. Brown does suggest that there must be better communications of the health benefits of Beyond Meat. And, there must be a better connection between the brand-business and its role in sustainability. These are about the brand’s Purpose. But, there is nothing about the brand-business’ Brand Promise. And, the CEO of Impossible Foods is saying exactly the same thing.

Beyond Meat has not created a relevant, differentiated brand promise. Without a relevant, differentiated brand promise, a brand tends to fall into commodity corner.

A Brand Promise summarizes in a brief statement the special contract that exists between a brand and its customers. A Brand Promise describes what the brand is intended to stand for in the mind of a specific group of customers or prospective customers. By consistently living up to and delivering the Brand Promise, a brand will be relevant and distinctive. A Brand Promise is something that a brand continuously strives to achieve. It is a future-focused description because it states what the brand will do for its customers.

A Brand Promise has three components: the Brand Claim, the Brand Character and the Brand Support. The Brand Claim is the combination of functional benefits, emotional and social rewards: that is, “what does the brand do for me?;” “how do I feel when the brand does this well?” and “how are my social interactions and connectedness enhanced when the brand does this well?”

The Brand Character reflects the values of the customer (that means, who is the person we wish to have as a loyal customer?) and the brand’s personality (if the brand were a person, what would be those traits most compelling to the target customer?).

The Brand Support is the combination of relevant, differentiated features that are necessary to bring the Claim to life for those with the articulated Character. Identify the Brand Support only after the Brand Claim and Brand Character are identified.

The role of the Brand Promise is multidimensional. First and foremost, it defines the brand. Brand Promise defines the parameters for all development, communications, innovation and renovation on behalf of the brand. Brand Promise must be a motivating, relevant, differentiated description of the brand experience that you want the brand to deliver. Consistently living up to this Promise is the way customers perceive the brand’s performance quality.

The Brand Promise is an internal force as well. All employees must know and understand the Brand Promise. They must be able to define it and deliver it, day after day, for every customer. Regardless of function, employees must know what they need to do to live up to the brand’s Promise to its customers.

Beyond Meat has had and still has many operational issues and retail challenges.

It is a mistake to believe the Brand Promise can fix everything. But, it is also a mistake to believe that Brand Promise is a mere marketing construct. Not only does Brand Promise define the total brand experience, it is a galvanizing force within the brand’s organization.

A brand is a multidimensional, multilayered, multifaceted relevant differentiated idea. That idea is the Brand Promise. And, since a brand is a promise of a relevant, differentiated experience, the Brand Promise is key. This is especially true for new brands and for brands in intensely competitive market spaces.

Beyond Meat has never clearly differentiated in a relevant manner from its original competitor, Impossible Foods. That was a mistake. Now, that quality plant-based meat and chicken alternatives are taking up a lot of grocery refrigerated and frozen spaces, being known for something special is a make-or-break necessity.

Being first in a category does not matter if entries that follow are relevant and differentiated and high quality. Beyond Meat could have an amazing relevant differentiated Brand Promise. If the brand-business’s management team starts to focus on brand-business revitalization, let’s hope this time the focus is on the brand.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Larry Light, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

The Blake Project Can Help You Make Your Brand Promise Count In The Brand Positioning Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Imagine you are embroiled in a legal case. Your brand is under attack. Imagine that you invite a branding guru as an expert witness. At some point, the time will come when somebody’s lawyer asks, “Mr. Expert, Mr. Guru… What is a brand?” If you have ten experts, you will have 20 definitions. This is because every expert refuses to be an expert on the subject of what is a brand. The experts will equivocate. The experts will provide vague answers. The experts will say, “Well, it all depends. A brand is about image. A brand is a logo. A brand is about positioning. A brand is about value.”

A lawyer in England once said, “We cannot defend what you in marketing cannot define.” And, you know, she was right. Marketers, branders, the whole lot of gurus have been unwilling to come up with a definition that can be defensible. This is because everyone, every guru, every consultant, every advertising maven believes they must have their own definition.

It is the same outside of the courtroom. Ask twenty or thirty marketing executives the definition of a brand and you will receive twenty or thirty different answers. No wonder C-suite executives see the CMO’s efforts as costs rather than investments.

It is unbelievable and irresponsible that we can have a widely accepted, legal definition of a trademark, and yet, we cannot have an equally, widely accepted, legal definition of a brand.

Go on the Internet and you will find this definition of a trademark:

“The definition of a trademark is a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from those of other sellers.”

Whatever version or variation you may have in your country, the basic concept of a trademark is widely accepted. The trademark identifies the source of the product or service. In a courtroom, you can swear that this is the definition of a trademark.

The word brand does not even exist in law. The time has come that with equal confidence we should be able to say, “I swear, so help me God, this is a brand.”

We just cannot do this today.

What is worse is the fact that marketers use this definition of a trademark as the definition of a brand.

For example, go on the Internet site of the American Marketing Association and what you will find is this:

“The definition of a brand is a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from those of other sellers.”

Go to Wikipedia and type in “brand.” Guess what? The definition of a brand is the definition of a trademark. Just imagine all of those university students writing papers for a marketing class using Wikipedia as fact: they are using the wrong definition. Worse yet, their professors are accepting this.

The actual legal definition of a trademark is:

“… any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods.”

The whole idea of the trademark is to protect the maker of the product or service. This is great. But, it is not a brand.

We have two words – trademark and brand – because these two words mean two different things. But, right now, there is no useful distinction between a trademark and a brand at the American Marketing Association or anywhere else.

Yet, in our language and in practice, we know there is a difference. We must make that difference legally defensible.

Not having a legal definition of a brand is marketing’s greatest failure and its greatest challenge.

Why?

Because in marketing, we do not talk about trademark loyalty. We talk about brand loyalty. We do not talk about trademark loyalty management. We talk about brand loyalty management. We do not talk about trademark power. We talk about brand power. We do not talk about trademark equity. We talk about brand equity.

Let’s use this definition of a brand.

“A brand is any distinctive identity that identifies or distinguishes a specific promise associated with a specific product, differentiating that product from others in the marketplace.”

Promise is a very important concept. Promise is fundamental. Here are some of the implications.

You trademark products. You brand promises. You trademark products. You brand the promise associated with the product.

Think of the trademark Crest. The trademark Crest identifies the source of fluoride toothpaste. However, the brand Crest identifies not the source of fluoride toothpaste. The brand Crest is the source of the promise that you will die with your own natural, gorgeously white teeth attached to your head. Its current tagline is “Extend the Life of Your Teeth.” Crest’s goal in marketing is to own the promise of a lifetime of healthy, gorgeously white teeth. You may be dead, but you will have a beautiful smile.

This is a big promise. And, this promise must be defensible in court, as well as defensible with the consumer. If a brand is not a legal entity, there is a risk that someone else can use that identity. Whether it is a mouthwash or a toothbrush, no imitator, no copycat should be allowed to steal Crest’s identity.

With the above definition of a brand, you might ask, “What is a brand promise?” It is a simple sentence. “Buy this brand, you will get this experience.” That is the definition of a brand promise. It is future oriented. A brand promise indicates what the brand will do for you.

Think about Harley-Davidson. It is an amazing brand. It is an extraordinary brand. It is more than a promise of a motorcycle. It is a promise that if you buy a Harley, you will get this Harley experience. Harley-Davidson does not just sell motorcycles. Harley-Davidson sells the promise of a special, authoritative experience.

If you want to know how to measure the strength of a brand, the answer is the number of people willing to tattoo your logo on their arm. That is a long-term commitment to the brand.

Remember, you brand promises, not products. A promise creates an expectation. The product is the evidence that you conform to that expectation. Trademark products. Brand experiences.

One goal of marketing is to turn trademarks into brands. The goal is to turn a trademark into standing for a relevant differentiated promise. Associating a relevant and differentiated promise with a trademark turns the trademark into a brand.

A brand is an asset on a balance sheet. The accounting concept of Goodwill is all about the value of the brand-businesses. Enterprises must report Goodwill when the value of a purchased brand-business is more than the value of its assets. When brand-businesses are in trouble, you find the enterprise reporting an impairment.

Financially, brands are treated as assets. But, legally, not so much. The concept of brand is not in the law books. The legal cases in which brands play a role are all about trademark infringement and trademark dilution. The source is protected; the experience is not. For a marketing environment that is all about selling experiences, this lack of protection is a flaw.

Now is the time for marketing to work together to create and institute a legal definition of a brand. For how much longer must this impossible situation continue? Marketing can do itself a great service by making sure legally that a brand is more than a trademark.

Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Larry Light, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I

Need an expert witness in brand litigation? The Blake Project can help, contact us for more.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers