[img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjeVjccNEcvB7_Zjce9aJ2jz8MWDjmjpgLMNGKJb57Su7sSkkLJg&t=1 [/img]
brand recognition does work but apart from niche stuff how can it work to sell stuff? Yes I know many car brands but if I even buy a new car I wont just look at the logos /branding and then pick a car from them within my budget.
This will explain why VAG have Skoda, SEAT, VW and Audi in the portfolio and people buy the lowest grade Audi A3 over a higher specced Golf, no?
While people do look at features , they do also look at logos.
Please tell me TJ is a troll?
Nobody could [i]really[/i] be that blind to reality?
😯
Serious question what % extra business do [would you say/guess] a good logo make a company?
look at the Olympics does the branding mean it will be a good games, a great games, would we not notice it was happening without the logos?
A good logo on it's own won't make a massive difference - as someone mentioned earlier, brand and logo are different, they work together. Building a brand is about understanding your target Market. It's not necessarily about money or products either, it's about increasing people's awareness of the company, the ethos. Apple are a very good example to look at. They started out selling computers, yet they now have a huge hold on the lifestyle products many people 'have to have'
You have to separate the object from the referent. this is the bit you a=an the other believers in marketing are not getting. some of us see the object for what it is not for what it is branded as
The bit that you are not getting is what branding actually is. Branding does not mean what you think it does. This argument is about the definition of a word.
You, for instance, are one of STW's best known brands.
DS that is not the logo that is niche branding we are better than x so pay more for us I dont see how the logo could show this The only one of those I could desscribe is VW and that is down to the Beastie boys 😳
Branding has a role for sure to most folk but the logos per se is of no significance.
[img] 
[/img]
Molgrips - I do none of those things. Branding means nothing at all to me. I buy based on what things are not on the branding
TO YOU!
TO YOU FFS!
Will you concede that perhaps you're different from the majority here?
No I didn't think so...
In ANY argument/discussion/debate, the key skill is to be able to put yourself in your opponents shoes, and try to see their point of view, or at least understand where they're coming from. This then gives you a better understanding of how their argument is likely to go, as well as allowing you to prepare better for their arguments.
I have come to the conclusion, based on significant amount of evidence posted on this forum over a long time, and the nail hammered home today, that you really are the worst mass-debater that I have come across, on this forum or otherwise! You couldn't make me buy something I already wanted, in fact if you were selling it to me, you'd put me off it for life!
Epic fail TJ... Your opinion DOES NOT equal fact!
[img] 
[/img]
I don't know TJ in person. I'm sure he is a lovely chap and his commitment to his side of any argument is commendable (and reminds me a bit of me in many a pub debate). I've read and contributed to many of the threads in which he takes a stand that some of us don't see or get, some of us can't agree with and some of us find quite astonishing. No matter what, he will not budge and bravo for that. To do any different would be to destroy the TJ brand we know and [s]love[/s] tolerate 😉
I think the last time I addressed TJ directly was to say that I'd find it very difficult to come out with the same kind of absolute statement he just had. I'm about to do it again:
"Branding means nothing at all to me. I buy based on what things are not on the branding
...some of us see the object for what it is not for what it is branded as"
People have fallen foul of this time and again in blind tests, finding that they prefer something they might not have done when deprived of clues about the company that sold it or where it stood in that company's quality/expense heirarchy.
You're immune?
Doubt it.
For me, the TJ brand is full of win.
[img] 
[/img]
Anyone ever noticed the bear in the Toblerone? Look at a box end - bear is hidden in the mountain (Matterhorn I assume).
I'm still waiting for TJ to show me an example of a successful business that hasn't spent any money on logos/branding/marketing/profiling...
Molgrips - I do none of those things. Branding means nothing at all to me. I buy based on what things are not on the branding
You may think you do, but I can confidently say you will be drawn to the products you buy because the company has carefully evaluated it's target Market and branded itself to appeal to someone like yourself who likes a no-nonsense approach to products he buys.
[img] 
[/img]
...and perhaps all you clever folk who understand all about branding and logos and marketing should stop before your next purchase and think ' What would TJ do?'.
He's running metaphorical rings around you..
Epic fail TJ... Your opinion DOES NOT equal fact!
And I have not claimed it does. Than the majority on this thread perhaps although a good few agree with me- across the population who knows. the vast majority of people I know think like me on this.
All I said was that its not nearly as powerful as the marketteers think.
Molgrips - nope you are still confusing object and referent.
DrJ - fascinating - you know what my thought processes were? I tell you again - thats the only thing I could think of.Molgrips - I do none of those things. Branding means nothing at all to me. I buy based on what things are not on the branding
You have to separate the object from the referent. this is the bit you a=an the other believers in marketing are not getting. some of us see the object for what it is not for what it is branded as.
and when i suggested that TJ was a left brainer somebody dismissed the notion as an old scientifically disproved concept.
either way the traits are definitely left brained whereas the artists/copywriters/brand strategists are more likely to be right brainers. the trick is to understand the other, i'm pretty certain given the right info a 'brand engineer' could market anything to TJ if it's wrapped up in a bit of logic, even something so simple as cycling helmet.
[img] 
[/img]
Actually, not immune, inhuman.
Prejudice saves a lot of time. making a decisions from scratch, given the enormity of choice we're faced with, would be impractical. Go with what you know, what you're comfortable with, get back to more important things like arguing on the internet.
Branding = comfort.
[img] 
[/img]
Why is it not as powerful as marketeers think TJ? Do you seriously think that all these big brands would spend the money they do if it didn't actually increase their market share, increase profits, make their shareholders happy? You are way out of your depth here, giving nothing more than unqualified opinion on something you have no understanding of.
All I said was that its not nearly as powerful as the marketteers think.
Perhaps a reasonable point. Why wreck your argument by polarising your opinion to the point that it's so absolute it can't possibly be true?
General point, seems to be the source of what riles people about your style.
[img] 
[/img]
DS that is not the logo that is niche branding we are better than x so pay more for us I dont see how the logo could show this The only one of those I could desscribe is VW and that is down to the Beastie boys
But that's the whole point, a brand is just a name. A brand image incorporates something else and a logo is just an image to represent what the company represents which is why FedEx is a good logo, Garmin less so and the logo jalopy pulled for the Japanese logistic company was cool. A logo is worth a thousand words.
For those interested the Mercadona story in Spain is quite interesting from a positioning/ marketing/ what the future will bring POV.
mastiles_fanylion - MemberI'm still waiting for TJ to show me an example of a successful business that hasn't spent any money on logos/branding/marketing/profiling...
point missed again.
I throw bits of rolled up paper out of train windows. it stops the elephants from attacking. I know it works 'cos I have never been attacked by elephants.
M6TTF - afraid not old son. I buy for what things are not for what they are branded / marketed as. the object is not the referent
]Mr Smith - I am actually a very emotional and empathic person as well - I have traits from both sidea and some autistic ones as ell
sparkling chains this is the only bear I can see
[img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_BTnr8XcEabVmudhLL9yUmrCDzB-H3JjwsV_4JC20S1eDzLA_ [/img]
Do you seriously think that all these big brands would spend the money they do if it didn't actually increase their market share, increase profits, make their shareholders happy?
odd that when times are hard it is one of the first things the cut. Marketing and advertising and all that guff. Seems like when push comes to shove they do actually see it as BS tbh.
he other side would be that % of money spent on this equals market share can you back that u - does the real world show this - I doubt it very much.
You seem to think oh look businesses do it so it must be true.
Another good example is the brand 'beckham' Companies pay a fortune to get their endorsement because their brand sells
mastiles_fanylion - MemberI'm still waiting for TJ to show me an example of a successful business that hasn't spent any money on logos/branding/marketing/profiling...
point missed again.
I throw bits of rolled up paper out of train windows. it stops the elephants from attacking. I know it works 'cos I have never been attacked by elephants.
That's telling ya!
What about companies who haven't invested in their brand, or messed it up, are they any examples of that?
YES! BLODDY LOADS OF THEM!
A logo is worth a thousand words.
Yet garmin and fed ex both put the words [NAME] of the company in the logo- its a typeface for the name.
Yes you get good logos and bad one but I am not convinced it relates to company success in any way shape or form. Th ebradning yes the logo alone no.
[img] 
[/img]
I still say [img] 
[/img]
odd that when times are hard it is one of the first things the cut. Marketing and advertising and all that guff.
Which could be one of the most short sighted strategies possible, but who can account for the decisions made by these MBA numpties, generally the first budget to be cut is training though.
glith thingy
Mountainmutant / toys - I am confused by your last posts
[img] 
[/img]
A misspelt swear-word, in capitals. Doesn't get any better than that! Couldn't have done it deliberately if I'd tried.
Branding = everything you perceive about a company, all your prejudices, comfort factors, conscious and subconscious.
Junkyard, maybe Garmin could have been just as successful paying slightly less to a design house for a logo, but who knows how much extra stuff they'll sell because of the subconsious seed of thought, sown by the logo that makes people think: "Ah, Garmin, they know which way is north."
Buy marlboro turn gay?
[img] 
[/img]
can we get this to 500 posts Binners?
any more shiboliths to slay
[img] 
[/img]
To be honest the Garmin logo even when pointed out means nothing to me, I see it as a blue triangle thats it it says nothing to me.I own one because I read some reviews looked at the features compared the price and based my purchase on these.
