Branding Made Simple

Branding is a very good thing. However, some people have gotten confused and damaged lately due to some confusion about what it means for radio. Some branding is the process of imaging a product name in a manner that makes the product memorable and desirable to the target. The goal is to make the product name (ie, Nike, Volkswagen) stand for something that the consumer wants and identifies with, and to make it the first product that comes to mind in the category.

However, some people get an implicit message that "branding" means not talking about your product, but rather talking about how it feels to use it, for example. This can be disastrous for the wrong product.

Branding incorporates positioning. In fact, positioning comes first. Here is how I see a "fully branded" product in radio:

1. Owns a position: The ___ station (oldies, news, hits, variety, etc).

2. Has "depth" of image: there is (usually one or more) significant secondary positive quality listeners associate with the station. Examples: good neighbor, community, fun, unpredictable, hip, etc.

3. Has "magnitude" of image: the "quality" of the image isn't enough for success....the image and awareness must be high - the higher the better.

No radio station succeeds without #1 and #3. Many succeed without #2...but the greatest stations win at all three.

Radio stations should never focus their marketing on "depth" when their position is contested, or when the magnitude is insufficient.

Some of the superficial "branders" try to apply marketing techniques from other consumer goods to radio...with wildly varying degrees of success. "Why don't we do what Nike or Coke do?" they ask. The first reason usually is "because Nike spends $300,000,000 a year on advertising, and we spend one million." It takes a lot more money to sell a "feel" than a specific.

Do the comparison the other way: what if people in other industries said "why don't we do it like successful radio stations? As inarticulate as we think radio listeners are about radio, imagine trying to apply radio research to soft drinks:

Radio

How important is/how much do you like:
- a lot of music
- a fun morning show
- news in the morning
- this kind of music (montages)
- etc.

Coke/Pepsi

How much do you like/how do you feel about:
- High vs. low carbonation
- vanilla extract
- coco beans - fructose vs. dextrose
- brown dye #43
- etc.

Consumers of radio and soft drinks can fairly accurately answer the radio questions...but not the soft drink product attributes.

While some products need to mean "ambition" or "comfort" to their consumers, a radio station that represents "the music I like" and "fun and entertaining morning show" will win handily. If it also represents one or more personal values that are attractive to the target, it will win even bigger.

To sum up what I'm saying: developing brand depth is a good thing, but it must not be at the expense of the primary issue: music and entertainment.