What is a brand?

"A brand is a 'product' that can be clearly distinguished from different producers, used for market exchange, and contains a material function or both a material function and a cultural function."

The concepts of branding and brand strategy have not been harmonized in the academic world since the birth of the word brand. This for the development of brand and brand strategy theory, promote brand competition undoubtedly formed a fatal obstacle. In the last decade, there has been a steady stream of "good news" claims about the invention of new brand strategy methods or tools, but there seems to be no brand strategy theory that can be universally recognized and stand the test of time.

Based on an understanding of the origin and evolution of the "product," this article deduces that brands are "products of nature and their extensions," which seems to find the "roots" of brands and brand strategy. The idea that brands are "products of nature and their extensions" seems to find the "roots" of brands and brand strategy. In addition, "it is what I need (object), sometimes it is tangible (object), sometimes it is a combination of tangible (object) and intangible (symbol)." It also seems to speak to the highest degree of generalization of the entire basis of consumer behavior and the characteristics of the object. In terms of the understanding of brand strategy, I believe that my method of citing the theory of classification of modes of combat in military strategy and deducing the content components that should be involved in brand strategy planning based on the content components in military strategic planning is scientifically logical and persuasive. If the viewpoints of this paper can be widely recognized by the academic community, perhaps there will be a real correct starting point in the research of theories, tools and methods of brand strategy.

(I) the essence of the brand and its connotation

1, "brand" the essence of what?

At present, in the marketing and even branding (strictly speaking, at present there are few people who really call themselves branding scholars, most of them are marketing "scholars") on the phenomenon of brand confusion prevails. As for the actual managers and implementers of branding and marketing - former students, the understanding of the brand is even more confused. Even in China since the early 1990s, the brand has always remained in the primary form of CI. Entering the 21st century, under the influence of successful international brands, even though there are some very successful cases of "branding", but I think that this is only part of the success of empiricism, and it is the result of collision with the truth of the brand. Why? Because the success rate of brand launches is actually very low, even for the most successful multinationals. And it's no wonder, because since the birth of the word brand, there has never been any uniformity of opinion within the marketing or branding community on the definition of a brand. My long-term understanding and observation is that the definition of a brand, product or commodity is a simple matter in every consumer's consciousness - "it is what I need (the object), sometimes it is tangible (the object), sometimes it is a combination of tangible (the object) and intangible (the symbol). "

Whether the word "brand" is expressed in Chinese, English, Japanese, Korean or any other language, it is a formal symbol of human specification, and there is never a natural and truthful correspondence with its referent, and therefore it cannot change the nature of the brand. Therefore, the attempt to find the most convincing explanation from the literal meaning of "brand" is doomed to failure.

The truth is that brands are essentially the same as the original concept of "product," differing only in the breadth of their connotations, the means by which they are obtained, and the identity of the provider.

Brands, like any other substance that satisfies the most basic physiological needs, are objects that consumers want to get. This is an objective fact that no one can change. Because, from the nature to human beings and any other animal and plant gifts to the earliest "products", to people through the labor of creating self-sufficient "products", and then through the social exchange --- that is, the exchange of labor, the exchange of goods. -From the "products" (things, services, and cultural symbols) obtained through social exchanges, i.e., exchanges of labor, exchanges of goods, and exchanges of money, the essence of "product" for human beings is that "it is what I need. -"It is what I need (object), sometimes it is tangible (object), sometimes it is a combination of tangible (object) and intangible (symbol)." There has been no change whatsoever. However, the connotations of the product (natural attributes, cultural attributes), the means of obtaining it, and the party to whom it is supplied are constantly changing with the development of human society. In order to distinguish between these changes, human beings have invented prescriptive terms such as "product", "commodity", "brand", etc., which have a relationship of inclusion and containment with each other. These words have this relationship in terms of their conceptual width: product ≥ commodity ≥ brand.

2. What is the connotation of "brand"?

"It is what I need (object), sometimes it is tangible (object), sometimes it is a combination of tangible (object) and intangible (symbol)." In my opinion, this sentence expresses the essence of the brand as a "product of nature and its extension", its birth and existence of the history of even earlier than the human race do not know how long. Because, the original form of the brand, or the origin of the brand, is the "product" of nature to human beings, that is, in the natural world of human beings think that meets the "it is what I need (object)" all the obtainable "material". material". And the so-called advanced form of the brand is only these materials or the use of these materials "processing and manufacturing" out of the product or then combined with natural objects or their related people and things related to the symbols - the result of culture.

Human beings invented the term "brand" in economic activities, and its starting point is no more than the following two aspects:

First, in order to distinguish between the different producers of each product.

As commoditized material products, the products and related services produced by various merchants will inevitably lead to differences in quality, performance, appearance and other connotations or forms due to differences in technology, management, interests, morality and philosophy. Out of confidence in their own product quality and business philosophy, in order to allow consumers to easily recognize their own products, businesses will try to create differences in the external form of the product, therefore, trademarks, trade names, trademarks, graphics, packaging and decorating and other brand of the primary form of "visualization" is so generated and popular! The first is that the brand is not a brand name, it is a brand name.

Secondly, in order to differentiate from the traditional products with only material functions.

Traditionally, products generally provide customers with only some of the benefits of the physical properties of the product. As the material life of human beings has been enriched and the importance of spiritual life has been increased, the need for spiritual life has developed into the fact that "it is what I want" with an exchange value. In addition, the imitation of the best-selling products in terms of quality, technology, appearance, and concepts among merchants has led to the phenomenon of "homogenization" among branded products in general. The so-called "homogenization" may be the quality, or only the external form is too similar. However, no matter what kind of homogenization, it is harmful to make it difficult for consumers to judge the merchant products may bring their own benefits and benefits / price ratio difference, so may only end up price as the final purchase decision factors, which is very easy to cause vicious price war. In a situation where it is difficult to create obvious and intuitive effective differences in products, where competition in the market is not likely to be on an even keel for a long period of time, and where it is impossible for business to be separated from profit maximization, the third attribute of commodities, after materiality and service, namely culture, takes on the role of the "culture". --Culture, after materiality and service, is the third force that creates competitive advantage. In order to differentiate products with physical attributes only and to emphasize the spiritual value carried by products, "brand" has replaced "product" and "commodity" as the latest form of product with the richest connotation and coverage. Coverage of the product of the latest form of recognizable word symbols, but in terms of its essence, the brand is still not detached from the essence of the product - it is what I want (object).

(In the past decade, many industries in China have been subjected to frequent vicious price wars, which, although related to the lack of technological advantages of our enterprises, more importantly demonstrates that our enterprises are still inexperienced in tapping into the new needs of consumers, especially in spiritual life. However, this responsibility should first be attributed to the lack of theories in the academic world. Of course, it's not just that our country lacks the appropriate theoretical guidance and experience to draw on in this regard, it's the *** same subject facing businesses and brands around the world).

In the relationship between "product", "commodity" and "brand", the conclusion of this part of the discussion seems to be: "brand ≥ commodity ≥ product". Product", this and the above discussion of the nature of the brand in the conclusion "product ≥ commodity ≥ brand" seems to be contradictory, just the opposite. In fact, this is not contradictory, and I think both conclusions are correct. Because, their opposite conclusions are only from two different perspectives - nature and human trade-offs.

3. Definition of the term "brand"

In the above analysis of the nature of the term "brand", I put forward the view that the brand and the original product are essentially the same, but differ only in their connotation, breadth, means of acquisition, and production. The only differences are their connotations, their width, their means of acquisition, and the identity of the producer. And in the elaboration of the connotation of brand, I concluded that the difference between the term "brand" and the traditional concept of "product" lies in two aspects: firstly, in order to differentiate the producers of each product; secondly, in order to differentiate from the traditional products which only have material functions. Secondly, to distinguish them from the traditional concept of products with only a material function. Combining these two conclusions, we can easily define the term "brand" as follows:

"A brand is a 'product' that clearly distinguishes between different producers, is used in market exchanges, and contains a material function or a combination of a material function and a cultural function. 'product'."