I’ve recently been in a number of discussions about brand positioning versus brand proposition development which has led onto discussions about the difference between marketing and branding.

The Chartered Institute of Marketing’s definition of Marketing uses the concept of “meeting customers’ needs profitably”.  It is probably worth recognising though that “profitably” needs to be interpreted broadly; it is not only about staying in business but, if this to work for not-for-profit organisations, it is also about delivering your ultimate aims.

So:

Sales is about selling what you can make or provide – profitably
Marketing is about meeting customers’ needs – profitably
Branding is about having a vision and ‘converting’ people to it – profitably

For me this helps with the crucial difference between marketing and branding. Marketing is proposition/promise development, delivery focused and customer led. Branding is positioning focused and vision and values led.

Last week we all enjoyed a team trip to see our very own Senior Consultant – and before then unknown to us operatic star – Guy Grimsley play Don Jose in Carmen, a production by the Oxford Operatic Society.

It was a fantastic trip and we wanted to say well done to Guy and publically celebrate his hidden talent on the blog. Click here to read a review of the production and watch this space for this next on stage wonders!

It’s since inspired us to think about the other hidden talents around the office…what are the hidden talents in your company?

I have never been one for rules – there is something about the rigidity and formality of them that sparks the rebel in me. Quote me a rule and I immediately start looking for the exceptions.

Take the need for brand consistency, my mind immediately turns to the most valuable brand in the world that has not one but two brand names – Coca Cola and Coke. From there I move swiftly onto Google and the way it constantly plays with and adapts its logo to celebrate various anniversaries. Perhaps the “rule” for Google is to be consistently inconsistent.

Mention the first to market rule and I immediately think of Boeing who following Lockyear into passenger jets and more recently Apple’s i-pod.

For me marketing has guidelines, even principles but not absolute rules and that’s one reason why its so interesting.

A review of the new Bentley Continental by Alan Judd in the Spectator at the weekend (surely required reading for the up-and-coming brand consultant), got me thinking about the problems inherent in the takeover of one brand by another.

The demise of Rolls-Royce as a UK company in 1998 led to the breakup of an enduring alliance between two of Britain’s most famous marques, but also to a period of confusion as to who, exactly, had bought what.  VW bought the plant in Crewe, and the rights to the spirit of ecstasy, but not to the name.  As the name was owned by aero engines division of the company, which was not being sold, VW were left in a bit of a quandary (sharpened when Aero Engines decided to license the name to BMW, with whom they had pre-existing relationships).

After protracted negotiations, the current picture emerged – VW building Bentleys in Crewe, and BMW building Rolls-Royces in a new plant at Goodwood.  Two of the most famous names in British motoring owned by two of the major German giants – it was going to need careful handling.

Rolls-Royce has since been pretty quiet; with a couple of new models and a new factory, they’ve bedded down solidly under their new owners.  Arguably, it’s VW that has handled Bentley with a bit more flair. Why? People.  Bentley was incredibly lucky with the people that VW chose to bring in a real car fan as UK chairman.

Dr Franz-Josef Paefgen was an enthusiast who really got Bentley, as well as having the engineering background to ensure that the new models would make a real statement.  His specialist niche allowed him to develop the Bugatti Veyron alongside Bentley’s own Continental and Mulsanne ranges. He was also instrumental in Bentley’s return to the race track after over 70 years away – culminating in a  1-2 at Le Mans in 2003.

Paefgen stepped down in February 2011 when he hit the German retirement age, and the new team is still finding its feet.  The key roles are filled by ex-Porsche people, and they’ve definitely got a good track record in two seater sports cars, but what next for the “fastest lorries on earth?” In some ways the future looks ok; Porsche’s current best selling model is the totally atypical Cayenne; but do they really understand a top level British luxury marque – and can they continue stretching it in the way that VW has in the past decade? Maybe Bentley was just lucky to have a real car man who understood the product at the top for so long… Can Bentley sustain its recent success, or will it now sink back to current Rolls-Royce levels – lovely (and very expensive) cars, but something ever-so-slightly missing?

Levi Roots captured the nation’s imagination as well as £50,000 from the Dragon’s Den when he appeared on our screens in February 2007 and before long Sainsbury’s was shifting as many bottles of his Reggae Reggae in a week as they had expected to sell in a year.

Since then the brand has grown to become worth £30m but the fairy-tale of a charismatic yet amateurish entrepreneur with musical tendencies may turn out to be not entirely truthful. Roots is currently appearing in the High Court having been summoned at the request of his former business partners who claim that he reneged on their agreement to launch Reggae Reggae  sauce together and instead went alone with the TV Dragons. During the case Roots has admitted that the back of pack claim that his “family in Jamaica have been blending home-made jerk sauce since way back, and for years it’s been the taste of London’s Notting Hill Carnival” is in fact “a marketing ploy”.

Some have predicted that this could undermine consumers’ faith in the brand and spark a backlash inevitably resulting in a crippling slide in sales and loss of long term brand equity. I wouldn’t be so sure.

In fact it’s all too common for brands to ‘exaggerate’ their claim to a certain heritage in order to create a compelling story for the purpose of differentiation.

Tia Maria claims to be made using a recipe passed down by the family of a maid working for a 17th Century Spanish Aristocrat when in all likelihood it was invented after the Second World War. ‘Imported’ beer brands play to authentic, continental cues when they are often brewed just down the road.

Some brands go so far as to play with heritage in marcomms and use it as the basis of ‘positioning off’ as Marco’s  did with Italian ancestry in the American pizza market (see Giles Lury’s post on “Brands Positioning Off” from 2nd November.)

The point is I don’t think the so-called ‘marketing ploy’ fabricated anything central enough to the brand to undermine Reggae Reggae’s authenticity, and even so, consumers are used to brands playing games with heritage. The reason we loved Levi Roots in the first place was because of his unconventional, perhaps roguish, charm which gave birth to a jagged and interesting brand. This latest chapter may well have even increased interest in his story.