You'll get no argument from me that branding is valued on the product side.
Obviously it is. Look at Dyson. They have a product brand so powerful that
people like me willingly pay 5x the price for the vaccuum and consider
paying the same outrageously elevated fee for their fans, etc.
If Dyson made a stapler I'm sure I would buy it as mine forever jams.
Branding is valued on the product side precisely because you can see the
impact, and in a short enough time for the result to be linked to the
effort you put into crafting its image.
However, branding is not sufficiently valued on the corporate side (my
side) because people don't connect the fact that the way you treat people,
is the way they interact with the public, is the public perception of your
organization and the products and services it produces.
The only time branding gets valued internally, is when it's linked to a
demonstrable financial result. For example - recruitment, retention,
All I'm saying is, instead of playing around each with our own little huts
in different outposts, let's get together and build a great big house with
sturdy walls. So others can copy the design and add to it. So the world can
be filled with great brands that are delivering real value to all of their
stakeholders, including the employees themselves. Who too frequently
silently build them then get none of the credit or reward.
And now my bias is showing.