To Brand Or Not To Brand?

Does Corona succeed wildly in certain markets because of its brilliant branding? Or some fluke of human taste buds?

The debate is raging in the comments of Kiss Your Brand Goodbye. BNET readers have been trying to pin author Jonathan Salem Baskin to the wall about his thesis that branding is due for a sea change. The Battle of Corona started with this shot from a reader:

Let's focus on Corona for a minute. How do they command such a premium for a relatively ordinary taste? The brand is wildly popular among lower income groups despite its very high cost, because the brand conveys an exclusivity. It's popular in other segmetns for that reason and the sense of escapism they pound into us with their advertising. I'm not sure how that makes Coronoa an exception to The Rule. Seems like branding as usual to me.

The fact that individual consumers have attached their desires to Corona's product, versus (or differently from) any other other other products in the category that promote 'escapism' or other nonsense attributes that have nothing to do with drinking beer, isn't proof that Corona's branding 'works.'

Rather, it's proof that human beings attach meaning to things in their lives, and that marketers' ability to predict, control, or fine-tune those associations is pretty much limited...or doesn't really exist.

Who knows why somebody likes a beer, or a tube of toothpaste, or an insurance policy? It just seems far more reasonable for marketers to focus on their behaviors, and on prompting those actions that lead to purchase, than trying to hypnotize people with our brilliant branding.

If they buy our stuff, who cares why?

what you are saying is that Brand is still a valid concept, however the way we communicate it is not?

I hope to get to Baskin's book, "Branding Only Works on Cattle" very soon, as well as "The Brand Bubble" and "Obsessive Brand Disorder."

In the meantime, a branding poll: [poll id=16]