Talk:Brand/Archives/2014

Introduction's focus on accounting practices is questionable.
Of the introduction's 260 words, 100 are currently devoted to brand valuation (which already has its own page), concluding with "the notion of putting a value on a brand forces marketing leaders to be focused on long term stewardship of the brand and managing for value."

This inclusion seems rather arbitrary. One could instead represent graphic design, differentiating identity and logo from "brand" (a common mistake), social media branding -- you name it. Should valuation be moved further down, and/or use the link to the brand valuation page instead of overdescribing the process on the Brand page?

MandyCatalano (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Brand identity" section wanders into how-to territory; also merge "brand identity" with "visual brand identity"?
The second paragraph does not contain any specific references/citations. It also sounds like a marketing client pitch or advice for marketing and branding professionals. "Typically" and "should be" seem out of place in an encyclopedia.

Also, the page doesn't reflect the hierarchical organization of terms. "Visual brand identity" is a component of "brand identity" and should fall somewhere under the heading "brand identity." Editorial identity and nomenclature should also be represented in the same area.

MandyCatalano (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes you are correct. This article needs some WP:BOLD editing. Please feel free to make changes. Bhny (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Crowd Sourcing Branding
I removed this sentence, as the argument is problematic and would need further elaboration: "This type of method minimizes the risk of brand failure, since the people that might reject the brand in the traditional method are the ones who are participating in the branding process."

Reasoning: In theory, this argument might be true, the problem is that usually crowd sourcing branding is crowd sourced to (semi-professional) designers on crowd sourcing platforms, which are not necessarily part of the target group. Even if customers are asked to be a part for the branding team they might have very different views on the product or lack the understanding of all implications. So it is desirable to involve customers or even better learn about their needs through observation etc, but sourcing the branding itself to the crowd is not necessarily a better approach than the traditional approach done right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.37.134 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Error in Brand Name diagram
The diagram Relationship between trade marks and brand in the Brand Name section has the Holds arrowhead at the wrong end of the line. I'm afraid I don't know (yet) how to change diagrams. DavidCh0 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello DavidCh0, thank you for your comment! The diagram is correced now. --LepoRello (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)