October 19th, 2006
Brands Matter More Than Ever In Media and Technology
I’ve been thinking a lot about media brands and whether they still matter in the new media landscape. The more I think about, the more it seems that brands are the only thing that still matters in media. What’s changed is not the importance or the role of media brands, but rather what defines a media brand and what – or who – can become a brand. Media brands are increasingly defined by communities, and now anyone – from individuals to software companies – can create a media brand.
Why does Google dominate search? Brand. Google’s original search brand is so successful that they can’t even get people to use their vertical searches, e.g. Maps, Images, Video, Books, even when those tool better serve users needs. Use of Google’s core search is no longer a function of whether Google is better (in many cases it’s not). People use Google the same way they use P&G products – out of brand loyalty and often just out of habit.
Why did YouTube beat Google Video? Brand. Notably, it’s the community that defined the YouTube brand as much as the technology. Ultimately, it was the strength of the brand — and Google Video’s inability to compete with the brand’s dominace — that drove the acquisition. What makes the top blogs so successful? Brand. Again, community is a key driver, which you can see in the active comments on successful blogs. In many cases, blog brands are built around individuals, but they are brands nonetheless.
Why were Weblogs Inc. and Gawker among the first successful blog media companies? Because they built brands. I’ve heard Jason Calacanis say the reason he didn’t aggregate existing blogs, as Federated Media is doing, is that he wanted to own the brands.
Why is Yahoo the largest portal? Brand. Why do so many people shop at Amazon despite the proliferation of online shopping alternatives? Brand. Why is Digg so popular? Brand — again, a community-defined brand, but a brand nonetheless.
Even the social networking wars are being fought over brands. Here’s Jay Stevens, vice president of sales and operations at MySpace:
“Ultimately people identify with [online] publishing the same way they do in the offline world. The newspapers we read and the television channels we view are representative of what you are about,” said Stevens. He went on to say that there is some interaction but that people use different social networks for different purposes. “Some people might be on Bebo to communicate with friends but will then go to MySpace to check out what’s new in popular culture.”
A media brand can be an individual voice, a social networking platform, or an online software application. It’s undeniable that traditional media brands no longer have a monopoly over our attention — but as Jay Stevens points out, the fundamental dynamics of media brands hasn’t changed. We self-identify through our media brand choices, which now include all of the technology brands we use. Increasing, there is no meaningful distinction between technology and media brands in the consumer space – they all compete for our attention. We are defined by the devices and applications we used as much as by the content we consumer. I’m an iPod user, Gmail user, Pandora user, Firefox user, Basecamp user, Feedburner user, Amazon shopper. I listen to the Gillmor Gang and read Rough Type (and without my head exploding). I am part of the TechMeme community.
It all comes back to brand. There may be new drivers of brand loyalty in media, and the barriers to building a brand may have fallen away. But brands still rule.
Although I am still the sole author of this blog, much of the value has accrued to the Publishing 2.0 brand, which you can see in a (now brand-defining) Google search.
Domains are brands, which is why domain investing has become so lucrative.
All of the Web 2.0 companies, with their oddball brand names, are fighting a battle for brand dominance. Are you a Del.icio.us user or a StumbleUpon user? Are you a PodShow listener or a PodTech listener? Do you use YouTube or, well, I guess that battle is over.
Despite all of the proliferation of content, media/technology is still largely a winner take all industry. Google. Yahoo. Amazon. Ebay. YouTube. MySpace. These are the dominant brands.
Media/technology companies are not only competing for our attention, they are competing for our loyalty. Consumers may be in control, but they are still creatures of habit who seek the comfort of familiar brands.
At the end of the day, brands are about trust. Which brands do you trust? Which brand has a community that you can trust, a community where you can belong?
Whether you are a blogger, a traditional media company, a new media company, or a technology company, your brand is your most valuable asset. Nuture it. Grow it. Form a vibrant community around it.
But never lose sight of your brand.
Topics: Blogs | Digg | Google | Microsoft | MySpace | Publishing 2.0 | Search | Social Media | Technology | Web 2.0 | Yahoo
Powered by 
Design by 
[…] Some people have been arguing that the emergence of the publics ability to create their own media would make brands a thing of the past. However if you look at it like Scott Karp does it on Publishing 2.0 you would think again about that. […]
Shared by: don l on 10/19/2006 at 6:40 PM - Details Brands Matter More Than Ever In Media and Tech…
[…] From Publishing 2.0 We are defined by the devices and applications we used as much as by the content we consumer[sic]. I’m an iPod user, Gmail user, Pandora user, Firefox user, Basecamp user, Feedburner user, Amazon shopper. I listen to the Gillmor Gang and read Rough Type (and without my head exploding). I am part of the TechMeme community. […]
brand is indeed becomin everything.. one must not frgt.. that v r the one who make brands & not the company. so if there’s a new company providing a gud alternative there’s no harm in trying them out. but ppl are concerned of frauds & being victimized of scams or company shutdowns.. microsoft, lg, samsung weren’t branded by birth.. but these firms are now using more than helping comsumers by high-prices products. big pity.
anyways, u can read a blog on IT & CE research at http://www.rncos.com/Blog/itresearch.html
thx & happy bloggin.
Scott, you told us earlier in the week that “Media is about control of a pipe.” I didn’t agree with that statement, but now you seem to be saying something different which I can get behind “…brands are the only thing that still matters in media.” Yes! Why? Because trusted/recognized brands provide ordinary people with trusted/recognized access points into unruly/decentralized networks. So it’s not about controlling the pipe or the network for that matter. It is, however, about controlling access to the network.
Well, if you can’t control the pipe, what do you have left? The brand.
It’s like reservations-only restaraunts vs. nightclubs that are open to everyone. The first can control who gets in, and who does what. The second controls nothing but the venue itself, the atmosphere and feel of participating in it. The brand.
Media is moving to the nightclub model. They create a great venue, a place that has a good look and feel, and they throw open the doors. Their success then hinges on who shows up, and what they do there. The people and their actions are what make the brand, the brand just serves as the space in which those actions take place.
Good post. I linked to it. You’ve expressed something I’ve thought about many times over the years.
I’m not sure I fully agree. Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse? Brands are built by communities, not vice versa. While a successful community may grow because of brand awareness, the initial success itself is about service quality. My mom might use Google because of brand awareness, but my nephew’s loyalty is fickle, and it will go where the quality is. I think I’m saying what is intuitive - brand is only half the equation. You cant control your brand, you can only control the quality of your service. The example’s you site as successful - Digg, YouTube, Gawker, the have not been successful because of their “brand”, their brand was built by their focus on their product.
All that said, if you are able to build a product that garners positive brand awarenes, you should do everything in your power to protect what you have built. The irony is that the best way to protect that brand is to continue to stay service focused - and pretend you dont care about your “brand”, you care about your community.
J, I like the metaphor.
Kurt, you’re right, the inability to control brands through mass media communications means that the product/service itself is the only thing you can control. This is true now for all brands, not just media brands. I think the larger observation for media is that in the absence of control over distribution channels (”pipe”), media brands are where all of the value now accrues.
ideia de que os processos através dos quais nos relacionamos com quem nos fornece informação são, na essência, os mesmos. O que é um leitor de feeds RSS senão uma organização das minhas ‘comodidades’ pessoais? Vem isto a propósito de um post de Scott Karp que acabei de ler. Falando-nos da força das marcas no mundo dos media diz: “The more I think about, the more it seems that brands are the only thing that still matters in media. What
site will account for one/FIFTH of the magazine company’s numbers in 2007. I half-expected the man to pass out cigars, in triumph. The industry is no longer being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.†Scott Karp reflects on the strength that large media companies have in the market, despite an increase in competition: “We are defined by the devices and applications we used as much as by the content we consumer… It all comes back to brand. There may be new drivers of brand loyalty in media, and the barriers to
hat letzte Woche in seinem sehr empfehlenswerten Blog “Publishing 2.0†eine große Erkentniss gelassen ausgesprochen: Marken sind enscheidend für Erfolg in den Medien allgemein und insbesondere im Internet. Am besten, Ihr lest selbst: Brands Matter More Than Ever In Media and Technology
“…again, a community-defined brand, but a brand nonetheless.”
I really like this thought!
As branding increasingly becomes a personal, two-way interaction between an individual and a company the aggregation of the individuals into a community, and the successful aggregation of their brands, will be the competitive advantage that forms long-term value.
Interesting thought Scott, thanks for it.
Dear Scott,
You might be interested in what we have to say over at Communities Dominate Brands
Communities Dominate Brands
For example Why is mobile social networking worth $3.45b?
[…] I’ve been thinking allot lately about who owns music? What ownership means, and how we keep it close to us without being asses about ’stealing music’. I steal music, if someone wants to download our record without paying for it I say go ahead, better they hear us than not at all! I’ve been thinking how I want us to ‘own’ our next record. I mean ownership as in physical ownership (the tapes) and (more importantly to me) ‘owning it’ as in making it your own in a more… metaphysical, abstract way.. A friend has sent me some interesting links about this subject: HERE […]
Brands Matter More Than Ever In Media and Technology » Publishing 2.0