I’ve heard it all: “We don’t have a brand” (and, alternatively, “We need a brand”); “This is a great branding opportunity;” “We’ve really been trying to brand this program;” “These are the pillars of our brand;” “This initiative will really brand us;” “We updated our brand a couple of years ago.”

We also routinely hear the words “marketing” and “branding” and “communications” being used as if they are wholly different, unrelated endeavors. How did that ever happen?

Today’s post reprises parts of one from last year to help set the record straight.

In the same way that we sometimes let “marketing” refer only to promotional activities (see my inaugural post, et al.), we sometimes let “branding” refer solely to our visual identity and maybe a pithy tagline.

In our not-for-profit context, “brand” and “branding” are terms that mean so much more than just your logo and other ways you creatively present yourself to your various audiences. Branding is about shaping how your stakeholders characterize you, what values they associate with you, and how they interpret your program offerings vis-à-vis the competition. But more importantly, it’s about changing the argument from what you do to what you mean in the marketplace. This results from a comprehensive, successful integration of all touchpoints – yes, your visual identity and design protocols, but also the language used in print and spoken word; the service-delivery experience; the quality of your programs, services, or products; and much more.

In a 2004 article, Richard Hesel, principal of the Art & Science Group, characterized a brand as a “compelling identity that expresses the special qualities of [a product/program/organization] in ways that motivate the interest and inspire the dreams of important constituencies.” Good stuff! And Hesel’s quote ends up referencing a number of the “Ps” of marketing this blog has discussed in the past.

This does not happen overnight, or even over a year. Shaping a brand – i.e., branding – is a long-term process of thoughtful, constant, and innovative stewardship that moves you closer and closer to an aspirational position in the marketplace. Since mindful shaping of your brand will generate future financial returns and enhanced fulfillment of mission, the brand you build should be viewed as a capital asset. Something as important as that could never be wrapped up in a singular activity, like adopting a new logo.

So no, branding is not about your new visual identity system – as sexy, creative, and evidence-based as it might be. Certainly that new logo has a lot of power in helping you shape perceptions, which in turn will help push you closer to your aspirational positioning – that sweet spot in the marketplace where you are most successful, but it’s not your brand.

One of the more fascinating developments in marketingland these days comes from our friends in the for-profit sector, and from a [very] unlikely source at that: J.C. Penney.

After the start of the new year, we began to hear about some dramatic changes being rolled out over the next four years that, together, will serve as a really interesting case study in how major changes in the marketing Ps of Price, Promotion, Protocol, and eventually Product will help a somewhat tired and ailing brand get its mojo back. This, under the leadership of a CEO who was previously Apple’s retail chief. Bingo.

From the JCP website: “On every visit, customers will discover straightforward Fair and Square Pricing, month-long promotions that are in sync with the rhythm of their lives, exceptionally curated merchandise, artful presentation, and unmatched customer service.”

And not to be overlooked is their new visual identity: pared-down, patriotic, and reflective of the fair-and-square pricing credo and in-store Town Square concept. It gets a A+ in terms of relevancy and responsiveness to the broader strategy.

While we’ll have to do some translation to get the emerging lessons from J.C. Penney applicable to our sector, it can be done pretty easily. Read on with articles in Forbes, The New York Times, and Cult of Mac.

Could JCP indeed become another Target-like offering where your shopping experience and bargain-hunting doesn’t leave you feeling sad? Hear that, Walmart?

With any luck, I’ll actually remember my new-year resolutions a few weeks from now. One resolution that I actually have in mind for you, is to help me spread the word that marketing is not about promotion.

It was a disheartening end to 2011 when, just a few days ago, I reviewed what I thought would be a promising additional textbook for an upcoming class I’m teaching. While the book certainly offered some compelling insights, it was jumbled in its organization and led the reader to believe that promotional tactics and pithy communications were the essence of successful marketing.

Combatting that falsehood has been a key goal of this blog, and to kick off the new year right, I’m reprising my inaugural post below.

* * *

Marketing is not about promotion

My first post, and I’m already lying to you.

Of course marketing is about promotion, but that’s only part of the equation.

Even those of us who have studied the true nature of marketing can get caught up in the loose terminology tossed around in our organizations and in the media, where we’re seemingly led to believe that “marketing” is simply about sexy brochures, our online presence, and advertising.

Alas, we are challenged to remember the creation credited to E. Jerome McCarthy (who, in its 18th edition, remains an author of the flagship academic tome “Basic Marketing”): the Four Ps. The Ps accurately characterize marketing as much more than Promotion, but rather a mixture of how Product, Place, and Price also work to leverage the dynamics at play in the marketplace. Fine-tuning the mix, like in baking a cake or finding the best levels on a car stereo, would either lead an organization to success, failure, or something in between.

Sadly, the Ps too often fall by the wayside, with Promotion – if not seen as a silver bullet – viewed as the big dog on the block. And even contemporary nonprofit marketing textbooks, while they certainly delve into the fun complexities of organizational advancement, tend to poo-poo the Ps (perhaps deeming them as irrelevant or sophomoric?) and are sometimes inexact in their language.

But I stand by the Ps, and for me they are as exciting and helpful as ever. And they should be for you, too. We all know that, in the end, we can have the best promotional strategies, tactics, and tools ever, but if your product (or service) stinks, you’re located in the wrong place (or fail to be located at all, like in an online—or virtual—location), or have a price point too high or too low (if applicable), you won’t advance as effectively as possible. And that’s the best-case scenario.

What’s even more exciting is that more Ps have been added to the mix over time. A quick Google search may elicit two, three, or more Ps added to the original four depending on where you look. When I teach, I actually discuss 12 Ps that I find valuable in order to also address things like segmentation; customer service; the ability to meet demand; enhanced stakeholder involvement and feedback; stakeholder-to-stakeholder interaction and networking; and perhaps most importantly, effective planning and the idea of making evidence-based decisions when adjusting your marketing mix. (By the way, we should credit two more people, James Culliton and Neil Borden for developing the “mix” concept and terminology.)

The Ps provide empowerment. It’s been a tough few years for nonprofits, but the Ps – in good times and in bad – give us the ability to make informed decisions about how we choose to act in the marketplace in order to better fulfill or sustain our mission. And that’s what marketing is all about.