5 ms·

I don't understand your comment. There's a lot of value in a brand that promises you'll get what you came for, efficiently (and of course, delivers on that pro

• Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  I want to agree but there's a lot of counter examples.
  • ctrlmeta 4y ago
    Cite some of those counter examples. Not being snarky. It would be nice to see what those counterexamples are. Good to see a topic from opposite perspectives.
  • LaundroMat 4y ago
    There are companies that deliberately aim to serve as efficiently as possible. A lot of thought goes into communicating and delivering on that promise in everything these companies say and do. Letting people get what they want efficiently isn't that easy to do. Bad branding is when there's a gap between what a brand promises and what you actually get. A store that promises efficient shopping but just puts stuff on shelves in wrapped packs of twelve, isn't really helping you efficiently get what you want. There are indeed a lot of examples of this (in all industries). But that's because these companies don't put any thought into what they want to be seen as and how they can (continuously) deliver on their promise. So the promise itself (e.g. "no-frills supermarket" or "amazing shopping experience") is irrelevant, as long as the promise is fulfilled. Whether there is a market for a promise is another thing altogether, but we're discussing whether positioning your store as the most efficient place to get what you want is detrimental to the brand, which it isn't, as long as you deliver on that promise.