In the first part of this post, we discussed the nature of the ordinary kind of branding. Last post, we discussed the shortcomings of this approach and distinguished it from the true nature of branding. This time, we'll discuss how to achieve this kind of branding and who is good at it.

As usual, Seth Godin adopts a strong position: good is much worse than great. I am reminded of Spinoza's famous claim (from 1677) that "all things worthwhile are as difficult as they are rare" (Pt. V, prop. 42). If good isn't nearly as good as great, it seems to follow from this claim that it's better to perform 1 great act than 2 (or 3? or 4?!) good ones. Is this true?

Last time we discussed the ordinary kind of branding. This time we'll look at the better kind.

Good branding creates an understanding of the essence of the company. Just as a writers characterization allows the reader to grasp the true essence of the individual (whether fictional or nonfictional), the brander must establish the true nature of the company.

Seth Godin brings up an example of an attitude that I see often. When you work at a company for a while, it's easy to start thinking that your company is the universe.

We have spent a good deal of time thinking about Academic Marketing. We have analyzed what it is and discussed its current shortcomings. The final topic to be considered is the importance of academic marketing. Why do it?

Last time, we talked about how a failure to understand an audience's needs and desires can result in useless communication. This time, we'll address a more general point. Academic marketing is often too subtle.

We saw last time that academic marketing tends to poorly understand its true audience. This time, we'll discuss how academic marketing fails to understand motivation to action.