Every year in the world of consumer products, millions of dollars are spent on branding efforts – activities designed to convince consumers to trust their companies and associate quality with their products. Kleenex, Band-Aids, and Xerox have brand names and product categories that are practically synonymous. Likewise, in the world of pop fashion where brand names reign, school kids virtually kill for products from Nike. 

So with all the branding activity going on, you’d think that everyone in business would know what branding is, why it’s important, and how it works. But surprisingly, for many who work in the technology arena, branding is seen as an unnecessary expense, a task relegated to the marketing staff, or at best, little more than the presence of a logo or tagline.

Mike Concordia, VP of Marketing for Pittsburgh’s CombineNet, a producer of decision support software solutions for the sourcing, transportation and energy markets, knows better. Concordia is responsible for driving CombineNet's global marketing efforts and maintaining its alignment with the company's business development goals. He brings a unique perspective to branding technology products and services. Formerly in key management positions at Procter & Gamble and Campbell Soup, two of the world’s best-known consumer brands, Concordia knows the power of branding and is now applying that know-how to one of Pittsburgh’s most promising technology producers. 

In a recent interview, Mike answered questions about the similarities, differences, challenges, and value of branding for technology products as distinct from consumer products and companies. 

How do you define “branding?”
Branding is the process that marketing goes through to create brand equity. Brand equity is the sum of all the assets linked to a brand’s name and/or symbol that add to the value of a company’s product or service. A CEO at P&G once defined brand equity as “the market value of the company’s stock less the assets on the balance sheet. ” His point was to get people to focus on the value that can be created by building strong brands – an intangible value that builds concrete results. The key components of brand equity are: brand awareness, brand loyalty, and perceived quality. Building strong brands gives companies pricing power and market leverage.

Does branding apply to technology products? 
Yes. I’m a big believer in branding for technology companies and products. Brand equity, as I define it, can make an enormous difference. Many great software companies such as SAP and Microsoft have huge market valuations. The premium comes from their brand equity, not from their tangible assets. At CombineNet, we’re a new company. Our priorities are getting trial users and creating brand awareness. Our efforts are focused on pushing certain levers so people can answer the question: “Who is CombineNet?” 

Is it more important to brand a technology product or the company that produces it?
Both. You need to see branding as a hierarchy. Brand the company first, and then connect the product(s) to it. Previously at CombineNet, the company used different names internally for its product. But those names were based on functionality and linked to an academic concept of market clearing. Beyond that, the product names had no association with the company’s name. Although we didn’t find a better name for the company, we are now doing a much better job of connecting the product to the company as part of a branding strategy. We’re spending more time building the company name than the product name, which used to describe its main function – optimization. 

Our original tagline, “Better decisions – fast,” didn’t really describe the value we create as well as we would have liked. For example, we don’t handle just any decision – we focus on important strategic decisions. We switched to a higher level by inserting a brand metaphor: decision making as the task of a fighter pilot. That metaphor links the product to what CEO’s actually do: setting a scope, targeting, and zeroing in on answers. The fighter pilot image is designed to appeal to the alter ego of our target audience of 35-55 year old men who may on some level crave the excitement and intrigue of a jet pilot or want to own a Harley motorcycle. This brand metaphor helps associate users of CombineNet’s Decision Guidance System product with members of an elite club – those who are first to use it to “win.” The company name describes aspects of the product’s value and allows for a combination of complex factors. The fighter pilot brand metaphor, however, communicates that the pilot – our customer – has complete control over those factors. 

What is the reaction to the branding efforts at CombineNet compared to your experiences in the consumer world of Procter & Gamble or Campbell Soup?
It’s been fairly positive, but with some challenges. I do have the general support of the CEO and VP of Sales. But there have been some struggles with the technical people to get them to keep in mind the most effective ways to communicate to the target audience and stay focused on our message. With salespeople too, there’s been some struggle to link their desire to sell on the basis of features to the sales value of the bigger brand message we’re trying to communicate. There’s a saying I use around the office to help convey that: “Sell the hole, not the drill bit.” Customers don’t care about features; they care about benefits. Branding communicates benefits, such as trust, that a feature list does not.

What are some of the similarities between branding in the technology world as distinct from in the consumer world?
The core process is the same. In the consumer arena you survive by understanding customers’ needs, ensuring that the product meets them, and developing the positioning to communicate that fact. It’s the same in the B2B world.

What are the major challenges facing technology branding efforts?
There are fewer resources, and less market research available, so I rely more on instinct. But there are a lot of pros. You’re more nimble, can take more risks and can act more quickly. We can use our early adopters, such as Procter & Gamble and Heinz as focus groups. That lets us test our product and marketing efforts on credible companies who understand branding and who are known for being innovative.

What are the major differences between the two?
The lack of formal structure surrounding the branding process is the biggest difference. My experiences in a bigger, consumer-based company were easier in a sense because there was a history of how people think about branding. Here at CombineNet, people come from a variety of backgrounds. I do a lot of selling of branding and how to think about it in meetings using tools such as the David Aaker book, Building Strong Brands, and using the interaction we have with P&G – one of our early adopters – to build credibility.

“Validation” is an important concept in branding. Crest used it by getting the ADA seal from the American Dental Association, a sign from a higher authority that communicates the superiority of their toothpaste compared to competitors’. Vidal Sassoon did something similar by associating its products with salons with an existing trusted and premium brand name. At CombineNet, we get validation from the well-known experts on our business and technical advisory boards. They help convince the early majority and late adopters that CombineNet is a reputable company with quality products.

What methods do you use to brand CombineNet? Are these different from the ones you used at consumer companies?
No, the methods are pretty much the same and are based on the Aaker book as well as on Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm. I have also experience being COO of a small company. That, along with my experience in large companies, helps me combine disciplined, forward-thinking methods with intuition.

The most important method is to understand your customers and stay focused on delivering products that meet their needs. Tech people are great at creating new things, but they don’t always create things that meet customers’ needs. This can be a huge problem for young, entrepreneurial companies whose principals sometimes think, “if the customer doesn’t get it, that’s their problem.”

What, in your opinion, is the best technology brand?
Microsoft. They have a powerful market valuation, which as I defined earlier, makes their brand equity enormous. They’re completely focused on their target audiences and on meeting their needs. They’re also fiercely competitive and tenacious. However there are some negatives. People are jealous of their success, and Microsoft’s culture of rebels is the antithesis of IBM’s.

What sources do you recommend to learn more about branding?
Definitely the Aaker book. Another good source is the Harvard Business Review. In fact, one article on brand loyalty by Frederick Reichheld that came out in their December 2003 issue called “The One Number You Need To Grow,” discusses a concept that is central to branding – and to creating and maintaining a business in general. Reichheld asks the question: “What is the one question you need to ask of your customers to grow your company?” His answer is: “Will you recommend this product or service to a friend or family member?” Reichheld believes the answer to that question has a bigger impact than any other factor on future revenues. AOL is an example where the answer to Reichheld’s question is often, “no.” As a result, they’re losing customers every month. So if you can find a way to measure brand loyalty, it can be a great way to build a business. 

CombineNet was founded in 2000 by Dr. Tuomas Sandholm, a professor in Carnegie Mellon University's world-renowned computer science department. It is headquartered in Pittsburgh’s Strip District. You can find out more at http://www.combinenet.com/.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Becky Kaplan is a contributing writer/marketing manager for the Pittsburgh Product Strategy Network. Becky recently graduated from Carnegie Mellon University with a Master’s degree in Marketing and Web/Communication Design. Prior to CMU, her professional experiences include 10 years designing, managing, and shipping commercial software in the box and on the web. Most of this time was spent at Microsoft Corporation as a Program Manager, Product Manager, and Technical Writer. Becky was a member of the original Microsoft Outlook 97 team and the sole Program Manager responsible for designing and shipping the first four Far East versions of the product. She is now creatively managing a career transition into marketing. She can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .