From Bricks to Clicks 60
| From Bricks to Clicks | |
| author | Serge Timacheff and Douglas E. Rand |
| pages | 303 |
| publisher | McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | Steve MacLaughlin |
| ISBN | 0071371893 |
| summary | Presents one aspect of making a prosperous online business by methodically showing the reader how to choose and establish an appropriate brand. |
From Bricks to Clicks arms businesses with an effective five-step program to help take their company's brand online. Perhaps more importantly, Timacheff and Rand have authored a book that clearly explains the entire branding process from the ground up. With the help of case studies and interviews, the authors clearly explain the five essential steps of brand development: (1) Discovery, (2) Framework, (3) Verbal Articulation, (4) Visual, Physical, and Sensory Articulation, and (5) Execution.
The book makes its argument clear within the first few pages: 'A company may have the greatest support team in the world, the best products, or the most fantastic service yet available. However, if the image is presented on its home page fails to compel the viewer, if it looks cheap, if it's culturally insensitive, if it's impossible to decipher, or if it's really slow, the brand takes a direct hit admidships.'
Timacheff and Rand point out that 'the brand on the Web is like the Marines on the beach.' If you don't successfully secure the beachhead with your brand, then 'the big guns will not succeed and the troops won't be able to land.' This is something that many companies just do not fundamentally understand. Companies also need to understand that promises made by a brand in the offline world need to be carried out on the Web as well. As the book points out, 'The goal of every brand on the Web needs to be keeping promises, not making them.'
What follows next are a series of chapters that demonstrate how best to use the five steps. Each chapter takes the reader through the step-by-step process of developing their brand from scratch. Along the way Timacheff and Rand point out potential pitfalls and provide anecdotes to drive their advice home.
The 'Discovery' chapter focuses on tying the brand's promise with the company?s core message and business plan. The goal of this stage is for everyone to understand how the company's brand will uniquely position itself in the marketplace. Timacheff and Rand stress the importance of this stage because it establishes 'the foundation upon which the brand will be built.'
The Framework chapter focuses on how the brand will be structured, and what role parent or sub-brands will play in the company's future. It is at this point that the company's core message is finalized, and where clear brand standards are established. The way a company structures its brand ('branded house' vs. 'house of brands') can greatly influence the direction of their online branding activities.
The 'Verbal Articulation' chapter focuses on developing company, product, and service names. Legal issues including trademark and URL registration also take place at this stage. Several examples of company name and URL confusion are highlighted. The authors also discuss the need for consistency across all communications, including collateral materials, press releases, presentations, and the Web.
The 'Visual, Physical, and Sensory Articulation' chapter focuses on the look and feel of the brand. The corporate logo, style guide, and visual characteristics ranging from product packaging to trade show booths are developed during this stage. Designing for the Web with the brand in mind is a delicate balance of both form and function. From Bricks to Clicks emphasizes that 'launching a Web site without any serious consideration of the branding and brand process is corporate suicide in the New Economy.'
The 'Execution' chapter focuses on launching the brand to the targeted audience. The Web site is launched, the advertising appears, and all other corporate and marketing communication begins. The importance of brand 'pruning and maintenance' are highlighted to keep the Web brand healthy and thriving. Companies may occasionally need to repeat the branding process to 'understand the brand as it is now and to know what change is on the horizon.'
What makes From Bricks to Clicks such a valuable book is its detailed description of the brand development process. Do not be fooled by the cover. This book is not just for companies looking to transfer their brand online, but instead can be used by companies who are trying to either develop or resurrect their offline brands. From Bricks to Clicks is as much a book about the fundamentals of branding as it is one about taking your brand to the Web.
If you have your brand clearly defined, then this book will help you to make the right moves to leverage it online. If you have a brand that's seen better days, then this book can help you to get it back on track before going online. If you are starting out with no brand at all, this book can help you to start developing a brand for both the online and offline worlds.
Finally, From Bricks to Clicks can also be a very useful resource for companies that aren't interested in undertaking do-it-yourself branding. The book is right on target with its advice on how to choose the right firm for both branding and Web site design. I must admit to placing a red sticky-note flag on the page where the authors state: 'Look for process. Demand process. Don't pay for a design or a Web site. Pay for a process.' Amen! Anyone who seriously cares about their company's brand should add this book to their must-read list.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
PETsMART??! (Score:2)
I think these guys have been hitting the code red just a little too hard.
-S
A dog needs a backpack (Score:2)
Brick to Clicks - Straight from the B.S. Generator (Score:3, Funny)
CKO??? (Score:1)
Re:I'll save you the trouble... (Score:1)
Beachheads (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Beachheads (Score:2)
Re:Beachheads (Score:2)
No, I believe it was the Bay of Pigs.
Mail-order as an example (Score:2, Insightful)
Advertising a name only works if you are established, such a Coca-Cola, until then you need to advertise what you sell and why people should buy it, otherwise you might aswell try selling uncontained air.
What makes the difference is a smart business plan based on the long term, with short-term steps. A short-term only business plan is only valid for get-rich-quick people and suckers, and have all the risk of bungine jumping without the cord. You don't need an MBa to realise this, just being intelligent is enough, and I think most people keeping away from the pot are capable of this.
Clicks 'N' Mortar (Score:2)
Sheesh, where was this book when I needed it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple business concepts working on the effect of the dismal economy. Great book marketing.
Really though. Isn't this pretty much common sense that everyone should be aware (geeks and suits alike) Unfortunately is so American to get caught up in the trend and the trend the past couple years was venture funding ridiculous ideas. Thank goodness that's over. As George Carlin once said. "We americans are known for two things. Taking a good idea and running it into the ground and taking a bad idea and running it into the ground.
I'd venture a guess if I actually read this book, it would provide the information found in any 300 level marketing class but written in the the style of the "Dummies" book series.
Still, it'd probably a good read since most geeks could give two shits about the sales and marketing side. You must realize though it's always going to be a team effort. We can't live without eachother so we might as well understand eachother and get along.
I'm thouroughly impressed by fellow sales and marketing folk who share the details of their jobs as we (the geeks) explain the systems that run the show under the sheets.
</drivel>
Re:Sheesh, where was this book when I needed it. (Score:2)
Bingo.
The "New Economy" was a scam. Students of History knew it. But now we've gone too far in the opposite direction, with the belief that online enterprises cannot make money.
The facts don't bear that out. I recently read (either in the Economist or The Motley Fool) that the current leaders on-line are old brick-and-mortar enterprises that successfully made the leap. The reason? They had the basic fundamentals of sound business practice first.
And it's not entirely true that geeks don't care about sales and marketing. You can geek out on sales and marketing strategy just as you can on software tools and hardware architecture. And we code geeks certainly DO care when we have jobs and have to work with sales and marketing to get the right product made, and then to get that product sold.
But you're right. The rules of business haven't changed, and the old rules still apply -- they always did -- we're just using a new medium for the same old rules.
CKO == chief knowledge officer (Score:1)
HTH, HAND, and to the CKO: FOAD
Crappy sites (Score:2, Funny)
Thank God, maybe people will figure out that gaudy multicoloured textured backgrounds and fusia text just doesn't cut it ^-^ I've seen my share of commercial sites that had useful stuff, but the page so so bad that no one knew it was useful at all
I wonder if the book will talk about names too... I mean "Site du jour of the day" just wasn't thought out too well.... sorry, I don't have the link to that page anymore or I'd post it!
Re:Crappy sites (Score:2)
Site du Jour of the Day Archives [tripod.com]
Additionally... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Additionally... (Score:1)
Re:Additionally... (Score:1)
So many companies have gone sneakers up because they had ineffective advertising. They blew gobs of investor cash on ads of questionable merit (Superbowl, anyone?), and then woke up one day to the ugly hangover that people weren't buying from them. Oops. For a lot of dot-coms, the most cost-effective advertising is goto.com and other pay-for-placement search engines. I know; I'm working for a dot-com whose larger, better financed competitors went out and blew tens of millions on TV ad campaigns that, while boosting their traffic levels, couldn't possibly have been profitable for them. That is to say, this book sounds like Doctor Quack's Elixir And Panacea for Ailing Dot-Com's.
cash-flow? (Score:1)
Doesn't that mean "learning how to prepare for chapter 11"?
www.pets.com was clever? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, let's order a $3.99 20 pound bag of cat litter, the shipping will only be $10.
Online pet supplies is one of the dumbest dotcom ideas out there.
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm, it's called planning ahead. That way when one bag of food runs out, you already have another! Imagine that!
Actually, I thought pets.com ruled--they gave you a $10 off coupon with every order (not to mention all the coupons on the web). My pet food budget was at at all time low while they were around!
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:2)
The moral of the story is that any web store that charges sales tax and shipping better make up for the double surcharge in some way. The product prices are supposed to be lower because the costs are supposed to be lower. If it costs you as much money to stock inventory for a web store as it does for a brick-and-mortar store, then you're doing something wrong.
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:4, Funny)
quit frankly if pets.com budgeted better, and was given time, it would have been successful. most business, including web business, take 3 to 5 years to begin to be succesful.
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the most innacurate thing I've read all day
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh, people who have to listen to her?
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:1)
Might I recommend you spellcheck your spelling flames? ;)
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:1)
IMHO, most of the people including VCs thought that were were great ideas at that time, when things dont work out they start finding faults.
Does this help????
_guess_not_
Re:www.pets.com was clever? (Score:1)
Logo for the post (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Logo for the post (Score:1)
Not intending to be harsh... (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I found the homepage [expidant.com] of Expidant to be somewhat at odds with some of the basic branding theory discussed in the review. A Management Team [expidant.com] section which shows no Management Team? A Corporate Overview [expidant.com] section called "Then/Now/Next" which doesn't state what the company does (but brags that it very well and gets paid good money to do so)? A company name that is meaningless, unfortunately forgettable, that feels like a misspelling of "Expedient", and could as easily be used for a subcompact Japanese automobile or a new sports drink. A self-description as "An Interactive Foundry" (shouldn't the name, then, nod to metal-working? All the "alloy" and "alchemy" domains already scooped up by other interactive foundries [alloystudios.com]?)
I hope my opinions are perceived as constructive criticism. On the positive side, I do think the site was pretty clean, easy to navigate, and that this testifies to their skills despite the shortcomings. I don't doubt that the company gets a lot of business, and hope that they continue to do so in this harsher economic climate.
I also know this constitutes a "review-of-a-review", and that this sort of meta-commentary-on-commentary is all-too-often the rule in the solipsistic community of opinionated pinheads that is Slashdot (not throwing stones, I live in this glass house, too). So please forgive me if I'm playing to the stereotype, and if by doing so, I am actually furthering the stereotype here by offering a review-of-my-review-of-a-review. And stop me before I descend into an infinite feedback loop. Because I don't mean to be critical of the reviewer, but I do think for the sake of Expidant that he might want to take some of the messages about branding/communications to heart...
Oh, go ahead, be harsh. (Score:2)
Seriously, folks, do you think you're impressing anyone by choosing random syllables and attaching them to each other? Any two-year-old can do that. Maybe you would need a twelve-year-old who just took a SAT vocabulary class to pick out "impressive" "bold" "corporate" yet "soft" "fuzzy" syllables, but please! Can't your name have some content?
Yeah, I know, trademarkable, yadda yadda. Well, there are still "new" companies with good names [rhythms.net]. In fact, some of them are bankrupt and surely willing to sell the names to the highest bidder!
Back to business 101 (Score:2, Interesting)
What's a CKO? (Score:1)
What's a CKO? Chief KDE officer? Chief Krap Officer?
Re:What's a CKO? (Score:1)
What happens with the IS department head gets delusions of adequacy.
Review of the review (Score:2, Insightful)
Here are some questions I have after reading the review:
Did the book's authors give one or more examples of what they consider a successful online/offline brand? Or are the supporting anecdotes given from lots of different companies? I don't see any examples from the book in the review itself.
What are the (book) author's qualifications for writing such a book? Are they themselves in charge of building an on-line brand for a bricks&mortar outfit? Are they web branding consultants?
Overall, why do they consider on-line branding any different from off-line branding? Isn't the general idea the same for either: "what does your company make, and why should we buy from you vs. your competitor?"
Expidant, Inc. (Score:2, Interesting)
Expidant, Inc.? Never heard of it.
'nuf said.
-S
Re:Expidant, Inc. (Score:1)
The last year (Score:2, Funny)
The last year can best be summed up by:
From Bricks To Clicks to Bricks
Or
From Bricks to Clicks to Hitting the Bricks
It concerns me that much of what I'm reading on Slashdot these days is more along the lines of "Worst case scenario" of making and sustaining a profit from the internet (i.e. Microsoft XP bleeding profits out of consumers because they give consumers what they're dumb enough to want in the first place [or Microsoft is lying...would they do that?])
Kudos for the review.
Track record (Score:3, Insightful)
Batteries.com? Whoopee.
I think his book is about a year too late.