What is a Brand? Farewell Ronald!

What is a Brand?: Is it based on its content? or the people who use it?

A prime example is Apple and the iPad in particular. While Apple has its own identity, when it comes to the iPad they have advertised it based on the apps it has, which indirectly defines its capabilities. While this is great, its different from most of Apple's positioning as its based on functionality rather than Apple's lifestyle branding. It also means that the iPad in itself does not have its own identity but its made up of what others think of it which in a way is very "social" of them as it depends on people (or app makers in this case) together to create what a brand stands for. As Apple describes it 'iconic', 'fresh', 'news', 'stories', 'teachers', etc...

Another brand who are defined by what they serve are McDonalds, once supposed to be restaurant for the entire family are now defined as 'fast food' and all the negative connotations that dredges up. Therefore it comes as no surprise that Ronald McDonald is being let go. While he has served as the mascot for a long time, fears of him appealing to younger children are behind this move. Overall it looks like a good idea, especially since they have been undergoing a brand change for awhile now, by cutting ties to the old image, McDonalds is on its way to re-positioning itself as an adult(?) healthy fast food option, and Ronald could be re-positioned as a mascot for the Ronald McDonald's house charities.


If I am to say that a Brand is defined by its content, what about Dunkin Donuts' latest move to position themselves as healthy? They are to introduce a new menu with healthy, protein based, wholemeal food, but this is somewhat at loggerhead with the image of a "Donut" which is definitely not healthy...so what are the chances of success for this brand extension? It would certainly require a massive image overhaul  and definitely it would be a good idea to start making healthy doughnuts. If a company wishes to change its image, it has to be done holistically and not just in those sections which are desirable.



Speaking of an image overhaul, Wikipedia is determined to change its status of not being allowed to be referenced academically, by inviting students and academics to submit their research papers to their ever-growing database. And having big names such as Harvard, California-Berkeley and George Washington University participate is a definite plus. And its about time as well, maybe with this effort Wikipedia might be finally accepted as a scholarly source, as the term 'Wiki it' is almost synonymous as to 'Google it'.


Branding usually meant that a company could choose how it would want itself to be represented, and they would take great pains to ensure that their products would be picked up and used by the right people to maintain that consistent image, and this is mostly true in the case of Luxury brands. In the case for cars, is the brand defined by how it positions itself or by the people who drive it? The Porsche has always been a sports car but their recent campaign, for the 911,  suggest otherwise. In it the car is put to a variety of uses generally reserved for a family car. In their statement if the car is used for everyday purposes then why not accept it? I'm a little unsure about this theory because then Porsche will not be a sports car but a family car, as it is to be defined by the people who use it. So will this help or harm the brand is yet to be seen.