Trust me, I understand brand value and the importance of protecting it. This past November, Forbes released its list of the worldÂ’s most valuable brands. Apple was at the top with a brand value of $104.3 billion, followed by Microsoft at $56.7 billion. Coca-ColaÂ’s brand was third with a value of $54.9 billion. An organizationÂ’s brand means everything when it comes to attracting and retaining customers. It is worthy of police protection and court orders in most situations.
But every brand has two components, the first of which is “brand identity.” This is defined and controlled by the business and typically includes the company’s name, logo, tagline, website, advertising, etc. Collectively, these elements symbolize the promise or commitment an organization makes to consumers. Brand identity is how a business perceives itself -- or wants to be perceived in the marketplace.
“Brand image” is different. It forms in the minds of consumers in response to interactions with an organization -- either direct or indirect. It is the image or feeling that immediately surfaces when thinking about an business. Because brand image is at the mercy of others’ perceptions, it is much more difficult for a company (including its brand police and lawyers) to manage, and impossible to control entirely.
The ITC is right -- and obligated -- to monitor and protect both its brand identity and image. After all, Iditarod sponsors like GCI, ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo and others pay handsomely for the right to affiliate with this world-class, Alaska event. But by clamping down on urban Iditarod groups such as BostonÂ’s, the ITC damages the IditarodÂ’s brand image without gaining anything.