Revisiting Joe Esposito’s 2010 post on the role publishers’ brands play in purchasing decisions.
Library-based publishing is growing. A recent survey in Australia shows that “increasing visibility of the university brand” is a common objective. Charlie Rapple considers some of the challenges relating to brand for this growing sector.
Publishers often slap labels on activities that are complex, expensive, and high-value. Worse, we often accept people calling these activities “value-add” when they are core functions of how scientific information shared.
A new way to view journal content in PubMed Central casts journal branding aside for a uniform PMC approach.
Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.
At Cornell University, you can rent a bicycle from the circulation desk. Should the library be peddling a different brand?
(Editor’s Note: Published just over a year ago, this post helped people from outside publishing houses understand some fundamentals of brand management and quality proxies. It’s as clearly written as anything you’ll ever see, and a gem from the archive.) […]
When brands, credibility, and trust all stumble, what is an increasingly weary public supposed to think?
Publishers’ brands matter very much to consumers, but sometimes people are unaware of the role brands play in purchasing decisions.