To brand or not to brand

We come across brands every day. Whether it be in the form of our mobile phones, laptops, clothes, we are influenced by brands even if we are unaware of it. The question that was raised in Chapter 8's reading of Kotler et al. asks us whether it is more profitable to brand our products or to have 'generic' products - no name, no brand, no frills. While I believe that having 'generic' products may work for basic commodities such as flour, salt, sugar - basic ingredients we can obtain in supermarkets, I strongly believe that a generic approach will not work for financial services institutions. First and foremost, financial services institutions needs to create awareness and gain market exposure. This is not possible if the institution decides to be a 'no-name' bank. How then, will the 'no-name' bank market itself? How will future and potential customers know of the bank's quality and separate them from the rest offering similar products and services? Branding in financial services institutions exist to benefit both the institution and the market. By branding and positioning itself in the market, the financial services institution is spreading its promise on the quality and variety of its products and services. In return, customers relate certain qualities to the institution. The high cost of advertising brand promises is a small price to pay in return of market share, brand exposure and customer loyalty.