I received this book for free from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.
This post contains affiliate links you can use to purchase the book. If you buy the book using that link, I will receive a small commission from the sale.
I actually finished Brand esSense by Neil Gains a few weeks ago. I’m glad I fell behind with reviews though. Last week a friend and I chatted about the popularity of a branding session at the recent Market Mix conference. We couldn’t understand why marketers are confused by branding, when it’s essentially unchanged since the 1940s. That’s when brands were first described as anthropological concepts.
Without that discussion, I would have deemed Brand esSense an overly academic, deep read in a short book. It is an academic deep read in 232 pages, but it’s also an excellent bridge between the sensory aspects of brand and how they are used with current marketing tactics.
Who is Brand esSense for?
This needs answering a tad earlier than usual. Brand esSense is for the experienced marketers, like the ones at Market Mix. The ones with brand theory knowledge. This book skips the basics and jumps straight into the psychology behind the components of brands. It’s a heavy book.
Does it Really Go That Deep?
Yes, it does. After reading this book you’ll know which colors elicit anger, why to use smell, and creating archetypes, among others. See, I said it’s detailed.
The detail makes it a hard hard read. It’s also not linear so concepts jump around, which can be confusing. Archetypes is one. While this sounds nasty, especially when you look at other books like Seth Godin’s lighter reads, I recommend Brand esSense, just for a more academic read or experienced marketer. The detail includes some amazing research. Both scientific research and case studies explain and show how each concept helps form a brand.
And if Brand esSense gets too dry, skip to chapter eight. It’s a great summary of the book and gives enough detail to stand on its own.
Note: Being an Australian in the US meant the play on essence really confused me. I’ve been i the US long enough now to confuse Australian/UK English and did actually check spelling before posting this. Tangent, but I hope you weren’t confused too.