Last time we discussed the ordinary kind of branding. This time we'll look at the better kind. The ordinary kind of branding yields only an average or general understanding of the company. It is derived from many particular data. It then attempts to reach the essence of the company. But, because it depends on a methodological process, the most it can do is attempt to abstract the essence by finding the average or general. The average is not the essence of the company. It is only the shorthand for the particulars accumulated in the information-gathering stage of the process. A true essential understanding results from an intuition of the essence. The essence cannot be constructed. It must be seen. The ordinary kind of branding is the result of a methodological necessity. Almost no branders are equipped to see the essence of a company. Because of this, they must fall back on a process that yields an approximation—the average. This they then position as the essential, and most companies don't know better. When the average is substituted for the essential, not only is the brand inaccurate. The results are not easily applied and yield odd results in execution. Take the example of our average product marketing from last time. If we claimed that the essence of the market was a price of $1.50, we are likely to conclude that any new product in that market should be $1.50. If the essence is that price, then we might conclude we should adopt the same stance. To do so would be confusing at best and a failure at worst. The average understanding does not give us a good understanding of how to execute. What is this essential understanding? And who can do it? We will discuss this next time.