Is Branding Optional?

Two hair cutters in town share a common theme and a common experience. Big League Haircuts and Sport Clips have a sports theme, and the "Brand" (that is, the experience of going there) is a shampoo, scalp massage and back massage in addition to a fair haircut.

The difference, Big League has one price that includes everything. It is a couple dollars more than Sport Clips "just the haircut" price. At Sport Clips, you pay $5 more to get the extras (their advertising does not say this), which makes it more expensive than Big League's flat price.

Who has the stronger brand? Big Leagues by giving a repeatable experience every time, or Sport Clips for providing the option, which means you can have a different experience each time?

My money (literally, since they've won my business) goes to Big League. By making the brand experience optional, Sport Clips has diluted the all-important experience. You see, they've mistaken Identity (the sports theme) for Brand (the experience).

Interestingly, they are both about the same age, and Sport Clips has three times as many outlets. I hear regularly about Big League on the radio and billboards and tried them when they first opened a year ago, and return regularly. Sport Clips is right around the corner and has been for three years, but I didn't know it until I received a free coupon in the mail (for a regular haircut, not the extras). I won't be going back.

Big League understands the experiential nature of the Brand and craft their Identity to it (which includes a much better floor plan than Sport Clips).

One last thing: I asked the Sport Clip stylist about Big League. She trash-talked them (inaccurately, too). She should have been coached by the owner to ask "Who do you like better? Why? How could we improve?" which would have impressed me more than the fairly good haircut she gave me. And it would have gathered information the owner needs.