Thoughts On Branding
In the hope that they will one day evolve into something of substance, I have recently been scribbling down notes on some of the ideas I have around marketing, advertising and communication in general. Bear in mind I share these thoughts purely in my capacity as a consumer – I am no marketing, branding or advertising guru. I only hope to introduce a little perspective into an interesting conversation.
These are the unedited, unrefined thoughts I penned around “branding”. I’d love your comments and contributions, whether you agree or not!
What have brands got to do with it?
We’re precious about our brands, aren’t we? We spend the GDP of a small African state on creative agencies so that they can come up with a funky logo bundled with a 42-page Corporate Identity document – “something that reflects the personality of the brand.”
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with a funky logo. But do not be fooled – many a business with a crappy logo has done fine on the back of great internal culture, quality products and solid customer service. Seldom will you find the reverse – companies with beautifully designed corporate identities but diabolically bad products and customer service, who thrive.
What we need to realise is that ‘brand’ and ‘logo’ are not synonymous.
Picture a stream of shoppers coursing through the passageway of a popular local mall. Some are coming, some are going. Some are heavily laden with a day’s purchases and others skip from store to store. Every single one of them passes a bank which rents space on that floor – let’s call it National Unified, or better yet, substitute in your mind’s eye your bank of choice.
Now thanks to the central marketing and branding team at National Unified every shopper notices the backlit logo mounted on the wall above and next to the revolving door leading into the branch. Much time, energy and money has been put into ensuring that the ‘brand experience’ is consistent regardless of which branch of National Unified you find yourself in.
The thing is, that’s only half helpful. Regardless of how slick and current National Unified’s shiny logo is, and no matter how well appointed the branch layout and décor is, no two people passing or entering the store will feel exactly the same way about the bank.
Surely this is not news to you?
Joe walks past, notices National Unified, but it’s not his bank – he’s with RFB (a National Unified competitor) – and as such doesn’t really care.
Sally walks past, thinks of the cash she nearly forgot to draw for her son’s sports day, and quickly darts inside, heading toward the ATM. “Thanks goodness there was a branch right here to remind me”, she thinks.
Jennifer walks into the bank behind Sally, nervous as she needs to file an application for a homeloan and has been turned down twice already at National Unified competitors. National Unified has the power the to make her dreams come true, or break her heart.
Fred walks past the bank in the opposite direction to Joe. Fred recently resigned from his job as an advisor at National Unified, and can only cast his eyes heavenward in gratitude that he took the plunge. Thanks to a particularly narcissistic boss, he absolutely hated working there.
Every one of these stories, emotions, associations and relationships contributes to the ‘brand’. A brand then is so much more than a logo; it is the collection of emotions and associations each individual person who comes into contact with that logo has. We can draw two very scary conclusions from this:
- There are as many different ‘definitions’, or ‘realities’, for your brand as there are human souls who connect with it.
- It is absolutely impossible to assume that we can control how people feel about our brand, at least directly.
Let me explain that second point with an example: A popular motor vehicle manufacturer is in the throes of a PR crisis centered around a recall of faulty vehicles. In order to ‘change perceptions’ in the market, their agency puts together a wonderful feel good campaign with smiling faces and picnic baskets and Labradors to convince us that their vehicles are in fact not coffins on wheels.
The company spends millions on making sure everybody sees this campaign. Billboards, double-page spreads in industry magazines and weekend papers, TV, radio and cinema. It’s a big one.
Meanwhile, you are in the market for a reliable family sedan. You’ve done your homework. Part of your homework was watching a video a friend of a friend posted to his Facebook profile demonstrating how his faulty recall vehicle spontaneously combusted because of an electrical short. That image – the story of a trusted contact in your personal network – is burned in your mind.
What measure of exposure to the aforementioned campaign – the picnics and smiles and Labradors – will it take to trump that image in your mind? I’m guessing it’s going to take some doing. Your perception of the brand has been forged by the most powerful form of advertising there is – a referral from a friend. And unfortunately for the company in question, it’s a bad referral.
So how then do you ensure the collective perception of your brand, in the mind of both your customers and your employers, is as congruent as possible with the brand you idealise?
Do a good job.
That’s common sense.
Good read, personally, I think the brand ‘activation’ is where so much goes wrong.
Companies spend years (and millions) building their brand and then they change agencies or get a new brand manager in.
The inevitable happens where the brand goes through the same cookie cutter process of getting all SEO’ed, SM’ed and 2.0′ed up so that it can embrace its audience in the 2010 environment.
Problem is, the dramatic ad with beautiful motion graphics and the same male voice (well sounds like the same guy) does nothing but blend all those unique characteristics into one thing where, when asked, the user wouldn’t be able to tell you which ad is brand A and which one is brand B.
The unique identifier, once again, falls back to your experience as a client or user.
Great article there. Iv only really been in the Marketing and Branding side of what i do for a year or so, but seen some astonishing things when it comes to branding. Iv heard of a company spending upwards of £80,000 on their brand guidelines, and seen a lot of good and bad ideas come and go!
” But do not be fooled – many a business with a crappy logo has done fine on the back of great internal culture, quality products and solid customer service.”
What you said there is very very true from my experience. You can throw as much money and resources at something, but if the product and everything that surrounds it aren’t solid, you’ll get nowhere.
Bang on the money Mike!
As I said recently “In a world crying out for purpose, it amazes me that organisations still view branding as a design initiative”
Great creative design (logos, CI, marques, advertising campaigns) reinforces a great brand experience – never drives it. It’s people who do that – people with purpose.
That’s a great quote Peter – I might steal that!
Excellent post Mike. Very Insightful.
Funny, exactly a week and a day before you wrote this post, I did a post along the same thread – http://mzan.si/pKfY – which lead me to conclude that this thing about what a brand actually is is something that marketers are starting to look into and want to define at its very core.
Inculcation is a horrible thing.. people have been fed “branding” in the context of the advertising industry and this has become gospel.
I’m glad I’m not the only one looking to “wake people up”..
Came across this article on Inc that reminded me of your post here – “How to manage your company’s brand”.
Theirs is a very good and extensive article, but highlights your point as their strategies only talk about the marketing vehicles and tools. Not people. Not doing a good job.
A case of the cart before the horse perhaps.
I think you’ve got it right here. Nothing builds trust like trusting people and doing what you say you will.
Good insights but I must say that the real essence of “Branding” a business is as much about designing the personality, operations and product as it is about the design of a brand as a symbol.
The best way to control this is when a brand manager is very aware of real-time associations of a brand and reacts. Much like the credibility of a website or social profile it needs to be built up, managed and communicated consistently over time.
My issue is that not all “brand managers” are equal. some take a pure marketing approach and don’t understand a holistic reputation (brand equity). And some know how to write sweet plan and design eye candy with little emphasis on implementation.
Brands need to consider what they want to be, and then push it into the main 4 pillars of their identity; their organisation, their product, their brand personality and then their brand as a symbol (branding etc.)
if your product, symbols and employees all are chosen from the same vision consumers should know what to expect and receive that.
But i like what you said about poorly branded companies delivering,,, “look up artisans”
Zune and iPod: Most people compare the Zune to the Touch, but after seeing how slim and surprisingly small and light it is, I consider it to be a rather unique hybrid that combines qualities of both the Touch and the Nano. It’s very colorful and lovely OLED screen is slightly smaller than the touch screen, but the player itself feels quite a bit smaller and lighter. It weighs about 2/3 as much, and is noticeably smaller in width and height, while being just a hair thicker.