Being direct... AdVantage Apr 2002
So ... what is in a brand?
I was recently asked to speak at a conference on the subject of the brand and customer loyalty. Having spent a fair amount of time researching the matter so as to hopefully make some intelligent comment on the subject, I thought that some of my readers might find these observations of some interest. Even though I am sure that we all know what branding is, let's go back to the source of the term. The term 'to brand' was originally used by US cowboys some 200-odd years ago to describe the process of putting their individual mark on the cattle that they owned and bred. It was iconic in nature, and came to serve as an identifier - not only for the animal's owners to recognise their particular herd on the prairie, but it also told prospective buyers what to look for. Buyers could link their positive experiences to source, through recognising a branding mark.
So, the whole reason for creating a brand then (as it is now) was to get buyers to identify a number of qualities and traits with a specific product or service. Obviously, part of what was (and is) required, is to communicate 'the promise' of these qualities and traits to potential consumers, but it's just as vital that the consumer's experience of the brand lives up to their expectations of such qualities and traits.
Now, much of the historic focus on branding by the marketing industry has been on imagery, as it has long been thought that quite simply: a positive or unique image leads to proposition acceptance, which in turn, leads to response. This has been the accepted (but perhaps questionable) way for ages, even though it is generally understood that the whole process of branding is much much deeper - than merely advertising.
A key - though often forgotten - part of the brand communication process is that the holistic brand is indeed the summation of all communications - both premeditated (or under brand owner control) AND accidental (or outside the brand owner's direct control). It is for this reason that we can no longer separate the promise (considered to be the sole preserve of the brand advertising process) from the delivery (mainly considered by the advertising industry to be someone else's problem). The historic focus on 'disconneced' marketing communication has also made many consider the consumer merely as target, instead of recognising the potential of each one as a possible participant in an ongoing brand interaction, and sometimes - even dialogue.
As I have previously pointed out in these columns, a Brand is not just what we say it is, but is in reality, what the consumer considers it to be. This means that the brand actually exists in people's heads; and what is in their heads is a combination of what the brand owner has said about his brand (advertising); what others say about the brand (word of mouth); and finally how each individual consumer perceives the brand - based on his/her own experiences, and compared to what he/she understands, or believes - has been said about it.
It is perhaps important at this juncture, to add that another critical factor has come into play affecting the whole process: the 'consumer' has changed significantly during the past 50 or so years. So, to further complicate things - it's not just about the qualities and/or traits of the product or service reflected by its brand or mark that's the issue, but it is equally about the qualities/traits/attitudes of the individuals who make up the body of a brand's 'consumers'.
Since the end of the Second World War, we saw a phenomenal growth in the societal 'middle-class' of the so-called developed economies. Two primary factors drove this process. Factories that were built to facilitate the military requirements of WW2 were suddenly made available for the mass production of all sorts of previously unavailable goods. Secondly, surviving soldiers were demobbed with sufficient wherewithal to get married, get jobs and start the babyboom of the late 40's and early 50's. They generally had the need (and ability to pay) for the variety of items being produced by these re-oriented factories.
For many years, the marketplace was populated 'with needs' that literally sucked up any product or service offerings from the marketing companies that promoted them. It was the golden age of marketing, and many in the business of producing brand-focussed communications for their clients at that time, confused the willingness of their marketplace to buy - with the apparent success of their branded ad campaigns. Before I get attacked as an advertising sell-out or marketing heretic, let me hasten to add that I am generalising here so as to paint a conceptual picture. Mostly, I remain convinced that there will always be a need to promote the brand promises that are required to foster awareness of a brand, although we also know that this can also be achieved by word-of-mouth alone.
What has changed then? The one-size-fits-all-any-color-as-long-as-it's-black mentality of the heyday of early mass-production was gradually changed through specialisation into a multiplicity of line extentions. Today, there is literally too much choice. As consumers have been given more and more choices - ironically, because marketing companies tried to target more and more marketshare through their line extentions - the 'control' of the brand interaction has also moved from producer to consumer. Alternative information sources have meant that the brand is no longer - just what the advertising chooses to say about it.
Lastly, the almost single-minded focus on interruption-hype and creativity for the sake of creativity in much of contemporary advertising, has left many consumers with strong anti feelings towards the business of advertising, and many others merely ambivalent towards it. Yet others have learnt to simply ignore it, and the nett effect of all of this, is the measured drop-off in ad-effectiveness during the past ten to fifteen years. It appears as if the communication industry isn't at all bothered about these potentially negative effects on their brands.
So, what is a brand? If it is a collection of thoughts and experiences in the customer's head, then I think that it is about time that marketers become far more sensitive to both imagery and delivery, (and indeed the potential for their communications to create negative effects) in their quest to build brand success.