A while back, a client told me he would be too busy to take meetings for a while as he was going to be "building the brand". He seemed to mean that he needed time alone to do this. I imagine he would be putting together an impressive powerpoint with proposition and values statements, all the brand jargon we're so used to.
Also a few years ago, I worked on a campaign to promote investment trusts in the UK (they're a kind of mutual fund). The trade association for ITs paid an agency millions to do this with branding. A snazzy new logo was created. I remember the agency mastermind informing clients: "we've now created your new brand, the next step is for us to fill it with meaning." Extraordinary - as if the mere creation of a logo could somehow wipe the slate of any existing meanings people made for investment trusts; and as if the new meaning would be entirely of his agency's making.
Both these stories characterise a common misconception: that brands are things, things that the people at the top create, determine and control. What goes with this is a reverence for strategy documents and for tomes of market research. The idea is that by painstaking (and deeply dull) analysis of consumers, it's possible to develop the "killer" concept that will transform the market.
The stimulus is not the response
But the real world doesn't play that game.
Consider this blog post: the words that I am now typing and that you are now reading. In writing this, I intend to convey some kind of message to you. Whilst what I say will influence you in some way, I have no control over what you make these words mean. Look at the comments to mine, or anyone's posts, and you will see how each reader focusses on different ideas and makes different stories.
I often think branding committees should be made to play games of chinese whispers before each meeting, to remind them of the way human beings hear one thing and pass on another.
Branders typically think in terms of big ideas with the idea of more-or-less dictating to the market what their brand is.
As Cluetrain pointed out, markets are conversations. Why do branders think they are lectures?
(In a post on the language of branding I talk about the crazy way brand experts focus on obsessive control of the message, as if this somehow will determine the response of customers).
The truth is out there
We use the word brand as if it refers to something concrete. In reality, it's shorthand, an averaging out of all the different stories in each of our heads about what an organisation means. Now you can influence these stories by what you do and say, but you can't control them.
It's only human nature that branding experts tend to put their focus on the things they can see and can measure, rather than the bits they can't. Hence the ridiculous way they get in a lather about the profound meaning of the logo, how this colour "means" so-and-so, how that change of font will represent a new informality/formality/whatever.
The dance
But the interesting stuff is what isn't controlled. A marketing director talked about "dancing with customers". I liked this metaphor, but what sort of dance are we talking about?
For conventional branders, it's an 18th century ball. This is to be the introduction to society of a young lady. Her attendants fuss about each detail of her attire, her girdle is tightened, last-minute tips are whispered explaining exactly how to move. This is important, because upon her entrance to society, everyone will be watching. There is a certain way of doing things that will make the crowd at the ball behave in the desired way.
But our debutante is in for a shock, when she discovers the real world is not an elegant ball, but a rave party in Ibiza. Her grand entrance goes quite unnoticed amid the uproar. Her elaborate and cumbersome costume is an encumbrance. As she looks around at the scantily clad crowd having fun, she realises she'd much rather have a lot fewer layers. And it would be more fun to drop the predetermined pose and stary gyrating with whichever body comes closer. She throws off her clothes, drops the posture, and gets sweaty.
The dance is not some preprogrammed, choreographed bore. It is created between the participants moment-to-moment. Yes, there is some kind of structure holding it together, but there is invention and variety. Brands are not built in the heads of the experts; they're actually made up by each of us as we go about our lives.
Bookmark: del.icio.us Digg it ma.gnolia Yahoo MyWeb Google StumbleUpon
Permalink











Facebook/Johnnie Moore
Linkedin/Johnnie Moore
Twitter/johnniemoore
Last.fm/johnniemoore
Del.icio.us/johnniemoore
Technorati/johnniemoore
MyBlogLog/JohnnieM
Blog/Johnnie Moore
Comments (3)
I wonder also today as to who creates the brand in reality?
As Google gains in search importance and as sites like epionions http://www.epinions.com/ etc grow, don't we as consumers create the brand in our own conversations?
Soon what a brand means and how the underlying product or service performs will not be as the owner says it is but as the public says it is.
What do branders and marketers do in response?
August 6, 2004 14:51 Permalink for comment
Cluetrain No 28
"Most marketing programs are based on the fear that the market might see what's really going on inside the company"!!
August 7, 2004 06:43 Permalink for comment
I'm not sure that that "traditional marketing" is structured or that the only approach is scripted. I believe the stories (frightening) that you allude to in the "perscription" form of marketing are doomed to failure. Customers see the lack of real depth and employees simply don't care.
A question / exercise I like to see asked of an employee group runs something like this. Favorite brands.... list. Brands in our marketplace.... list. Now imagine for a moment that Brand X (not the cos) was leaving the house what would their day be like? What adjectives would you use to describe this brand etc. Then get to the point where you explore the co's brand. Then take them to a party etc. Then if they dreamed etc. I'm sure you know and have done these. The point is that this is really how one brand vs another is usually seen. Then empower the individuals to improve the brand story. What needs to happen etc.
Are there obvious gaps in perspective? I'd also not belittle things like color and typefaces. We and i use the 'we' as in the brand owners need to express the brand. The cues these bring help fuel emotions and understanding.
In brand lingo this individuality and ingenuity will fail where it is planned, or calculating however where it captures imagination or a group imaginatively produce it then it just works.
What am I trying to get at? I think "participatory" and collective articulation are important. This only happens when internal and external perceptions of brands are in synch.
The problem with marketing in too many organizations is communications. The belief is the accountants and plant workers don't understand branding. Building internal branding capability is one of the most powerful and under-rated aspects in the marketers job. The few marketers that can really do it tend to challenge everything about the organization. For driving the internal branding engine in conjunction with customers means continuous change, adaption and higher and higher standard.
My suggestion. "It's yours to facilitate!" Brands like all of us... learn by doing.
August 11, 2004 00:07 Permalink for comment