 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watts Wacker
Brands cannot stand still they need to develop and grow, while retaining a foundation of authenticity.
Brands have always been viewed in a context of consistency. With the world now being defined by a macro environment of 'uncertainty,' a brand must, paradoxically, be consistent and inconsistent at the same time. A brand must always be developing, learning, and growing at the same time as much of its bedrock is always seen in a light of consistency. For example, not only is Budweiser the biggest beer brand in the U.S., Bud Lite is the second largest.
It is also important to reflect on the 'rules of branding' and whether or not they are now obsolete. Two critical 'rules' of branding go back to the roots of modern day marketing (1950):
Ted Bates gave us the idea of the unique selling proposition. After 50 years of continual sophistication in marketing and continual sophistication in consumers, unique selling propositions may no longer motivate consumers. For example, 'Pringles the potato chip that makes your hands less greasy' is unique, but has no resonance with consumers as far as motivating them to buy the product. Jack Trout and AI Ries, in their marketing treatise Positioning Battle for the Mind, put forth the importance of 'being first.' They also argued that you could not be first in pickles (Heinz) and at the same time be first in ketchup with the same brand name.
My philosophy is that it is more important to identify your core beliefs and 'fuse' the core beliefs with the consumer's 'take away'. Krispy Kreme's promise - creating magic moments - suggests that it should identify all opportunities that reflect a magic moment as potential and fertile areas for franchise extension. For example, if consumer feedback suggests to Krispy Kreme that there are 100 movies produced in the history of Hollywood that are associated with 'a moment' of great sharing between two people, then those movies should be thought of as potential areas to explore with the Krispy Kreme brand.
The critical thought here is that if you are perceived as 'a wagon master' (as Gateway is), then you should look for every area to which wagon mastering would make sense relative to the emerging needs within individual lives. In the case of Gateway, branding has already shown transference from computer making, to Internet service provisioning, to leasing (never having an obsolete computer) over buying.
It is interesting to note that most great brands have had a major misstep in their past. Ford almost went out of business. British Airways once stood for 'Bloody Awful.' IBM was yet another major brand that demonstrated how easy it is to become vulnerable.
This susceptibility to public display of one's shortcomings has a very humanizing effect on brands. What is critical is not that these shortcomings or failures happen, but what transpires immediately afterward. As Miles Davis once said, 'When you hit a wrong note it's the next note that makes it good or bad.' Great brands that have let down their consumers actually may create even greater opportunities based on how they respond to the specific circumstance. Brands may be well served by 'being wrong and fixing it' instead of striving to be perfect.
While great brands have a tendency to be viewed as having functional superiority (in a blind taste test Coke is not preferred to Pepsi, but does come out on top when identified as Coke), they see themselves in a larger context than just functionality. Chevrolet did not talk about engineering excellence, it talked about 'seeing the USA'.
It is also important to remember that the people who work on a brand become sensitized to it much more than their customers. Many marketing managers have become bored with their strategies and tactics well before these have reached a level of burnout with their customers. Solarcaine once had some of the world's best advertising (Mommy, I'm sunburned and feel like a French fry. Although the spot only ran 20 times in a period of three years, the marketing department was exhausted by having been exposed to it for many thousands of impressions. As a result, Schering-Plough let go of a great concept way too early.
Great brands tend to be referred to by their customers and even their competitors as being genuine and authentic. Whenever authenticity is associated with a brand, the brand tends to have reached a level of involvement in its consuming universe that is of mythological proportions. Anything that causes a 'disconnect' between that authenticity and the actions taken by the brand will result in an immediate and severe consumer response.
For example, lite beer was built for 35-year-old ex-jocks. As the brand's marketplace began to reach saturation, Miller's response to the desire for continued growth was to 'contemporize' the brand and go after a younger market. Suddenly, the 35-year-old ex-jocks felt like this beer no longer fitted them. And the younger group never felt like it was designed for them in the first place.
This problem is to do with the issue of 'cohort brands' vs. 'life stage brands.' Cohort brands are those that become attached to a group of people and travel over time with them. (The word cohort comes from the Latin for the Roman legionnaire, who went into the legion and remained with the same group of people.) Life stage brands are used at specific stages of life. For example, mothers use Coppertone on their young children and then slather themselves with the same product. The children themselves grow into the next life stage brand (like Hawaiian Tropic and Tropical Blend), then grow into another life stage and use Bain de Soleil. When they get married and have kids, they come back to using Coppertone.
The importance of understanding life stage vs. cohort is also reflected in the ups and downs of Nike. Whether this was to do with the brand itself or athletic shoes in general, at a certain point the target audience for Nike sneakers (teens and young adults) no longer wanted to wear a shoe that was so ubiquitous their parents were wearing the same brand. Levi's underwent similar circumstances when it went from being work clothing to a fashion item.
Another good learning perspective for understanding a brand's potential comes from the experience of Barbie. Great brands reach the level of having iconographic transfer. But nature abhors a vacuum; if you don't define yourself, the zeitgeist defines you. Barbie began to be featured in songs and advertisements for other companies (the Nissan GI-Joe/Barbie commercial) in a light that made Mattel feel uncomfortable. More to the point, Body Shop put ads in its window with Barbie's head on a Rubensesque plastic doll, with copy that said, 'there are three billion women in the world, only six of them are supermodels.' Because Barbie was not defining herself in a relevant context, she was being defined by the zeitgeist itself.
In the past three (or so) years there has been ever greater amount of uncertainty, bi-polar living and manifestations of different approaches to life and lifestyles. Through all of this branding just gets more and more important. Going forward, great brands will pay even more attention to what is often times called their 'essence' relative to their efficacy.
Of course great brands have to 'do' what they say they will quite well but they also have to 'be' something of relevance beyond their product attributes and benefits. The first oracle of Delphi is ... know thyself. And as the bard so aptly put forth, once you know who you are you have to be true to yourself. Great brands are true to themselves in a very consistent way. For example, Dell computer has no R&D department while it would be suicidal for Hewlett Packard to even consider such a move. I was recently told how VH-1 once planned its annual awards show with featured artists who never had had their videos even aired on the network. Way too often brands present a mixed message because consumers (us!!) don't see the connection between what we've experienced of the brand vs. what is currently being presented as a brands direction.
Does it really make sense for a Swatch car to be built by Mercedes? Why did United Airlines stay with 'fly the friendly skies' when we all recognized that flying was not friendly any more?
The 'be' of a brand has to speak to the largest issues' in life. There are 12 archetypal lessons', seven plots, five passions in world art and six great ideas. My bet is there are two handfuls of global metaphors ... like the blues and the Energizer Bunny (it keeps going and going). All of the above speak to all the people in the world ... both sexes ... every race, creed, color ... and of any age.
Great brands align to these 'lessons' and values, whether it be 'courage' or 'goodness'. Great brands stand the test of time because of their 'be-ness' not their 'do-ness'. Actually great brands usually don't 'do' what they did to make them great in the first place ... just ask Nokia or BMW or GE or even Coke. But what they stand for doesn't vary.
Gad, Thomas, 4D-Branding, FT/Prentice Hall, 2000
Wacker, Watts, The 500 Year Delta, Capstone, 1997
Wacker, Watts, The Visionary's Handbook
|
|
||||||
© 1997-2010 FirstMatter LLC