Ifollowed a confused conversation about brand strength on Twitter the other day. So I think it’s time to tackle the brand issue again.
In my mind it’s quite simple.
A brand is an overall feeling.
This feeling emanates from three aspects:
A functional. An emotional. And a contextual.
The first aspect tells us what the brand is capable of, using only objective and measurable facts.
The second shows us what the brand feels like, in terms of subjective expressions.
The third deals with historical, cultural and psycho-social patterns.
All in all, these are merely reflections of what’s going on inside the brand.
The brand’s core.
Normally, the core is built around a couple of core values.
Personally I think core values are a terrible waste of money.
Why? Because it only creates omnipotent brands that nobody cares about.
Instead I believe it should be built around a drama.
So how do we define a drama?
First, we need a character, a brand persona.
Second, this character needs to have a good side and a dark side.
The good side consists of qualities to look up to.
But why a dark side?
Because we need to see shortcomings so we can identify with the character.
Real people have flaws. No flaws, no identification, no relevance.
We also need bad qualities to create conflict.
Yes conflict. Because conflicts create feelings.
And feelings are the most effective way to move people. And products.
It leads to action.
At the core of every successful brand we usually find a struggle between two opposing forces. Small vs. big. No-frills vs. status. Risk vs. safety. Chaos vs. order. Good vs. evil. And so on.
Which brings us to the third property.
The character also needs a truly inspiring goal to strive for.
And more inportantly, it must stumble across obstacles along the way.
This leads us to two crucial qualities in the art of drama.
Suspence and action.
The two most fundamental elements in storytelling.
When our character manages to overcome its shortcomings, it grows in stature and becomes heroic.
Because all stories are built on some kind of valour.
Because people relate to each other and interact with each other through stories.
In short:
No identification without heroism.
No hero without challenges.
Challenges don’t appear out of thin air, they must be built on friction –
mostly the hero’s own problem.
Now, suppose you’re a tenacious control freak and want to manage the brand over time? (I’m sure your boss want to.)
Then the »Brand asset valuator« might come in handy.
Learn to separate »strenght« from »stature«.
Strength is built on a) relevance and b) differentiation.
Good stature comes from a) knowledge and b) esteem.
Want to know how your brand is doing? Ask these four questions:
Is the brand appropriate to you?
How well does it differ from the crowd?
Do you understand the brand?
What does it mean to you: do you love it?
If »yes«, you’re probably looking at a leading brand.
If »no«, it could be an unfocused brand, or a new brand.
And if it’s strong, but lacks stature, it’s likely a niche player.
If it’s weak, but with high stature, I guess you’re dealing with a declining brand.
Allthough I sometimes find this useful, I also think it’s a bit too technical.
Because I believe in the human connection. I believe in the power of drama.
I’m dead certain all brands have the potential to be a hero.
No matter if it’s a low-interest fmcg brand or a b2b ditto.
And I think I can prove it.
I probably will too.
Soon.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
This is a great post! I’ll tweet it first thing monday morning!
Spot on. Have you read Lévi-Strauss on bipolar constructions? I think you will find even more support for your ideas in this post there.
Thanks guys. Lévi-Strauss yes (smart guy).
Älskar ditt engagemang och måste därför skicka in den klassiska sägningen av Marshall McLuhan, “if it works it ´s obsolete” för att höra vad du säger om det….
Vad säger jag om den? Tja, bokstavligt tolkad är den ju rätt provocerande. Fast å andra sidan fattar jag ju vad han menar. Någon har sagt att i samma ögonblick som en idé har accepterats är den inte längre kreativ (eller ny). Bilen som idé tog ju lång tid att bli »bil«, först var den ju tvungen att gå genom alla stadier av hästdroskeliknande fordon – att göra sig av med sin sin historiska förankring och sammanhang. På samma sätt är det med den digitala tekniken. Där är vi bara i början. Fast jag skulle passa mig för att använda citatet i en införsäljningssituation.
I think you’re right. I think a brand is a complex thing. I think it’s very, very hard to create strong brands. I think a brand with widespread recognition is seen in a rather similar way by a large group of people despite things being complex. That is what makes it a brand. Which means at the end of it, when starting from the result of what a brand has become, from the outside, rather than from the inside, things are actually very, very simple. Or should I say simplified. There is clarity. Now, of course, depending on your own position in society you may judge the values of a brand different than the next person. Even if you both see the same values in the brand. For example, most people will describe the brand of, say, Volvo, quite similarly. But. For some that means they love it. Others loathe it. In the US Courvoisier cognac suddenly became part of the bling bling world of hip hop. In it’s simplest brand expression it’s a luxurious cognac brand. Since it became synonymous with hip hop, sales went up significantly. One large group embraced it big time. Others, even former drinkers of the brand, won’t be seen close to a bottle. It got a new story. An association. The brand shifted, and became more defined. This may be a good thing short term, it may not be so great long term? I’m pretty certain it was not the CMO or brand stewards that orchestrated this move. Other brands have also changed course after the street took hold of them. Brands run amok. Sometimes for good. Algots kläder dog ut. And so it goes.
oh, i forgot to mention that Courvoisier eventually fully embraced their new friends and went on to sponsor hip hop events etc. This and many other luxury brand came to be the proof of the fact that hip-hop had become big business, big money. The Cadillac Escalade became the ride of choice. Kind of like when the Stones and the Beatles bought in to the English establisment’s car brand number one; Rolls Royce. It may have saved Rolls. Well, maybe not, Hongkong did.
Interesting, Tore. I agree on that brands can be very complex and is not to be judged entirely from who buys it. I’m not familiar with the Courvoisier brand, but generally I believe it’s a good thing when tribes decide to adopt a brand, on the condition that it’s done on a small scale. But if someone hijacks it and force it completely off radar it can seriously damage the brand – like the hooligans and chavs did with Burberry in UK.
Christer, I bet you have something wise to add here.
Great post!
Just a comment to your comment:
You wrote “But if someone hijacks it and force it completely off radar it can seriously damage the brand – like the hooligans and chavs did with Burberry in UK”
Still, this can force the hijacked brand to re-think itself, like it did for Lacoste. The crocodile brand with its jersey shirts was the french upper-class favorite in the 80′s, but was adopted by the “ghetto” youths in the 90′s, as symbol of luxury and casual life. Lacoste first embraced this change and played on the vulgar bling-bling style usually associated to gangs and rap, but this was a total failure. The company quickly changed strategy and went back to its roots, rebuilt its image based on the founder’s story and re-discovered its “brand drama”, as you call it. The new collections mixed classic Lacoste with couture-inspired modernisation and re-established the brand.
Matthieu, I totally agree. Good point.