Neal is going to lead the dance this week in our latest blog adventure of the Academy and Practitioner…..:) He had a lot to say...So I kept my part short.:) E
Like many others, I spend time thinking about “brand” and the stature of that concept in an environment that sees content as king and is focused upon the strength of consumer-generated media. The significance of brands and branding today requires full exploration and research – and yet I think that on-line discussions, perhaps in blogs like this one, can help our understanding.
The notion and definition of the term “brand” has changed and in some sense reflects current advertising and marketing practice. Initially (and I’m really not sure what “initially” means – let’s assume the 1950’s), the term was considered roughly equivalent to the product and service logo – and the term itself is often seen to parallel the branding of cattle that characterized the ranching business of the Western United States. Interestingly enough, that period of time also defined the term “maverick”, allegedly named for Samuel Maverick - an attorney and early ranch owner in Texas (circa 1847) - who often had cattle that did not carry a skin-seared identification. In the 1960’s the term ‘brand’ was considered to be a promise and convey the guarantee that what was purchased was of quality. About a decade later “brand” was viewed as a road map – particularly for those concerned with retail aisle end-caps - with regard to packaged goods in supermarkets with hundreds of facings – and were used to navigate one’s way through the super market.
More recently, “brand” has become a central theme in both advertising and marketing disciplines and practice. The encounter or experience gave rise to the expression that “the experience was the brand and that the brand is the experience” . . . rather circular in terms of its syntax but clear in the general agreement that the impact of the experience was defining and persuasive regarding what it was the brand represented. And, the concept will continue to change in meaning as technology, practice and culture continue to modify the ways in which information is distributed and received.
The strength of the brand lies in large part with the community that identifies with it and refers to it as “my brand”. One can argue that without a community (e.g., regular users/customers) the brand does not exist. Equally important are a host of other factors or touchpoints that interact to produce the vital and organic construct called “brand”. In that sense the interaction and the effect of relatively small changes in the marketplace has huge impacts . . . bit reminiscent of some of the principles of Chaos Theory and the notion of sensitive dependence.
Brand manifestation – its adherents, popularity, ability to maintain price point, acceptance in international markets and a host of other factors are exquisitely related. Today a major intervening variable are the on-line social communities and postings that essentially define or redefine a product or service brand. Many believe that if one wishes to know what their brand stands for all they need do is to “google it!” IN any case the traditional metrics used in advertising to determine who we were reaching and impacting were derived from mass media publications and broadcasts, generally based on CPM. The existence of highly communicative social networks was not a factor. Tied to product or service those of us growing up without My Space and PIN’s belonged to social communities that were important to us, but far less interactive and supportive than the social networks available today. At best, to acknowledge our brand associations, we smiled at those wearing PF Flyers and a few noted that others in 7th grade wore their Captain Midnight Decoder ring to class.
Thanks Neal – Test Test…..microphone check.:) While I agree that branding requires a full exploration – I also feel strongly that over-analysis leads to brand paralysis. Back in the day, around the time the earth was cooling, it took forever to go through the branding process. I think that today’s advanced branding techniques, like perceptual mapping, allow one to achieve “brand clarity” very quickly. I’m sure that you have an intimate knowledge about this since you teach it at UT.
I really like the intricate story that you wove regarding how the notion of brands has changed over the decades. You said that it has appeared to change from logo --- promise ---- roadmap ---- experience. That is quite a change in thinking. As an experience guy though, I would say that brand has always been about the experience no matter what the books from each particular time period state. I would simply argue that the thinking has evolved since the 50’s. Everything that you mentioned above was created to have audiences experience them, and to feel a certain way.:)
As you know, I always reference the quote that you gave me to present to your fellow academics at Stanford’s Media X conference.
