britt dionne

 branding explained (for normal people):

the dramatic conclusion

 

 

>> i suggest you read part 1 and part 2 first. or you know, don't. and just be wildly confused when you read part 3.

 

follow the feet, not the beak​.

 

okay so that's how brands are like people: the most memorable ones are unique. similarly, relationships we have with brands work a lot like the ones we have with people. in both cases, we expect certain behavior, prefer consistency, and are taken by surprise by out-of-character actions. for example, if the tiffany brand were a person, you would tend to expect her to be rather demure and, truthfully, kind of inaccessible--but in like a really lovely, easy-to-forgive and understated way. so she's way more likely to drink bubbles than galavant around blowing them, like the fun flirty target brand would, with labrador puppies and small cherub-faced toddlers in-tow. likewise, if it's game day, you'll find stella artois in the stands at the races cheering on his horse, while coors light is up in the fresh mountain air, riding his.

 

and this is where the idea of brand becomes really important--less so for the consumer, and more so for companies that care about the actual success of their brands. which is why, if you're a brand that has some special sauce, unique mojo, or otherwise je ne sais quoi spirit, you must fiercely defend and preserve it--like you brand's life depended on it. because it, you know: does. after all, wouldn't it give you pause, perhaps even make you feel a weensy bit betrayed if someone you trusted--someone you thought you knew and who knew you--started to behave strangely? what if they went from being super caring and emo, to coldly efficient? or the other way 'round? neither of these radically different behaviors is necessarily bad--as long as each matches up with people's expectations.

 

what holds for our expectations of people holds for our expectations of brands.

 

that's not to say it's impossible for a brand to change both itself and consumers' expectations of it. remember our friend tar-zjay? she managed very successfully to transform herself. but it probably helped that before the turnaround she was pretty much the jan brady of retail brands--kind of meh. so there was nowhere to go but up. but, more importantly, target was brave enough to create a bold brand with personality--one that you would want to get to know.

 

meanwhile, on the total opposite side of the brand spectrum, financial institutions also seem to be trying to change the conversation, which is probably a good move since right now many of them are pretty much perceived as the rich, douchebag boyfriends of the brand world. meaning: in consumers' eyes they've behaved super badly, and they have a lot to make up for. so folks wonder: can we trust them again? could we ever? that's still up for grabs. and in the meantime, consumers are seeing with new eyes their small, local and regional banks--who, in this scenario are like those really sweet, skinny, dorky guys in high school who got beaten up by the younger kids. now, have you ever actually met the adult version of those dorks? i have. and all of them have turned out to be really smart, successful, humble and hot. so the little guys (literally) can win--just ask the smaller banks that have seen customer numbers explode thanks to the occupy movement.

 

but the big guys aren't exactly going gently into that good night, either. some financial institutions are trying very hard to portray themselves differently (and if we give them the benefit of the doubt: they're actually trying to be different, not just appear different). you know, like the guy in madonna's "material girl" video who tries to impress her with riches and jewels but, in the end, realizes that to gain her trust and acceptance, he has to be genuine--he has to be a real person, like (cough) madonna. thing is, there was never a sequel to that video. we never found out if that relationship panned out or petered out. was the image of that daisy-toting, crappy-old-truck-driving entertainment exec really who he was inside? or was it just a show? and did young madge, in her infinite wisdom, bail if/when she figured it out? all of which leads me to my final topic: the role of branding experts.

 

the brand doctor is in

 

i like to think of branding professionals as psychotherapists for brands. not unsurprisingly, this *failed* to be selected as my former agency's official tagline. albeit, not for want of me lobbying very, very hard for it (mostly in my mind).

 

so let's think about psychotherapy for a minute, and why someone would seek it out. okay, there are a ton of worthwhile reasons. often it's because there's some sort of issue troubling the person: my dad didn't love me; my wife left me; my boss hates me. if you were to generalize, you might say that any of those problems could create a serious identity crisis. in which case, the goal of therapy would be to solidify the person's sense of self, what they stand for, and then get clear on the appropriate actions that flow from those beliefs. ideally too, the insides of a person would match their outsides. a shy introvert who plays the extroverted ham in a bid to gain love and acceptance will eventually run out of steam or slip up, and be exposed for his or her true self.

 

by now, you know what i'm going to say next: same-same in the world of brands. so can the workhorse, ill-fitting jeans-and-gray-sweatshirt dell brand just start wearing skinny jeans, buying furniture from design within reach and call it a day? nope. dell consumers would feel alienated. and apple devotees would just be grossed out--and thoroughly unconvinced. because that's not who dell is at heart. better for dell to just embrace its inner nerd and leave the high design hipstertasticness to apple. nerds of a feather do not necessarily flock together.

 

in fact, while we're on the topic of clothing, this might be a good time to talk about advertising--because, in this metaphor, that's exactly how it functions. think of it again in terms of people--or yourself even. who you are, fundamentally, changes very little from day to day (assuming you're a pretty well-adjusted person not suffering from multiple personality disorder--but hey: no judgement here). but over time, your style will change--anywhere from once a season to once a decade. and if it has been longer than that, you should stop reading right now, burn your entire wardrobe and go directly to the mall for a complete fashion intervention.

 

but back to my point: brand is the very being and soul of a company or product (usually for a longgggggg time), while advertising is campaign-oriented and changes much like fashion trends. unfortunately, sometimes brands can use advertising as a crutch and slack off when it comes to building up what the brand stands for. which can lead people to remember things like the "where's the beef?" campaign rather than the friendly, neighborhoody, have-it-your-way feel of the actual wendy's brand. i mean really, imagine the craptasticness of being remembered more for the mc hammer-style pants you rocked in 1994 rather than the person you were. which, again, is why it's, like, wildly important for companies to tend to their brands.

 

but, you know, it can be hard to get perspective when you're so close to something.

 

that's why people go to psychotherapists. and that's why companies consult with branding experts who do this work all the time, and can help companies distinguish the aspirational from the downright delusional. branding folks help companies get clear on what they stand for, and make sure the ideas are unique and relevant. then help them take that idea and make it live in the world: so their outsides match their insides. that means taking their brand strategy and applying it to their visual identity/look and feel (logo, typography, color palettes, photography style), brand voice (the tone they use when they "talk"), and even things like co-branding (which events do they sponsor, who do they enter partnerships with?).

 

added to all that: just when brands thought they had it all figured out, things changed-- again. because we're now finding that on top of having to be different and relevant, brands now have to be purpose-driven in order to compete and win with consumers. "purpose-driven" companies and brands tend to have loftier, do-gooder notions at their core. meaning they can't just stand for ideas like "family magic" anymore. consumers are starting to yearn for ideas like "family magic that unites the children of the world." it's like when you applied to that super competitive college and you realized it wasn't enough that you had a 4.0 gpa, played the violin, and spoke three languages fluently. because the kid that got in--while you didn't--used her language skills to go work in bolivia, where she made violins by hand (using local wood collected from the forest floor) and then organized the village's first children's symphony. yeah. it's like that.

 

say what?

 

i've said a lot. so i'll end with some shorthand that will hopefully help you remember these points the next time you're at a cocktail party and the topic of branding comes up:

 

• like zeus + other mythological gods, the strongest brands have the ability to take human form

• brand douchebags and real life douchebags are equally intolerable: people expect brands to behave a certain way and, overwhelmingly, to behave well

• branding experts help companies deal with identity crises, existential malaise, and commitment issues: they are the psychotherapists and life coaches of the brand world

so now that we're all, hopefully, appropriately armed for the requisite barrage of tiresome cocktail party questions, let's go find that tray of canapés!