At this years PSFK Conference NYC, I moderated the panel ‘Brand New Rules’, a discussion about whether new rules are needed to govern the behavior of brands in a world increasingly defined by changing social, cultural, technological and economic forces.
Which got me thinking. Hasn’t it always been the role of brands to break rules and create new ones?
And doesn’t that come from brand strategy ideas that create change in culture?
Is ‘new’ just another way of saying ‘good’?
I think we’d all agree that there’s no shortage of good creative thinking in our industry. So why is it often difficult to make good ideas happen?
The role of a brand is to invent new possibilities, so setting rules might seem counter-intuitive, but perhaps there are new practices we need to put in place to put more creativity into ‘creative strategy’.
With our panelists Paul Worthington, (Wolff Ollins), Paul M Taylor (Diageo), Maria Vrachnos (Peep Insights), and Doug Jaeger (thehappycorp/Art Directors Club), we started to debate what these brand new rules might be, and now we’d like to hear what you think.
Everyday this week, for 4 days we’ll be posting a new question for you to debate. Rupert Newton, (the other half of The Joneses) and myself will be weighing in and guiding the discussions, until we have 4 ‘Brand New Rules’.
(Catch up with the conversation around question 1 here, and question 2 here.)
Question 3.
Value Investing (think Warren Buffett) is the surest way to long-term financial security, our job is to create that value for our clients, and the economy as a whole. Long-term value is created by conveying a strategic brand idea over time; the higher purpose of the business that stimulates new behavior, versus visual mnemonics and speculative marketing tactics.
In a world of businesses like Zappo’s and Google do you need a strategic brand idea to be highly successful?
Share your ideas in the comments section below.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
All depends on the nebulous nature of the ‘big idea’. I think, to use a John Grant phrase, that brands need coherency not consistency. Ideas need to flow from the same place, think Starbucks, Nike, Google – lots of ideas that independently seem different but all flow from, and add up to, a singular purpose.
To stretch the Buffet analogy you use, I think value today is created by marketing / behaving like an options trader rather than a blackjack player. Rather than putting all your bets on black 35 and praying it works, place lots of small bets, see which work and invest more behind them. A much more realistic path to success in a world of uncertainty and unpredictability.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I know what Nike’s brand idea is (doesn’t everyone, and that’s what makes it such a great one) and that they place lots of small and big bets with different executional ideas that add up to the spirit of Just do it. I couldn’t tell you what Starbucks brand idea is other than to make great coffee (and ruin the odd neighborhood), or Google other than what ever it is they’ll ‘do no evil’. Aren’t the likes of Google and Starbucks great product and service companies. There’s 2 types of brands these days – one’s with a creative brand idea (that leap beyond what it is they make/do/sell,), and one’s that are good product and service innovations (Wholefoods, Zappo’s etc) and market themselves tactically.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
the gospel of buffett says that in fact there is only one fundamental branding rule: maintain a good reputation. make a compelling value promise to your customers and do all you can to commit to that promise consistently without compromise. marketing strategies are tools to communicate that promise. but ultimately, if the promise is untrustworthy, fragile or uncompelling, then the brand is doomed to fail regardless of how clever your chosen agency is.
looking at it this way, brand strategy becomes all about the design of good business DNA: maintaining an honorable ethical code and creating a culture where employees take care of each other as well as their customers.
“all of these actions, one customer at a time, contribute to what warren buffett has called the strong share of mind. Our name is meaningful to people. when people hear our name, they think about trust and security. they don’t just think about our product, they feel something about the brand. It takes a long time to establish this share of mind, but it is what ultimately separates a logo from a brand.” – ken chenault, ceo of american express
June 4th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Value investing says that to succeed, you have to make plays where the market has undervalued or mis-valued a stock or bond. You can easily apply this to marketing or branding -what has the market (i.e. other brands)not seen, not served or not heard.
While this is not exactly news to any of us, maybe it is just a reminder that seeing the unseen or being willing to talk about/explore it is one of the keys to success. Then innovate like hell, constantly and coherently.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I think some of what Warren Buffet says about brands and stuff is more about well run businesses, putting to one side making something good that people want and treating them and your employees well,
picking apart “strategic brand idea”, how do you know you’ve got one?
Traditionally we would have said you’ve got a brand when people are buying your product or service at a healthy premium. I fly Virgin Atlantic I don’t like British Airways. VAA is usually more expensive than BA when I search on Kayak and I buy VAA. Having flown both I’ve got a clear idea in my head of the different ambience, attitude and imagination of each airline. And that feels like much more than reputation, after all they are both reputable, competent and fly me where I want to go in the same amount of time. One recently announced very healthy profits, and one didn’t.
Does the idea of premium still hold true and is it enough of an ambition? It feels a bit dated and marketing 101.
And it’s a bit after the event, you’ve got to be able to tell just from words on paper before anything has been made.
The idea of defining the businesses purpose sounds interesting because it forces you to think in abstract terms first, before thinking about execution, and its forces you to think beyond describing a benefit or feature in traditional marketing formats, whether that’s figurative or literal.
But I guess Zappos would say our purpose is “great service” in fact they actually say “deliver WOW through service”, whoa, bit classic ’90’s Tom Peters but not sure they’re Built To Last ;)
I think what would be interesting to explore is brand ideas that have no literal connection to the product or service.
For instance, about 10 years ago a smart bloke called Matt Andrews recommend to New Zealand’s Anchor Butter they should spend all their marketing budget on creating green urban spaces out of the derelict inner city wastelands. Why? Because cows in New Zealand are free range all year round whereas up in Vermont or over in Ireland they’re in sheds for winter. So allowing people in cities to be more “free range” the thought was this would be more effective than singing animated cows in fields at selling Anchor butter. No they didn’t buy it. Sadly. But there is a clear purpose, it is powerful and differentiating, and, most interesting of all there is a gossamer thread linking the brand idea to the actual product.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:05 pm