Brands

Right, back to some planning basics stuff. Last time it was on what planning was for, now it's on brands. Or how and why a company need to be unique in it's market, not just through what it sells, but how it behaves.

This is the bones of a talk Malcom White did on the APG Training Network. While lots of the content was great, he talked for too long and seemed to have an axe to grind. Since he's left Euro RSCG under a cloud that week, maybe he was in a bad mood. Like I said though, lots of the content was useful.

First off, brands are important.They build a direct, unobstructed path of communication between the manufacturer and the consumer's deepest needs. They allow customers to form relationships with companies, they breed loyalty. (I would also add that they're plain useful. Life is very complex, there's too much choice. Brands help you choose).

Brands also add value. Between 1982 and 1987 the most heavily branded companies on the stock market out -performed the rest of the FTSE 350 by 15-20%.

(They're also bloody useful for planners too. Without some sort of brand 'voice' to start with, creating strategy is twice as hard. Every time you do a new campaign, it's far easier to ask, "How do we apply our brand to this problem?", instead of, "Right, what shall we do?". That doesn't leave out understanding what problem you're solving and all those other hard bits, but that's for another time)

Now I'll have a quick moan at brand consultancies. Yes, they are very clever, yes, they provide beautiful process and wonderful charts and frameworks. But it's pretty useless if you cannot execute it. A brand is like good glue. It unites the marketing mix, and it also unites the company behind a vision to work towards.

Brands affect product experience. When they did the Pepsi challenge all those years back, they didn't show anyone comparing Pepsi and Coke with the labels on. Because then Coke wins hands down:

Which do you prefer?                Diet Pepsi                 Diet Coke

Blind                                          51%                         44%

Branded                                    23%                           65%

Brands are like a peach. At the heart of every peach is a stone. the functional part. Now the stone is important of course, but every stone is pretty much the same. Peaches are chosen on basis of it's flesh and skin. The ripest, sweetest, juiciest looking peaches get picked the most.

Survivial of the juiciest.

That's just like brands. There's a product or service at the heart, which MUST meet some sort of need, but it's the extra stuff on the outer layer that differentiates it from the competition. The feelings, images and associations. The brand.

(Now I'm quickly going to add some bits of my own here. Do not be fooled into thinking this just means ads and design. What representsd a brand are all the experiences wrapped around what you're selling. That includes the store, the people, the packaging, even the voice in the call centre. All these things help to create some sort of brand image. In other words, it's as much about how you do things as it is about how you say it. )

A successful brand is:

• Sustainable
• Not easilly copied
• Motivating to its customers

And it's borne out of an understanding about what a customer really needs. Like Nescafe focusing on being a little personal pick me up, not just a hot drink.

And it must be based on a product truth or service truth. That may be what you make, how you make it or why you want to make it. But it's not a mere communication of fact, it needs to wrapped in emotion. And brands that do this tend to stand out more:

Apple v Microsoft

Tango V Coke

Honda v Ford

In essence - MANUFACTURERS MAKE PRODUCTS; PEOPLE BUY BRANDS.

Brands have four characteristics:

Difference - They simply deliver what they do ina way that no one else does.

Clarity - Good brands are instantly recognisable.Take Boddingtons and it's 'No nonsense with a Mancunian twist' or 'Welcome to Optimism'.

Consistency - That doesn't means predictabilty. That means having something interesting to talk about -a lot.

Leadership - This doesn't mean being number 1. Rather that it should open new territories and new ways of thinking.

How you do it is the hard bit.It would be quite easy to dismiss brand frameworks, but not only do lots of clients insists on them, so do many agencies. The easy way around this is to not focus on the framework itself, the more you stare at a box, the harder it is to fill. Here's a more useful approach:

1. Define the rational core - what the product/service/company is at it's best.
2. Define how this best fits in to your audiences lives.
3. Describe the marriage of these two.
4. You now have your start. Whatever framwork you're stuck with, you now have stuff to begin to put in.

.......and that was largely that. It barely scratches the surface, but it's a useful start. What I don't think it covers is tone and manner, and how to make sure the brand get's executed in the right way. Most of that will be covered in later bits about strategy and the creative process, but I do want to help with tone of voice.

That's because it's missing from too much communication if my view - like body language v spoken words, it's largely what consumers react to. Casting, imagery, sounds, smell even - those are the real associations people have with brands. So you need to get it right.

Firstly, when you start a project, be sure you know what you have to do. Most jobs are not 'brand' jobs, most are about communications. It's a shame that lots of perfectly good brands lose all consistency by putting their account up for pitch every two years, and let agencies do a shiny new brand framework instead of a communications idea.

Sometimes though, you do need to find the brand's voice for them. If you're lucky, you won't have to look far. If you make the effort to spend time with the company and the people that work there - not just the marketing team, I mean the owners, the factory tour - the lot, you often find there's a clear personality pervading every corner of the company. It was like that working on Morrisons, and this is perhaps the best example ever - Russell's Honda APG paper ( Download 02_honda1.pdf ). It's useful to look at the the people who founded the company, What principles did they found the company on? Are they still true today? If there's an authentic voice already there, all you need to is bring it out.

That's not always the case though. Big companies can be too amorphous, or even too dull. This is where you can not only create something new, you can begin to create a vision they can unite around too. I find it useful to define three things the company does at it's best - in the mind of the consumer. They need to be true, but the trick is marry the product truth with people's lives. Once you have them, these three things will naturally result on three disctinct personality traits - that's the beginning of your tone of voice. Three is useful because anything more is just a list, and anything less is too one or two dimensional.

Like this:

Hope this is useful. It's only a start. There's a lot of far more interesting stuff on this subject out there, but you have to start with some basics.

You'll notice I've thieved Mcann's brand footprint. There's no other reason except it's easy to use and very helpful when you're working on integrated stuff. Other people will have favourites. And don't forget, it's not the framework, it's the thinking.

And, in the remote chance you missed it, Russell's Schtik is fundamentally useful as well - and a far better description of the use of tone and manner than I could ever hope to deliver.

(I'm rushed, the spelling and grammar will be even worse than usual, sorry 'bout that)

Comments

[Will]

Great post.

I've seen Malcolm speak as well. He's very good.

[Age]

This is an excellent post NP, really inspiring stuff and some great lessons.

It's printing out right as I type this. Thank You.

PS. Loving the photographic reference to The Kooks at the top. GREAT ALBUM!

[NP]

Thanks Age, and I couldn't resist sneaking them in.

[Rob Mortimer]

Excellent post.
Useful info and some good references too :)

[lauren]

how synchronous that i should be thinking about this as well, but in smaller ways and in terms of art and presentation! i think the more information that is available to people and the more choice people are given, the more important brands are, but only if they're succinct.

[Rob @ Cynic]

This is bloody insipational ... everyone should be reading this, regardless what area they work in. It would of taken me years to write all that and then I wouldn't have been so clear, engaging and interesting. Apart from the fact you make me sick, you should be lecturing at the APG. We need more NP's in advertising, let alone planning.

[NP]

You are a nice man Mr Campbell. But I suggest quite a few people are going to get a shot in the arm from your APSOW stuff. Quite brilliant.

[Rob @ Cynic]

Well I hope so, but this isn't about me, it's about how great this post is so just accept the bloody compliment.

[Marcus]

"We will, we will ROCK YOU!"

[NP]

not listening

[Rob Mortimer]

If he could only reach you, that would be a breakthrough...

[fredrik sarnblad]

Very, very good post. Love your moan at brand consultancies.

[toto]

basic stuff but worth remembering