In one of the marketing e-newsletters I read, I recently came across a statement that stopped me in my tracks: "The entire economic rate for brands is gone" This article on viral marketing said. Why? Because interaction with companies and other consumers online is now so easy that brands no longer have power. Or, such is the claim.
My reaction was that this is one of the stupidest comments I've ever read in a marketing publication. Then, reading further, I found that the article goes on to contradict itself. It says that "… brand equity in the Digital Age is about how brands manage their relationship with consumers."
Well, duhhh!
Now, if my reaction does not make sense to you, let me explain. It comes back to the all-too-common misunderstanding about what a brand is. Even in marketing circles, this is fuzzy, so let me clarify.
What is a brand, anyway?
We helped a client – the head of global branding for a major financial institution – come up with a definition for a brand. After scouring marketing texts and much discussion, the definition our client most liked this one: A brand is a promise of quality.
A promise of quality. When you buy an iPod, a pair of Nike athletic shoes, or a Starbuck's coffee, you have a clear expectation of what you are going to get. You are buying their unique promises of quality.
An iPod is an MP3 player. Apple's brand marketing has made it the iconic MP3 player. Nike's athletic shoes are just that – sport shoes. Nike's branding has made them the choice for people who are serious about working out and playing sports. And so on.
So, another way to think about it is this: A brand is everything beyond the real, tangible aspects of a product or service.
If the customers' experience of a brand's products or services matches or exceeds their expectations – set by those promises of quality – then they become advocates for the brand. This is basically the point of the viral marketing article. "Viral marketing" is a fancy term for enthusiastic customers spreading the word.
Of course, if the customer's experience does not live up to the brand's promise, what happens? All that brand building the company has done at reasonable expense goes out the window.
More than a Promise
This is why you have to think of a brand as more than just a promise of quality, I have realized. It also has to be a promise kept. In other words, a brand is a promise wrapped in experience. *
A brand is a promise wrapped in experience. This is why we do not trust advertising almost as much as we do personal recommendations. Ads are promises of quality; recommendations validate the promises with the experiences of people we know and trust.
So, back to the ridiculous commentary that the entire economic ratione for brands is gone. This kind of thinking comes out of a misunderstanding about what a brand is (and a desire to sell viral marketing services).
Web and mobile interaction provide the ability for consumers to more quickly and easily interact both with other consumers and with the companies which brands they love or hate. It makes it simple for them to be vocal about it on Web sites such as YouTube and epinions.
But, does that mean that there is no economic ratione for branding today? Absolutely not. If anything, it is more important today to build a great brand than ever before. With ever more competition for our eyes, ears, and wallets, a brand that truly engages prospective customers is needed to rise above the noise.
Does that mean that companies have to work harder to ensure the customer's experience matches the brand promise. Absolutely! That promise has to be kept!
When we are working with clients on branding, or any marketing projects, we try to make sure any promises communicated in sync with how the company operates. That way the promises can be kept simply in the course of doing business.
* I have to credit the authors of Branding Iron , Charlie Hughes and William Jeanes, for this one, although they say "a promise wrapped in an experience," which I take issue with. Clearly, more than one experience is usually involved.