[Note: I will be using names, logos, service marks, trade marks, etc. of various companies as ‘fair-use’ examples in this essay. The individual marks are owned and copyrighted by their respective owners, and should be respected as such. No association is implied or intended between myself and any of the aforementioned companies.]
Overview
I’m writing this article as a commentary on how I see the issue of “branding” has become so pervasive in our lives, affecting the design and manufacture of most things that we buy, and more importantly, how I see “branding” vie for a share of our minds, how we think and perceive reality around us, and how we make decisions. I believe that this trend has overstepped logic, rational thought, common sense and even good business sense. I will present a brief history, some examples of current practice, and summarize with some observations.
Brand {definition}
According to Webster, a brand is:
- a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership
- a printed mark made for similar purposes
- a mark put on criminals with a hot iron
- a mark of disgrace
- a class of goods identified by name as the product of a single firm or manufacturer
- an arbitrarily adopted name that is given by a manufacturer or merchant to an article or service to distinguish it as produced or sold by that manufacturer or merchant and that may be used and protected as a trademark
- one having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name
The American Marketing Association Dictionary defines brand as:
- a “Name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers.”
History
The word “brand” is derived from the Old Norse brandr meaning “to burn.” It refers to the practice of producers burning their mark (or brand) onto their products.
The oldest known generic brand in the world is Chyawanprash, च्यवनप्राश – which describes a jam-like mixture of approximately 45 herbs, spices and other ingredients. It has been in continuous use in India and other areas since the Vedic period, about 10,000 years ago. Indian historical evidence shows that this formulation was originally prepared, according to Ayurvedic tradition, by the ‘Royal Vaids’, named ‘Ashwini Kumar brothers’, the twins, who were medical advisers to Devas for Chyawan Rishi at his ashram near Narnaul, Haryana, India – which is where the name Chyawanprash derives. The first historically documented formula for Chywanprash was found in the Ayurvedic treatise Chakara Samhita. The current annual market for this product is about $80million US.
Other early ‘branding’ examples include the use of watermarks on paper by the Italians in the 1200s, the use of distinctive signatures by artists during the Renaissance (1500s), and the branding of cattle and criminals with hot iron tools (1800s). There is other evidence of ‘marking’ or ‘branding’ such as potter’s marks on porcelain and pottery in China, India, Greece and Italy as long ago as 1300 BCE; some early reporting of livestock branding dating back to 2000 BCE [no physical evidence survives today to assert this]; and some archeologists believe that the Babylonians used advertisements as long ago as 3000 BCE. So, for common discussion, the concept of branding has been around for the last 5,000 – 10,000 years – hardly an invention of Madison Avenue.
In terms of slightly more modern expressions of branding, the idea of permanence has long been associated with the concept of a brand – the use of a hot iron to burn a brand into the hide of cattle or the skin of a criminal was considered technologically advanced at that time. For instance, in England during the late Renaissance and right up the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1600s – 1800s) criminals were frequently branded with a letter on the cheek [for men] or on the breast [for women]. V was used for being convicted of the ‘crime’ of being a vagabond or a gypsy, F for “fravmaker” [brawler or troublemaker], S for a runaway slave. M for malefactor, etc. France used iconographic brands such as the fleur-de-lis on the shoulder. In the American Colonies the branding of suspected/convicted adulterers with the letter A was common practice. The Puritans of that time were not known for their objectivity or legal accuracy, so the brand unfortunately ruined the lives of many based on conjecture and supposition. (And we’ll leave the issue of witches and early Massachusetts alone for now…) The novel “The Scarlet Letter” is based in part on this most unfortunate part of early American history.
The ‘branding’ of humans with permanent marks also uses the technology of the tattoo, as opposed to burning. While this practice was also used by many governments to mark ‘criminals’ – perhaps the most notorious of which was the ‘prisoner serial number’ at Auschwitz – by far the larger use of tattoos has been by the individuals themselves, either as an expression of body art or alignment with a group/gang. I will address this form of branding further later in this article.
Although we often associate the branding of cattle with the “wild west” of America during the 1800s, this practice predates US cowboys by at least 3,500 years. Nevertheless, it is one area where this ‘hot iron’ method is still practiced today. The cattle still don’t seem to like it much. With the advent of modern technology, this may finally be changing, as various methods of alternative marking are being tested. Embedded chips, long-range RFID tags and other devices that can be read from a vehicle or airplane are much more useful for automatic counting and tracking of livestock than chasing down an otherwise uninterested cow to look at the burn mark on its hind quarter. In theory, using buried detector cables, Wi-Max and other combinations of modern technology, virtual fences may be a possibility, with real-time maps showing each rancher where their livestock is at any time, and allowing easy sorting and retrieval for breeding, medical treatment or harvesting.
As we moved into the 1800s, most parts of the modernizing world started to make rapid use of marking or branding. Silver and gold smiths, book publishers, manufactured goods – the list gets long very quickly. In the UK for example, Bass & Co [brewery] claims their red triangle brand as the world’s first trademark. Lyle’s Golden Syrup, with their green-and-gold packaging – unchanged since 1885 – claims status as Britain’s oldest brand. All of this was done for various reasons.
To the proponents of branding (marketing oriented people, and obviously many consumers), the reasons commonly listed are: to ensure honesty, provide quality assurance, identify source or ownership, hold producers responsible, and differentiate one product over another.
Current Practice and Effects of Branding
The current use of ‘brands’ is primarily commercial in nature: to increase or maintain sales and market share of a product or a service. The practice and concepts associated with branding are typically overseen by the marketing department of companies that own or manage such brands. From the point of view of brand owners/users, the following elements are often associated with the practice:
- A brand is the personality that identifies a product, service or company.
- The brand experience is the experiential aspect of the points of contact with a brand; the perception of a brand’s action or function.
- The brand image is the psychological aspect of the brand within the mind of the user/consumer. This is a symbolic construct composed of thoughts, information and expectations of the branded product/service.
- A brand is one of the core elements in an advertising campaign, as it is often the identifier used to relate a particular product, model, individual service, etc. with the larger commonality of the company.
- The art and business of creating and maintaining a brand is known as brand management.
- Focusing of the entirety of a business or organization is called brand orientation.
- A brand which is widely known in the marketplace has achieved brand recognition. Examples are Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mercedes, Luis Vuitton, etc.
- A brand franchise is an achievement of successful branding such that a large positive sentiment is generally held towards the brand and the associated product/service. For example, a Ferrari is known as a “hip, cool, fast, desirable car” – whether or not an individual can afford either the car, mechanics or insurance.
- Brand awareness is the impression that is instilled into a customer or user of a brand, such that they will recognize and link the brand to the underlying company or set of products/services. It involves both brand recognition and brand recall. Brand awareness is considered critical by marketers as consumers won’t consider your brand if they are unaware of it in the first place. Typically, brand awareness is promoted by repeated indoctrination of the consumer with a combination of brand name, logo, jingles, taglines, etc. to reinforce the awareness of the brand and associate it with a particular product or class of products.
- The “Holy Grail” of brand awareness for a firm is called Top-of-Mind Awareness. This is when a consumer is asked without any external prompting which brand they associate with a particular product, an example might be “Kleenex” if asked about a brand association for facial tissues.
- Aided Awareness occurs when a prompt such as a list of brands is shown to a consumer, and they express recognition or awareness of your brand once this memory aid has been provided.
- Strategic Awareness is the combination of Top-of-Mind Awareness coupled with the belief by the consumer that this brand is superior to other brands in the marketplace for similar products or services.
- The elements that typically comprise a ‘brand experience’ often include some or all of the following:
- Name – identifying word or words of the product, service, company.
- Logo – visual glyph or symbol that is associated with the brand.
- Graphics – associated graphical elements that often supplement the name or logo to create a unique visual reminder that helps to visually associate the brand with the underlying product/service.
- Tagline – a short phrase often used in advertising, and repeated on product packaging, that is used primarily for memory association of the brand.
- Shapes – certain product shapes are often associated (and patented/trademarked/etc) with particular products. Examples might be Coca-Cola bottle, the iPod and the Hershey’s Chocolate Bar.
- Colors – certain colors or color schemes can be associated (and protected if you have good enough lawyers and patent attorneys) with products. Examples are the red-soled shoes of Christian Louboutin, the distinctive pink color of Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation.
- Sounds – similar to a jingle or a catchphrase, a short melodic tune can be trademarked to a particular brand: the NBC tv network’s ‘chimes’ when the animated logo is displayed; the “5 beeps” of the Close Encounters of the Third Kind’s alien spaceship; etc.
- Scents – an example is the unique fragrance of Chanel No. 5 perfume: the top notes of aldehydes, bergamot, lemon, neroli and ylang-ylang; the heart of jasmine, rose, lily of the valley and iris; the base of vetiver, sandalwood, vanilla, amber and patchouli.
- Taste – as noted in the introductory history to branding in this article, Chayawanprash is an Indian paste of typically 45 spices; another example is Kentucky Fried Chicken (not as healthy as Chayawanprash..) with its “11 Herbs & Spices”.
- Movements – even the directional movement of a car door can be trademarked – as Lamborghini has done with its upward-swinging doors.
- A Global Brand is one that represents a similar product or service no matter where it is sold. We see this more commonly now that both the internet and global consumption of products and services has proliferated. Some examples are: Nike, Adidas, Mastercard, Facebook, Google, Apple, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mercedes, VISA, Gap, Sony, etc.
- The practice of global branding is somewhat new, and brings both advantages and challenges. Obviously this is only attractive to those that market in a global way, but that does not mean that only huge multi-national corporations should think in terms of global branding. If one offers a service over the internet, you are immediately exposed (potentially) to a global market. Even this blog is currently being read by 20,000 people in over 100 countries (Thank you all my readers by the way! Your interest and comments are what sustains my writing…)
- Some advantages of global branding are:
- Economy of scale (lower marketing, production and distribution costs)
- Worldwide consistency of brand images
- Increased exposure to media (international press as well as domestic)
- Attractiveness to international travellers, both business and pleasure – as people show a preference for buying what they know as opposed to unknowns.
- Potential of leveraging current domestic market share into international markets, even if your product is relatively new or unknown in those global markets.
- Some of the challenges are:
- All wording (company slogan, name, product names, description of services, etc.) must be thoroughly reviewed and translated for each global market segment. This must be revisited frequently, as language, custom and mores change quickly today. A seemingly innocuous tagline from two years ago could have an entirely different association in a region where recent political instability may have changed the landscape of expression.
- The infamous product name of the Chevy Nova – when it was exported to Mexico without a thorough vetting of the model name meaning – should be remembered: “No Va” means “Doesn’t Go” in Spanish – probably not the best name for a car…
- the Audi “E-Tron”… étron means “excrement” in French
- Hulu [tv network] translates to “butt” in Indonesian
- SyFy [tv network] means “syphilitics” in Polish
- Gerber [baby food] translated to French means “vomit”
- WaterPik [electric toothbrush] means [roughly] “morning wood” in Danish… (I’m trying to be somewhat PC here…)
- Mensa [group of supposedly really smart people] translates to “stupid woman” {Spanish slang}
- Different cultures communicate differently, so marketing material, focus and visual tone may have to differ from area to area
- Different locales place varying levels of importance on products and services, so a differentiating factor in the USA may not be appreciated in Nigeria.
- Regulatory issues, local legislation (most important with medicines, foodstuffs and products that carry liability issues [cars, boats, planes, structural elements, etc.]) must be considered carefully. All of these issues tend to counteract savings that may otherwise result from scale.
- Consumption patterns can vary widely for both products and services.
- A Brand Name is arguably the most important feature or aspect of an overall brand. Often this is first element of a brand that is trademarked, servicemarked, etc. Brand names come in a wide variety of styles, some of the common ones are:
- Acronym Adaptation: IBM, UPS, NBC, CBS, etc.
- Descriptions: Whole Foods, Best Buy, New Balance, etc.
- Alliterations and rhymes: Bed, Bath & Beyond, Coca-Cola, Spic and Span, Krispy Kreme (alliterations) [actually Krispy Kreme is also an oxymoron, Spic and Span is also reduplication]; Reese’s Pieces, YouTube, Lean Cuisine, Mellow Yellow (rhymes)
- Evocative imagery: Amazon, Crest, BlueSky, RedBull
- Neologisms: (made up words) Kodak, Wii, Accenture, Brangelina, webinar, Frisbee, Xerox, etc.
- Foreign words: Volvo (at least here the marketers got it right, it’s Spanish for “I roll”), Samsung (Korean for “Three Stars”), Häagen-Dazs (sounds Scandinavian but the ice cream was invented by Polish Jews in the Bronx…) [BTW it’s now owned by Pillsbury]
- Combination: Walkman
- Tautology: Crown Royal
- Theronym: Mustang [a theronym is a name derived from an animal name, not Charlize Theron…]
- Mimetics: Google [mimetics is the practice of mimicry, in this case to stare ‘google-eyed’ at something to better understand it]
- Eponym: Trump Tower
- Synecdoche: Staples
- Metonomy: Starbucks
- Allusion: London Fog
- Haplology: Land O’Lakes
- Clipping: Fed Ex
- Morphological borrowing: Nikon [morphology of language gives us that the Japanese word Naikan, which is pronounced Nikon… – and the meaning of Naikan is a spiritual state of gratitude, even for small things – such as when you push a shutter button you get a great picture…]
- Omission: RAZR
- Founder’s Names: Porsche, Ferrari, Hewlett-Packard
- Geography: Cisco, Fuji Film
- Personification: Nike, Betty Crocker [no such woman, William Crocker was an advertising executive at Washburn/Crosby who thought this up, using the first name Betty because it ‘was a cheery, All-American name’.]
- The concept of a brandnomer is highly desired, where Top-of-Mind association leads people to refer to a general class of products by a brand name. Examples are Band-Aid for an adhesive bandage, Kleenex as facial tissue, SkilSaw for a rotary hand-held electric saw, etc.
- The concept of brand identity, particularly visual brand identity, has become paramount in the ecosystem of marketing, branding and intellectual property ownership. Many corporations now issue very detailed manuals on the correct usage of their visual brands, down to precise measurements of placement on written or screen material, etc. The courts are continually littered with ongoing process of various firms either suing each other over alleged violations of branding, or attempting to establish ownership over some aspect of a visual identity for a new or existing brand.
- One of the original reasons put forth by early businesses (and this belief is carried into current times) is that a brand implies a certain trust or perception of quality by the consumer. This is getting to the core of what will be discussed further in this post, but advertisers, marketers and even top-level executives of the firms that own major brands view this as vitally important to their bottom line and ongoing customer allegiance. This concept of brand trust is part of what is often called “goodwill” when valuing a firm at a time of sale or stock appraisal. Some companies have been valued far higher than their actual assets or current sales warrant, based strictly on a collective belief in the value of the “goodwill” of that firm, which often include brand value, brand trust and brand identity.
- The role that brands play in commerce, and cultures at large, have changed considerably since the late 1800s when branding of products started exploding as a practice. Initially, as discussed above, brands were used to help differentiate one similar product from another, with the hope of persuading the consumer that, A) there was in fact a difference at all [which was/is often just not true], and B) that once trust was established for a brand (based on one product) that same firm could trade on that trust and extend whatever consumer belief there was in the original product to a new and different type of product – which may or may not be of similar quality or value. For example {and please note, this is not an accusation or assumption of lack of value, it’s merely an example} that fact that Michelin became known for high quality motorcar tires was no guarantee that in a totally unrelated field (restaurant guides) they would provide an equal value. (Turns out they were correct, and have an excellent reputation for this: a Michelin “star” is a highly sought-after mark of prestige for a restaurant anywhere in the world).
- Brands today have become synonymous with the promise of a certain performance, reliability, quality, “cool-ness”, etc., not only for the advertised product, but the company (or organization, country, etc.) behind the product or service. Brands have inexorably become intertwined with politics, economics and social issues. The use of icons, visual identities and short taglines – all the elements of a successful branding campaign – has allowed ‘branding’ to communicate complex feelings quickly. Brands have often become a shorthand for entire soliloquies on a particular subject. For instance, the term “McMansion” as used by the real-estate industry (originally in Los Angeles) is based on the generic type of food, often in “Super Sizes” that is typical of the McDonald’s chain to refer to a generic, over-sized house that is usually stuffed onto a lot that is proportionally too small for a home of that size. This somewhat pejorative derivation of a well-known brand in one sector has now been translated to completely different sector, and is often used in social commentary.
- Modern branding is now a complex exercise that combines virtually all the senses, psychology, linguistics, cultural analysis, BigData, focus group testing, etc. We now have new buzz-words even in the esoteric world of branding (which as you have seen already in this article delves into the arcane sciences of words, glyphs, meaning and more than one ever thought possible). Such concepts as attitude branding [where the brand no longer represents a single product or service, but the entire ‘feeling’ behind the type of person that would consume such a product or service], and iconic branding [where the goal is for the consumer of such brands to self-identify with the brand to the point of using a brand to express personal identity and the preferred mode of self-expression] are now pervasive. For example, many consumers of Apple products (computers/phones) or Harley-Davidson (motorcycles) are often unreasonably attached to those brands, and view themselves as a particular type of person just because they use those products.
- The consumer/user behavior of iconic brands is interesting, and worthy of a bit of additional analysis. One of the reasons is that people who use / identify with / consume iconic brands are the most loyal and exhibit two other tendencies that make this group exceptionally valuable to the brand owner: 1) very low ‘churn’ factor [they don’t switch brands, even in the face of objective criticism, without tremendous reason]; and 2) they actively proselytize the product/service without any inducement from the brand owner.
- (Did you ever try to get a die-hard Mac user to switch back to a PC? Have you approached a guy in leathers on a Harley and suggested that he would be happier on a Suzuki??)
- Several of the factors that help make a brand ‘iconic’ are:
- It’s actually got to be a good product/service – the general reputation must uphold this iconic status. It should have a reputation of high quality, with a bit of an esteem factor.
- There is a story/myth associated with the product/service. Again, like actual quality, the story has to be believable (I didn’t say real…) and cohesive with the product/service. For example, the stories/myths/perceptions of Steve Jobs filled this requirement for Apple.
- The brand that wishes to be iconic must provide a solution for pent-up desires (doesn’t actually have to provide these, just appear that it can). Most people are less than totally fulfilled in some area of their lives. If a brand can offer a product or service that helps a person feel like they are overcoming one of those frustrations, they will be incredibly supportive and loyal. (Don’t you just feel more cool when you are typing on a Mac Air as opposed to a desktop PC???)
- The iconic brand must be continually managed to keep its position in the constant change that inevitably surrounds all modern products/services. (Hmmm… didn’t we just get an iPhone5…)
- The last area of brand analysis we will touch on here is brand extension and brand dilution. I have lumped them together, since the inappropriate use of the first inevitably results in the second… Once a brand has been established in one area/product, it is often the desire of the brand owner, in search of more… to attempt the success of the brand in other areas. The hope/assumption is that if Hugo Boss makes well-liked men’s clothes that this same cachet can be extended to fragrance, sunglasses, etc. I use this as an example (not picking on dear Hugo, just making an example of the fashion industry where it seems that every designer now can’t just make clothes but must equip us from shoes to hats and everything in between…) as here, more often than most, we see attempts at brand extension actually result in brand dilution. None of the current clothing designers actually make sunglasses. Not one. They are all made in China (or if not the bits are and then assembled in a more ‘respected’ country for purpose of labelling). And from an optical standpoint, they are about as differentiated from one another as one pineapple is from another.This is not to say at all that brand extension doesn’t work – just that the brand owner should actually treat a new venture as just that, and almost resist ‘carrying over’ the hard-won success of a current brand to a new segment. There are certainly many success stories (the example of Michelin that I used earlier is one that comes to mind, another [oddly enough another tire maker] is the iconic calendar of Pirelli which features some of the most prestigious fashion models and photographers vying each year to model/shoot for this event).
Observations on the Psychology of Branding
There is an interesting novel written by William Gibson, “Pattern Recognition”, [which I highly recommend, not only for the actual subject and story, but Gibson is a master storyteller, and just the act of digesting words so well laid down on the page is worth one’s time], which I bring to your attention not for the main story (go read it for that answer) but for part of the subtext: the protagonist of the story, Cayce Pollard, is “brand-phobic”. What’s fascinating is the level to which she attempts to be ‘un-branded’ – and just how obscenely difficult that is in modern times.
Here’s a challenge. Just spend a few minutes looking around right now in your immediate surroundings, and see if anything, anything at all, doesn’t have a brand mark on it somewhere. Usually in such a place that it cannot be easily removed/covered, etc. I’ll play guinea pig for a minute right now: my keyboard is Kensington, as is the trackball. The graphics tablet is Wacom, computer is Dell, monitor is Eizo – all of which have logos and names baked in to the surface. No chance of ‘brand X’ here… If we move on to clothes, car, backpack, luggage, etc. etc. – well you get the picture. We live today in a completely branded environment. It is truly impossible to hide from branding. Part of the reason for this is that ‘brand marks’ have now been extended not just to names and logos, but actual colors, shapes, and even “look and feel” of software. In fact, the motivating factors that propelled me to write this treatise were the recent decisions of patent courts to award Louboutin the sole right (okay, really no pun intended, it just came out of my fingers that way – I write these blogs ‘live’ – i.e. directly online, very little editing – just a quick spell/grammar check and push the button – that’s what a blog is for me) to use the color red on the bottom of his shoes. The only exception granted to Yves St. Laurent (the challenger) was if the shoe is all red. So YSL gets to keep red soles on their red shoes, otherwise – if you see those flashy red contrasting soles on 6″ heels, you know it’s a set of pricy Loubs… The other two recent decisions that factored into my motivation were Lululemon (fashion again, against Calvin Klein – for yoga pants design) and Apple (the infamous case with Samsung which stung Samsung to the iTune of $1.5B).
All three of these cases had a couple of rather new features to the ‘win’: the ‘brand mark’ was intrinsic to the actual design – this is a watershed statement by the courts, with many ramifications; and the ‘wins’ all went to the defenders (i.e. the designers that first came up with the designs). What this can be construed to mean is that new challengers to a market segment now have even a harder time ahead when desiring to upseat an established rival: your design better not be anything close at all to what’s out there, or you will be spending time and considerable cash in court instead of on a marketing campaign.
But all this is just the surface, and not really the most important aspect of our current ‘branded’ reality. The more insidious aspect of this is how these companies fight, and win, our actual ‘mindshare’. We have now become so embedded with the constant barrage of branding that we have sublimated it – exactly where the brand owners want it! The last thing any brand owner wants is for a consumer to start thinking. Because then we might actually ask ourselves: is a Chevy truck really better than a Ford? Does it do more? At the end of the day, does any basic truck allow me to put a few hundred pounds of stuff in the back from the local hardware store and bring it home? How many of those tricked out gas monsters jacked up on 8 shocks and balloon tires (for the difficult to navigate off-road experience of Sunset Blvd.) that can – according to the tv ads – actually pull a jet airplane away from the gate really carry more than beer and groceries and an occasional box of bits from the DIY store? The most useful aspect of these high ground clearance Prius-eaters I have seen are the contortions – and resultant fashion shows – that result from the girlfriends trying to get in and out of a vehicle that is 4 ft off the ground…
But that’s all somewhat obvious surface commentary. The important, somewhat darker bits, are the subliminal messaging and actual thought patterns that become embedded in our brains. We no longer just put on a pair of jeans. It’s Levis or Sevens or TrueReligion or Calvins or… When you meet a well-dressed woman at a party, and ask her what she’s wearing, the automatic answer is “Oh, I’m in Vera/Burberry/Donna/Michael/whomever tonight.” I guess she assumes we already know she’s wearing a dress… We no longer think objectively – we don’t put on jeans or a shirt of a pair of shoes, we put on our Diesels with a Michael Kors and a pair of Cole Haan’s. We write with a Mont Blanc or an iPad or a Galaxy. We drive a Merc or a Beemer or a Lambo. (or to be egalitarian, Mini, Leaf, Prius). We eat not just a tomatoe, but a local, certified organic, Kenter Farms pineapple Heirloom. We spend time, money, status and nervous energy selecting the ‘best’ wine at a restaurant – when the vast bulk of us can’t tell the difference between a sauvignon blanc and a chardonnay in a blind taste test. Here is something that has been tested many, many times: take five mid-range lager beers. Pour into identical glasses, let sit for one minute (some say the initial head can be a ‘tell’), then give to a group of die-hard beer drinkers who have strong opinions on Bud/Miller/Amstel/etc. Uh-huh… how many get that one right… (now this is from a dedicated personal set of testing with some of the brightest engineers and scientists that currently work in broadcast and post-production engineering and standards bodies – I mean these people are objective, right???). How about an average of 10%. That’s less than the statistical probability of chance! What our minds tell us is far more potent that reality. In fact, (and this is a discussion for another day) our minds actually make our reality in each moment.
None of the above should be construed to mean that I am against all branding, or that I don’t want companies to be successful in their marketing and sales efforts. What I am asking is for some semblance of objectivity to return to what I see as an imbalanced system. We are so focused on the ‘brand’ that we have lost sight of the product or service. Do we actually examine the stitching on a Kate Spade bag to see if it’s even? Do we compare the fit of the doors to the surrounding body on a Mercedes vs a BMW vs and Audi? Can we tell if organically raised asparagus by monks in Mendocino tastes better than what’s at Safeway? I’m not saying one or the other – but do we look? Do we see? Do we taste? Do we discern and formulate our own opinions?
Imagine this scenario: a woman goes into the shop to buy jeans. There are no brand names. The pocket designs, attractive as they may be, are unknown to her in terms of an identifiable brand. How will she choose? She would actually have to look at quality of construction, try them on, feel the denim, see if the legs work with her calves, her thighs, her shoes. All of this can be done, but the biggest issue – that can’t be solved with examination, fit or feel: what will her friends think? How will she know if she is wearing ‘cool’ or ‘yesterday’? What if it didn’t matter…
We are so brand-focused today that we let the brands think for us: we assume that if it’s a BMW that it’s a good car. We assume that if we pay $50 for a bottle of wine it must be good (don’t get me started: the absolute worst offenders on the planet, in terms of branding, brand extension, etc. are the wine farms and distributors. I love wine and respect the incredible effort and experience it takes to make good wine – but the marketing and distribution of this substance makes Barnum & Baily look like saints…) We have collectively abdicated our reasoning, observations, and critical thinking to the marketing departments of those who make products and services. We need to reclaim some of our own decision-making power.
So far, most of this article has focused on commercial products and services. However, the most important aspect of branding, in my opinion, is when these same techniques are applied to other areas – ones that have the capability to impact far more than our choice of a computer, phone or car: things like politics, religion, intelligence, health, sexual proclivity and so on. I would now like the reader to go back to the section above on iconic branding – but this time re-read this with the point of view of a particular religion as an ‘iconic brand’. Do any of the points raised ring a bell?
- An iconic brand user won’t switch brands, even when faced with objective evidence that should spawn reconsideration.
- An iconic brand user will often proselytize the brand, even without inducement of the brand owner.
- At some point, the iconic brand had to offer ‘good’ and have some esteem amongst a population.
- There must be a story or myth associated with an iconic brand, and it must be believable to at least some degree.
- The iconic brand must offer the hope of fulfillment of currently unsatisfied desires, which use/consumption of the brand will provide.
- The iconic brand must be continually managed to keep it alive as change occurs.
Interesting… and very, very, very profitable for the brand owners. Again, I am using this for analysis and asking ultimately for each human to take command of his or her own thoughts – to be internally responsible for choices of belief – not be a puppet in the hands of any particular religion, software, car, culture, shoes or lingerie. I am not taking any particular religion to task (I do personally not see much use for organized religion, which in my view has very little to do with spirituality, but that is just my own position and I am not arguing that here), but am pointing out that the vast cadre of ‘brand managers’ aka priests, rabbis, pastors, cardinals, sangomas, shamans, etc. do their jobs well, promoting and adapting the ‘iconic brand’ so that it continues to be seen as ‘necessary’ (for ‘saving your soul’, being better than the other tribe, being more likely to get more [fill in the blank] in the next life/heaven/etc. – very convenient that delayed gratification must wait until you are dead where it’s a bit harder to come back to customer service with a complaint about false advertising…)
None of this would be so much of an issue if it merely affected an individual – after all supposedly free choice is what makes us human, right…? But blind belief and adherence to some ‘iconic brands’ can be dangerous. When we are talking Manolos vs Louboutins, the worst that can happen is a catty comment from Joan – when rabid blind belief in certain deities lays waste to millions of lives, that is rather another thing entirely. Now, just to be accurate here: many, many of the atrocities carried out in the past and present have completely incorrectly used the mantle of religion or other affiliation to attempt to justify just plain criminal or abhorrent sociopathic behavior. It would actually be very good ‘brand management’ if the current brand owners would police this aspect much more rigidly, and disallow the perverted use of supposedly benign deities by those that only aim to disrupt civilization with mayhem and murder.
Brand Trust for the Big Issues
As discussed earlier, one of the major underlying reasons for branding is to establish a sense of trust in the consumer/user of the brand. At the commercial level, firms like Apple, Hermes, Volkswagen, etc. all desire that the consumer will trust their products as being of quality, and that they can expect a continued level of similar form and function from the product in the future. This brand loyalty is incredibly important to the brand owner.
Now, carry this over to branded entities such as political parties, religions, nation-states, cults, social organizations, etc. – and we see that the same issues apply. Whether one expresses brand allegiance to the Democrats or Republicans, Labor or Conservative, ANC or DA – all of these groups wish to instill trust in their brand. They use most of the same advertising techniques that firms such as Ford, Calvin Klein, General Foods or Apple does to inspire loyalty, establish and preserve identity, etc. They all have unique brand names, logos, catchphrases, etc. Some logos of political elements have become so identified with a particular movement that they are ‘super-iconic’ – such as the swastika. That logo is now so identified with the Nazi movement and philosophy of a certain group that it can never again be separated from that meaning. This is the true power of branding – a single graphic element can say so very much. The ‘tagging’ of a synagogue wall with a spray-painted swastika says volumes…
Just as has been posited for brands of cars, clothing or computers, the giving of trust to a brand should be examined, tested and questioned on an ongoing basis. There is nothing at all wrong or illogical about deciding that one prefers Calvin Klein jeans to Diesel: but once trust is given the tendency is to submit to inertia and go back to the same well. We often will stay with a current brand long past the time when perhaps a new analysis should have been performed and another decision taken. Inertia, brand trust (and existing contracts) have kept Blackberry alive far longer than an objective analysis of their performance would have mandated. Often times many people will just drift away from a high level of trust with a brand, but not ‘re-trust’ a competitive brand: we may find many ‘lapsed’ Catholics – but rather few that switch to either agnosticism or Islam. We are nearing election time here in the US, and a concomitant amount of rabid brand awareness has taken over our airwaves, newspapers and conversations. Wait a couple of years, and the amount of brand allegiance will be much lower, as once again the actuality of political promise fades in the face of reality, coercion, corruption and apathy.
Social organizations that promote one viewpoint or another (whether for/against reproductive rights, gay/lesbian, global warming/cooling, etc/etc) also use the same techniques to gather and keep followers. If one reviews the above list on brand naming techniques (acronyms are big here: PETA, NOW, LGBT, etc), global branding, and so on it can be seen that most social groups have learned quickly from their commercial counterparts. With a little insight, we can see that branding and marketing has become absolutely pervasive in our cultures. And this is world-wide, cuts across all socio-economic groups and affects virtually all groups of people: children are marketed to with as much fervor as yuppies in search of the next new car.
Personal Branding
We have discussed the issue of branding as it applies to groups, whether these be companies that manufacture goods, provide services, offer a belief structure, purport to provide a better method of government, etc. – but one of the remaining issues is how we brand ourselves. This has two distinctive connotations: actual physical branding (typically with tattoos or piercings/embedded jewelry), and psychological branding. Here I am not discussing alignment with external brands – what we have reviewed above, but something different.
In terms of personal physical branding, while it is true that a number of people will tattoo themselves to state alignment with an external group (gangs, religion, etc.) that is not the focus of this point. This is an individual choice (assuming that the person was afforded choice, as mentioned earlier in this article that has not always been the case) and one must live with that choice. A tattoo does make brand-switching somewhat more of an issue than changing which shoes you wear… Tattoos are often an expression of rebellion, individual control, etc – they are not ‘mainstream’ – at least in western cultures – and have a high degree of individualism. Many are beautiful and are works of art in their own right. The issue here is not about the practice of tattooing or piercing, but rather the identification or ‘self-branding’ aspect of that choice. These are relatively permanent decisions, and therefore represent the expression of an internal psychological branding that is not transitory. (Well, as always there are exceptions: the actions of an inebriated sailor on leave when he inks his current girlfriend’s name on his shoulder may be reviewed later as a less than stellar decision…)
In one way or another, tattoos express a brand alignment that is strong. However, in this case, there is a strength to this choice that all of us could take away and use as a model for other brand decisions. The person that chooses to ink a motif, logo, design, etc. has a strong alignment with whatever that represents to him or her. And (as said, we are not discussing brand marks here that express alignment with well-known external brands) these ‘brands’ are individual. They represent what this person feels, and feels strongly enough to share (with either the world or someone close to them, depending on location of the tattoo…) potentially for the rest of their lives. Not many of us are courageous enough, feel strongly enough about anything, or are committed enough to make that kind of decision.
Now, let’s move on to what I will refer to as ‘the invisible tattoo’ – personal psychological branding that is as permanent, courageous and committed as external ink. This is the rarest form of branding. It is sustained only by strong personal will, continuous and committed choice, and at some level a degree of self-observation / self-honesty. Again, I am not discussing alignment here with any external brand – this is not being a Democrat, wearing Vera Wang or riding a Harley. This topic is referring to the brand of one – yourself. Some questions may make this point a bit more clear:
- Are your views on (fill in the blank) consistent and strong enough to constitute a brand?
- Is your personal brand cohesive enough to evoke a feeling, a visual description, etc. in others that interact or see you?
- Does this personal brand inspire loyalty and respect in others? In other words, put the aspects of branding I originally stated at the beginning of this article to yourself as a gauge, and see what answers you find. Brand image / experience / orientation / recognition, etc.
A final observation: people who have a strong personal ‘brand’ tend to be strong, powerful people. Writers, scientists, actors, political leaders, etc. do not arrive at those places by accident. The world is too brutal, the pressures too great, for accidental positioning to last more than a minute. No matter whether you like, agree with or support any of their actions or positions, people such as Regan, Newman, Angelina, Einstein, Coelho etc. have/had strong personal brands. You know/knew where they stood, what they felt, what they believed in.
People that have strong personal brands are interestingly enough the least subject to blind allegiance to external brands. They believe in themselves enough to take their own decisions, and whether due to arrogance or internal strength of character, will seldom ‘jump on a bandwagon’ without due consideration. This leads to the end purpose for writing this article: for each reader to take a moment to reconsider his or her own brand, to regain considered choice and not be a lemming to the tide of advertisements and pressure of campaigns for your attention, money and time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to wear Proenza Schouler instead of Brian Atwood – but if done each time as a personal decision based on considered parameters instead of an habitual following it’s a different decision.
In terms of fashion/cars/electronics, it would be nice to see visual corporate branding take a lesser position in terms of design: often now the logo/name/etc has overtaken the actual design of the product. If we all had a stronger personal brand we would possibly not feel as great a need to align/belong to some set of external brands. I for one do not like to wear what are effectively billboards for clothing or accessory manufacturers, and choose to not do so. Yes, it limits some choices, but I find there are more than enough alternatives to satisfy my need for putting on shirts, pants and shoes in the morning.
We as individual people have enormous power if we take it: if certain branded items stop selling the vendors will very quickly adapt, believe me. If understated became “in” – the market would respond. Ultimately the choice is yours. Take back some power, some individuality, some level of informed choice – whether that be concerning a handbag, belief, social group or car. You’ll be better off for it, and will accrue individuality.
