|
 |
|
|
|
By: Bill Nissim, 2004 ©
If you search the term “branding” on the Internet, you’ll be inundated by a plethora of theories,
assumptions, and case studies which implicate the quintessential approach to this elusive topic. This
mystification leads most organizations to relegate brand management to lower level functionaries and
relies on tangibles, such as revenues and EBITDA, as a measure of market viability. The strategic use
of branding only surfaces when the organization experiences a turbulent period in time and applies
brand principles as a life preserver.
The fundamental problem with the application of branding lies in its strategic importance and
execution throughout the organization. If top management views branding as a “marketing function,”
their cursory involvement implicates a tactical view and permeation throughout the organization will
not congeal. What arises is a PHANTOM BRAND – one that exists in the murky shadows and
becomes a vague reminder of an organization’s true self. Conversely, an organization that embraces
their brand as the strategic cornerstone of the business and obtains cultural acceptance will emerge
with a strong identity and market position.
The intent of this article is to identify phantom brands and understand why they fall into disrepair.
Published authors’ who have investigated various facets of this topic will be cited and their findings
summarized. The by product of this exercise will alert management to patterns and red flags that
signify brand dilution.
Branding Defined:
Branding has been defined by many specialists over the years. Michael Dunn, CEO of Prophet
Consulting, states “…the brand acts as a sort of shorthand that consumers use to decide between
competing products. In the broadest sense, the brand is a combination of a product or service's public
image.” Another branding expert of 31 years broke the concept down into 22 Immutable Laws of
Branding (Al & Laura Ries, 2002) in which law number five deals with brand ownership. They assert
that “if you want to build a brand, you must focus your branding efforts on establishing a word in the
prospect's mind - a word that nobody else owns.” Finally, David Aaker, noted expert on brand
strategy states “a company's brand is the primary source of its competitive advantage and a valuable
strategic asset (Building Strong Brands, 1996).” Now that branding has been defined, let’s examine
common foibles of brand management.
Common Branding Traps:
David Aaker has identified four brand identity traps which can lead to ineffective and dysfunctional
brand strategies. These “traps” include image, position, external perspective, and product-attribute
fixation traps. Aaker contends that a brand image reflects the past and is passive in nature, whereas the
brand identity is active and focuses on the future. Let’s briefly review the essence of each trap.
1. Brand Image Trap:
The essence of this first trap is how customers perceive your brand image. If left un-checked, the
brand image slowly becomes the brand identity. The problem here is that both the customer and the
marketplace are defining your identity verses the company creating a more accurate portrayal of your
future brand promise.
2. Brand Position Trap:
A brand position utilizes the value proposition to actively communicate and demonstrate its brand
advantage in the marketplace. The trap occurs when the focus is on product attributes rather than brand
building activities (personality, associations, symbols, etc.). As a result, the brand lacks depth and
significance and could be equated to a movie with a weak plot – dull and uneventful!
3. External Perspective Trap
The common viewpoint of organizations is to maintain an external focus – how customers perceive the
brand. Most organizations fail to internally communicate the vision and values of their brand. Test this
concept yourself: Ask anyone within your organization what your brand stands for – if you get a blank
stare or a numerical response (like sales goal), then you’ve got issues. How can your employees
execute the brand promise to your customers if they lack passion, inspiration, and understanding?
4. Product-Attribute Fixation Trap
The failure to distinguish between a product and a brand is the essence of a product-attribute trap.
Most companies view product attributes as the basis for purchasing decisions and competitive strength
in the marketplace. Although Nike produces professional quality running shoes (as does others), the
identity-association of owning the product has greater meaning to the owner than the product itself.
Ask someone what they drive? If they possess a sense of pride, they’ll quickly respond with the brand
name – not horsepower or torque ratios!
New Brand or Position:
Al Ries recently discussed three mistakes companies make when launching new products (or brands)
in the marketplace. The first common mistake is to spend big during the initial roll-out. The reasoning
is – if they don’t know you’re there, they won’t buy! According to Ries, new products (brands) take off
slowly and advertising inherently lacks credibility. Successful organizations have built their brand
solely by utilizing public relations (such as The Body Shop, Swatch, and Red Bull).
The second mistake is using a research-driven name. The biggest brand name in online book sales is
Amazon.Com, not “Bookfinder.com.” Why? History has demonstrated that consumers seek
differentiated identities online and organizations such as pets.com and etoys.com (generic) have also
failed.
The third mistake is broad distribution. Whether the placement of products or advertising to launch a
new name/product, Ries suggests you start small. When you narrow your focus and concentrate on one
method (market, distribution point, etc.), your brand has a better chance of being recognized verses
being lost amongst the giants in the same environment.
Phantom Brands:
Author Matt Haig suggests that “consumers make buying decisions based around the perception of the
brand rather than the reality of the product (Brand Failures, 2003).” He goes on to say that the value
extends beyond the physical assets of the organization and that perception is fragile at best. (His work
exemplifies those entities that discarded the immutable laws of branding and suffered the inevitable
consequences).
Snapple: Beverages
Quaker Oats Company bought Snapple for $1.7 billion in 1994 and decided to change the brand
formula. They shifted its distribution and advertising campaign to reflect something that it wasn’t, and
within three years, sold the floundering company for $300 million. The lesson learned? Quaker Oats
didn’t understand the brand’s value, both in place and presentation, and diminished the value in the
consumer’s mind.
Planet Hollywood: Restaurant
Most of us have “tried” Planet Hollywood and enjoyed the novelty of the experience. This
organization was launched in 1991 with the premise of celebrity hype and movie memorabilia, with
food being a side-line. By 1999, the company went bankrupt and its fortunes invested lost. What
happened? Since the “food” wasn’t the reason to visit Planet Hollywood, once you’ve seen the sights,
there was no compelling reason to return.
McDonald’s Arch Deluxe: International Chain
The tag line for this product was “Burger with a grown-up taste” it was McDonald’s biggest flop. The
value proposition for this organization is friendliness, cleanliness, consistency, and convenience. The
product concept was well researched and the consensus was positive. Why did Arch Deluxe fail?
McDonald’s ignored their values and offered a more affluent product that didn’t match their brand
identity. Market research should be considered as input, but if it denies your brand, put little trust into
it!
Phantom brands arrive at our doorstep in many forms. For some, a serious lack of brand management
allows the organization’s most valuable asset (the brand identity) to erode over time and become less
valuable to their customers. For others, a deliberate act (Snapple) for profit’s sake quickly destroys
the point of differentiation in the consumer’s minds. Phantom brands become remnants of an
organization’s true value/inspiration and quickly drive the organization into disrepair. Why does this
occur?
In my experience, the problem lies squarely with senior management and their incomprehension of the
brand concept. The spot-light shines on revenues and relationships, which is the fuel of business, but
the engine remains the brand. As a result, they miss the warning signals and unconsciously make
decisions that ultimately diminish the organization’s value. Since the CEO is typically the chief
marketing officer, it is his or her responsibility to care and nurture their brand identity. Without such
awareness, the dark shadows of mediocrity slowly engulf the brand and tarnishes its very soul.
Summary:
This discussion briefly covers what brands are, traps that organizations fall into, and common
mistakes made when launching or re-branding products or services. Several companies were
identified in addition to brand dilution errors that each made. In most cases, brand management takes a
back-seat to top-line revenue and financial metrics. In the three examples provided above,
management ignored the basics of branding and paid an exorbitant price for doing so.
Bill Nissim consults with organizations on strategic branding
imperatives. His website www.ibranz.com contains reference materials, links, and helpful
articles on the many facets of branding. In addition, Nissim released his first book
“The Brand Advocate” to provide a tool-kit for the marketing practitioner.
|
|
