Recently, I’ve been reading a lot more about how marketing and branding are starting to change, and it all seems to coincide with an essay I wrote almost a year ago, so I thought I would post it again and start gathering other examples and writings on what I feel to be a major change in the world of branding.
Open Source Branding and the Reputation Economy
by Glen Carlson (written 11.21.04)
——————————————————————————–
The shift in power from retailer/manufacturer to consumer is starting to happen. More importantly, consumers are beginning to recognize their power. Much of this recognition stems from open sources—the web, publications, social networks & communities—free markets to critique the “free market.”
Companies are starting to feel the effect of this phenomenon, especially in their bottom line. When two or more products are comparable in quality, branding and/or seductiveness that make the customer buy the product, and allow the producer to charge more, right?
That’s the way it used to be—a sharp logo, or a slick ad campaign used to relate directly to profits. This is why branding became a holy grail of sorts for companies. However, with this transition in business/consumer patterns must come a transition in branding.
The branding techniques employed in most cases involve setting a standard for a company’s visual presence—logo, business card, stationery, typeface, etc. This has some inherent problems:
1. If these elements are not visible, they are worthless
Deployment of branding is essential, but how branding is deployed is infinitely more important. Timing, location, material, interactivity—all of these site-specific elements determine the context of what is branded. If you have the most aesthetically pleasing logo in the world, if it is associated in a negative context, people will form a lasting negative opinion it. For example, Jack in the Box is still recovering from the association with a negative opinion. It took about 10 years, a ferocious new ad campaign, and a total restructuring of the way the company does business for them to even survive.
2. It does not allow for rapid change or adaptation
Branding and re-branding initiatives take a long time. Many times the visual standards for every single part of the company have to be scrutinized and either developed or redeveloped. Then there is bureaucracy: Board of Directors, CEO, CFO, CIO, Vice-Presidents, Managers, etc. In many cases all of these people must be satisfied with the branding initiative for it to proceed. Then, when something goes awry in the company’s branding, as it always will, the entire branding process must begin again.
3. It leads to aesthetic elitism
The idea of ownership in branding naturally creates havoc because branding involves emotions and abstract concepts. Does Coca-Cola own the concepts of joy and refreshment? Does McDonald’s own the emotion of happiness? I’d venture to say they think they do. The artistic/creative process is also an intrinsic part of branding, much like music and fine art. And like music and fine art, this leads to similarity and borrowing/inspiration/homage/sampling. Thus, companies end up suing themselves for copyright and trademark infringements. The end result of companies strictly controlling their branding is that the consumer gets left out, and the gap between company and consumer widens.
Continue reading ‘Open Source Branding’
The London 2012 official logo was unveiled about a week ago and has caused quite the commotion. Most reactions have been negative, many verging on being violently so. Some are calling for its immediate withdrawal, while others are certifying it as a failure…5 years before it will be able to show any success.
Recent Comments