Janine Ramlochan makes an interesting point that she learned from working with a Japanese team. The emphasis is mine:
It became clear, the ‘western’ approach to brand-building did not apply in the same way ~ particularly, as western brand-building has normally been used to extend relevance in the absence of innovation. In markets where consumers were more “innovation-chasing”, brand-building needed to be balanced with innovation for a brand to survive. And if a brand carried too much baggage for a new innovation, it would sometimes make more sense to just launch a new brand instead.
This brings me back to my rather surreal days as an advertising copywriter: “You were excited about Nike. You were excited about Starbucks. You were excited about Apple. And now here’s your chance to get excited about diet supermarket cheddar!!“
For twenty-odd years the Western marketing world totally got into this idea of “The Brand”. Even the part of the Western marketing world that has lousy brands.
i.e. This Platonic ideal that was was somehow more than the sum of its parts via-a-vis your company, your product and your reputation. It was nostalgic, idealized, romanticized, backward-looking and, for all its warm n’ fuzzy stuff, extremely cynical.
It was meant to bring comfort and continuity to both mainstream Western society and, I suspect more importantly, to Wall Street traders and aging, second-rate corporate hacks with big mortgages. Lucky them.
Far too many people, when asked why they get out of bed in the morning, only have one genuine answer: “Because I need the money.” The Cult of The Brand evolved the way it did, primarily to keep the latter contented.
Which is too bad. Life is short.
The New Republic
Len Schlesinger
Seth Godin
Brian Clark
Thanks for reminding me why I like you — and why I quoted you in my book:
Ask six people to define what “Branding” is and you will get seven different answers. The longer I’ve been in the business, the truer this has become. Perhaps it’s time to pull the plug. —Hugh Macleod
This entry really deserves two posts,
one on working only for money,
and
the other on branding.
Both are HUGE conversations.
Working For Money…
Being a project person,
I hustled to get financially secure
as quickly as possible.
Ironically, in order to do our jobs properly,
project people have to have the ability
to risk those same jobs
on projects.
Branding And Innovation…
I have always seen branding
as a means of focusing.
It is so easy for product development teams
to wander off on tangents.
There are SO many ideas left to be launched.
Having a tight brand definition
weeds out some of those ideas.
Developers have to consider
“does this fit?“
or
“is this a big enough idea for a new brand?”
Love the comic. Wish I was guilty of the latter half.
I just read an excerpt of Scott Berkun’s book “The Myths of Innovation” (link ) where he discusses how the goals of innovation and brand-building are at odds with each other.
You said, “This Platonic ideal that was was somehow more than the sum of its parts via-a-vis your company, your product and your reputation. It was nostalgic, idealized, romanticized, backward-looking “. This idealization and romanticization is exactly what holds “established” brands back from embracing innovation and change.