Pygmalion branding.
In brand definition, there is an underlying assumption which is that the brand isn’t a real tangible thing, it is an idea; a figment of our collective imaginations if you will.
Paul Feldwick famously said: “A brand is simply a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer.” In a similar vein, Leslie de Chernatony said a brand is: “…an identifiable product, service person or place, augmented in such a way that the buyer or user perceives relevant unique added values, which match their needs more closely.”
These definitions led to the creators of ideas – primarily ad agencies – taking the lead (rightly) in brand development and management. Other disciplines like design, interactive, DM, etc. were classified as ancillary services because they supported the primary role of brand development – making those neurons fire in the minds of our customers.
Lately, this appears to be less true. Some very recent cases show how clients are now putting digital creativity at the center of their marketing agendas rather than off to the side. In addition, there has been recent debate around the increasing power and role of design in the management of brands. Perhaps the most comprehensive view that has been written on this came via a recent Russell posting here.
At the heart of this debate (I think) is the shift of brands from the world of symbols to the world of things.
I believe brands are much more than the perceptions that exist in my mind, they are probably closer to: the collection of interactions that exist in my experience.
Some of these interactions may be symbolic, however, the growing majority are tangible, visceral. They are driven by the look, feel, experience and utility I receive far more than they are driven by the ideas encapsulated.
This shift is significant, because brand definitions are the starting point for almost every facet of brand management.
Here’s a small example: an iconography audit of yesterday would include most of the symbolic assets of a brand, but would probably not include the visceral assets. Even if it did, these would be weighted as secondary assets rather than primary ones. However, let’s take the case of Starbucks. Is it Starbucks’ positioning as the “Third Space” that defines the brand or is it the smell of the coffee, the design of the stores and the ability to actually work there that contribute the most to how we perceive that brand?