The overall change I feel is really a paradigm shift and unfortunately, a lot of the “traditional people” aren’t getting it. Many come from strong and very valid disciplined backgrounds but haven’t been able to break out of those bonds and adapt. Many act with the enthusiasm and passion of a mortician as opposed to brand emissaries and advocates with passion.

@Simon K: I’m totally tracking w/ya. When I worked on an brand like Kawasaki motorcycles, I enjoyed talking to owners and riders at shows and races. These bike enthusiasts were so much better at communicating why they rode and why they preferred a particular scoot. Most of the riders all had an interesting “camp fire-like” story to share of the various bikes they’ve owned and ridden. Hearing these stories was definitely inspiring. Unfortunately, our clients were also themselves these “passionate enthusiasts” and it was often difficult for us to be insync w/them as most of our agency team were non-enthusiasts. I quickly got my class M1 license and found the same passion for riding.

In a way, I think consumers can be better branders than us. Stefano’s analogy of a written, authored story doesn’t really work if you conceive of this as working on two levels. On the first level it is about perceptions and so the story is verbal. As such, it is exposed to Rashomon like embellishments and alternative perceptions. Each word of mouth story in itself may be limited, but combined they create a mystique that can become self-perpetuating. Gone are the days where brands can be distilled into a single word – managing complexity is very much the direction we are heading in. That brings in the second stage – the marketer as editor – trying to forge all these overlapping elements into a coherent narrative.

(The above paragraph is incredibly jumbled but I hope my point is visible)

Best
Simon

1) last things first: are consumers better at branding than us? No.

Just like a story written by a million people will not be as good as one written by a good author, a brand driven by a million consumers won’t be as attractive as one driven by a good visionaire.

Consumers can contribute to it, but the core idea and brand management should come from one person, and if you look at the most-loved modern brands, you see that’s the case: hte core idea and values of Virgin are managed by Richard Branson, not by million users. Same for the usual Google, Apple, and many more. Just like traditional brands: Ferrari, Diesel…

2) Slide 13: Molecule branding is not such in radical opposition to traditional branding. Traditional branding, though stemming from a core idea, always resulted in many branches, and activities. I don’t think “Music CD” is a core molecule of Starbuck’s DNA, and I think you can still identify a core brand idea behind the Starbuck’s brand (”Coffee lounge”?). A brand idea that evolved over multiple platforms and activities.

3) Feldwick and Grant are two sides of the same model: perceptions are built by being exposed to ideas. That’s it.

4) So, is anything new? Oh, yes! Multimedia, multichannel, liquid identity…you name it.
Do we need different processes? Yes. (Let’s tear down some walls)
Do we need different people? Yes. (Let’s broaden our recruitment strategy)