I’ve rarely (never) seen a creative interested in how the work they do can impact the ROI of an organisation. Financial success is never mentioned. It’s not on the radar. That isn’t to say creatives aren’t commercially minded. In fact, I think what excites a creative to work on a brand is often, paradoxically, good news for the business as well. Asking questions like, is the organisation good? Does it add value to our lives? Why do I care? Is it meaningful in some way? Often these unexpressed thoughts are the real drivers beyond any financial consideration.
So what I write here is purely from the creative side. There are plenty of amazing brands out there, but I’m interested in the ones that get me excited. That are meaningful to the world, beyond commercial success.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
So what's the 'mean' v 'meaningful' criteria?
So what makes a 'mean' brand and what makes a 'meaningful' one? I've been thinking about this over the past few days. What's the criteria? Would Apple be a meaningful brand? Yes, I think so. But what about the workers at Foxconn, (the manufacturer of Apple's products in China), in getting employees to sign a contract promising not to commit suicide. Do ethics play a role?
So how can Apple still be a meaningful brand? Who's in and who's out? Stress testing the criteria (in my head) I've arrived at the conclusion that what makes a meaningful brand lies in its motive. It's the thing that drives the business? Yes, money is important, but when it's money alone, everything ends up feeling a bit drab and meaningless. Unless you're one of the few at the top who're actually making the big bucks, perhaps.
Everyone wants to make money and there's no objection to it from me (helps pay the mortgage), but what makes truly meaningful brand are the ones that are driven to do something bigger, that have a greater purpose and ambition. The ones that set out to do something better. These are the meaningful brands I'm interested in here.
Nick Couch
So how can Apple still be a meaningful brand? Who's in and who's out? Stress testing the criteria (in my head) I've arrived at the conclusion that what makes a meaningful brand lies in its motive. It's the thing that drives the business? Yes, money is important, but when it's money alone, everything ends up feeling a bit drab and meaningless. Unless you're one of the few at the top who're actually making the big bucks, perhaps.
Everyone wants to make money and there's no objection to it from me (helps pay the mortgage), but what makes truly meaningful brand are the ones that are driven to do something bigger, that have a greater purpose and ambition. The ones that set out to do something better. These are the meaningful brands I'm interested in here.
Nick Couch
Thursday, 5 May 2011
In search of the meaningful
The world is changing rapidly. The shift in the way people communicate and connect around the world has had a massive impact on the way we see brands, the role they play in our lives and the way they behave. Everything is changing.
The notion of a brand is now much broader. It no longer comes under the wing of the marketing department. It effects every part of an organisation.
One cause that’s brought about this change has been the decentralisation of an organisations message. The conversations about a brand now take place well beyond the board and the marketing department. What’s more, the message can no longer be ‘managed’.
The internet had played a big part in this. There’s been a shift of emphasis away from brands having some kind of monologue with the outside world, shouting over the gate at consumers. Today there are multiple conversations going on. They might even be conversations that don’t involve the organisation.
The result is that organisations have to behave better. Especially if they’re presenting to the world a shiny, whiter than white image. It’s hard to sustain if the reality is different. They have to be true to what they say. They have to say what they mean and deliver it.
Look at the rise of Facebook groups for disgruntled workers from Tesco to Virgin Atlantic and countless more. (Both companies have considered legal action against employees following comments about the company and customers). The shiny advertising campaigns don't get you very far nowadays if your employees are saying something different. Everything is on show.
What's more, the shift from monologue to dialogue is happening, but not necessarily just between companies and consumers, but consumers to consumers. Take Trip Advisor as a great example. When did you last trust what the hotel website told you before double checking what real guests had to say. After all, there's nothing like an impartial recommendation, even if it is warts-and-all. But one of the big challenges will be, how impartial is it? And, will we continue to trust it? It'll be interesting to see how Trip Advisor manage to retain our trust as more and more fake reviews are being added. Companies are springing up, can you believe it, that are offering services to hotels to publish untraceable, positive reviews. There have even been reports that one hotel received a number of review before it had even opened. It must be a big concern for Trip Advisor and being able to stay on top of things, with over 25 million-plus users a month, will be its biggest challenge. Our trust might fade overtime, we'll see, but the peoples voice, whether it's in booking a holiday or buying a washing machine, is far more powerful than any branded communication.
The rise of our voice through the internet has also created more of a level playing field. David really can take on Goliath. It's all about capturing the imaginations for people, rather than throwing large amounts of money. (Check out Starbuck’s media spend and ‘bang for buck’ compared to McDonalds). Take the massive, Hummer-sized pockets of Simon Cowell and the X-Factor machine. With prime time, Saturday night TV for months in advance and miles of column inches in the press, it failed to achieve it's target, the cherry on the cake, in the automatic crowning in 2009 of Joe McElderry to the UK Number 1 slot in the charts. It was all down to Tracy and Jon Morter who where fed up of X-Factor's dominance in the charts over recent years and launched a Facebook group called 'Rage Against the Machine for Christmas No1'. From their home PC, situated in their bedroom if I remember rightly, over 500,000 people joined up and Simon Cowell and arr-lad Joe had to settle for No2.
All this changes the role of brands quite significantly. With greater openness and transparency, there's more pressure on brands to reflect what lies at the heart of an organisation rather than present a front to it. From a brand communications perspective, it's a shift from an active, shaping of the story, to a more reflective one. The job of brand is now a much harder one, it's to actually make organisations better (if they want to be) and keep them in check when they behave badly.
Dyson said he 'didn't believe in brands' in a recent article in the UK's Observer newspaper (May 5, 2011), and to an extend I agree. The type of brands he's talking about, the ‘active’ shaping brands, are the ones that adopt all the clothes of a 'meaningful' brand but have nothing of any substance at their core.
The problem 'mean' brands face is when they adopt the words of 'meaningful' brands but have none of the depth. They're invented in the marketing department and are projected onto everyone as something to rally behind. I've seen it throughout my career and they're almost always immediately forgotten. The thing about values is that they exist more in the gut of an organisation rather than on a piece of paper. What James Dyson is expressing is true to the more open, transparent way the world now is. That a brand isn’t a front to an organisation, but a reflection of it, and if what you’re offering the world is rubbish, no amount of good branding will disguise it.
The notion of a brand is now much broader. It no longer comes under the wing of the marketing department. It effects every part of an organisation.
One cause that’s brought about this change has been the decentralisation of an organisations message. The conversations about a brand now take place well beyond the board and the marketing department. What’s more, the message can no longer be ‘managed’.
The internet had played a big part in this. There’s been a shift of emphasis away from brands having some kind of monologue with the outside world, shouting over the gate at consumers. Today there are multiple conversations going on. They might even be conversations that don’t involve the organisation.
The result is that organisations have to behave better. Especially if they’re presenting to the world a shiny, whiter than white image. It’s hard to sustain if the reality is different. They have to be true to what they say. They have to say what they mean and deliver it.
Look at the rise of Facebook groups for disgruntled workers from Tesco to Virgin Atlantic and countless more. (Both companies have considered legal action against employees following comments about the company and customers). The shiny advertising campaigns don't get you very far nowadays if your employees are saying something different. Everything is on show.
What's more, the shift from monologue to dialogue is happening, but not necessarily just between companies and consumers, but consumers to consumers. Take Trip Advisor as a great example. When did you last trust what the hotel website told you before double checking what real guests had to say. After all, there's nothing like an impartial recommendation, even if it is warts-and-all. But one of the big challenges will be, how impartial is it? And, will we continue to trust it? It'll be interesting to see how Trip Advisor manage to retain our trust as more and more fake reviews are being added. Companies are springing up, can you believe it, that are offering services to hotels to publish untraceable, positive reviews. There have even been reports that one hotel received a number of review before it had even opened. It must be a big concern for Trip Advisor and being able to stay on top of things, with over 25 million-plus users a month, will be its biggest challenge. Our trust might fade overtime, we'll see, but the peoples voice, whether it's in booking a holiday or buying a washing machine, is far more powerful than any branded communication.
The rise of our voice through the internet has also created more of a level playing field. David really can take on Goliath. It's all about capturing the imaginations for people, rather than throwing large amounts of money. (Check out Starbuck’s media spend and ‘bang for buck’ compared to McDonalds). Take the massive, Hummer-sized pockets of Simon Cowell and the X-Factor machine. With prime time, Saturday night TV for months in advance and miles of column inches in the press, it failed to achieve it's target, the cherry on the cake, in the automatic crowning in 2009 of Joe McElderry to the UK Number 1 slot in the charts. It was all down to Tracy and Jon Morter who where fed up of X-Factor's dominance in the charts over recent years and launched a Facebook group called 'Rage Against the Machine for Christmas No1'. From their home PC, situated in their bedroom if I remember rightly, over 500,000 people joined up and Simon Cowell and arr-lad Joe had to settle for No2.
All this changes the role of brands quite significantly. With greater openness and transparency, there's more pressure on brands to reflect what lies at the heart of an organisation rather than present a front to it. From a brand communications perspective, it's a shift from an active, shaping of the story, to a more reflective one. The job of brand is now a much harder one, it's to actually make organisations better (if they want to be) and keep them in check when they behave badly.
Dyson said he 'didn't believe in brands' in a recent article in the UK's Observer newspaper (May 5, 2011), and to an extend I agree. The type of brands he's talking about, the ‘active’ shaping brands, are the ones that adopt all the clothes of a 'meaningful' brand but have nothing of any substance at their core.
The problem 'mean' brands face is when they adopt the words of 'meaningful' brands but have none of the depth. They're invented in the marketing department and are projected onto everyone as something to rally behind. I've seen it throughout my career and they're almost always immediately forgotten. The thing about values is that they exist more in the gut of an organisation rather than on a piece of paper. What James Dyson is expressing is true to the more open, transparent way the world now is. That a brand isn’t a front to an organisation, but a reflection of it, and if what you’re offering the world is rubbish, no amount of good branding will disguise it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)