Recently a client asked us, What makes an iconic brand? Initially the request sounded easy, but then we realized that defining an iconic brand is like defining art—you know it when you see it. At one point we had more than 20 people chiming in from all around the world via e-mail, voicing their opinions on which brands were, or were not, iconic. One brand in particular caused some dissension. Which brand was that? It was Google. Google is massively popular, yes, but is it iconic?
In his book How Brands Become Icons, Oxford University Professor Douglas Holt explains the process through which a popular brand gains iconic status. He proposes the following three principles:
- Iconic brands address acute contradictions in society. By tapping into a collective desire or anxiety, they develop a status that transcends functional benefits. Iconic brands challenge people, either directly or subtly, to reconsider accepted thinking and behavior. The famous Coke ad from 1971, “I’d like to teach the world to sing,” gave voice to the desire to overcome the deep divisions in American society created by the war in Vietnam.
- Iconic brands develop identity myths that address those desires and anxieties. By creating imaginary worlds, they offer escape from everyday reality. For example, the Marlboro man represents the values of the Western frontier: strong, independent and capable.
- Over time the brand comes to embody the myth. It becomes a shorthand symbol for ideas and values that represents far more than just a brand of soft drink, cigarette, or car. For example, iPod offers simplicity and sanctuary. The simplicity is in iPod’s design: the look of the product, the packaging, and the advertising. And iPod provides a sanctuary in today’s noisy world, allowing people to enjoy their music anytime, anywhere.
Holt proposes that iconic brands represent a branding model that’s different from the traditional one of “mind share.” However, our analysis of WPP’s BRANDZ™ data suggests that iconic brands do in fact have stronger than average share of mind. This is not surprising, since most of them possess strong visual cues which ensure that they are instantly recognizable. But we also observed that the iconic brands all had strong cultural roots and a compelling story, real or imagined
So what about Google? Picking up on the last point, Google is easily recognizable to most people with Internet access. In a cluttered world of logos, banners and feeds, that simple white page and multi-colored logo could only be Google. But what anxiety or desire does Google address in our society? I would propose that Google addresses a tension unique to our time: information overload. And because of that, Google has the potential to become an icon.
Today many of us feel overwhelmed by information. Google offers a promise of empowerment: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” And Google delivers on that promise. The brand’s initial growth in the U.S. was fueled by word of mouth, because people were eager to tell friends and family about the search engine that really did seem to work better than others. Yahoo!, Lycos and HotBot were forced to adapt to the changing standard represented by Google.
What is more, the story of how Larry Page and Sergei Brin founded the company is a true garage-to-riches story. It has authenticity. Today the company’s innovative, egalitarian, and playful image is in tune with the times but at odds with that of many big corporations. Statements like these, from the “Our Company” section of Google’s Web site, typify the company’s style:
- You can make money without doing evil.
- Work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun.
When Google went public in 2004, it used an Internet auction to sell its stock to shareholders, something considered revolutionary and inefficient by the Wall Street establishment. (Click here to see a previous post which mentions this event.)
So I believe that if Google is not iconic now, it has the potential to become so—and not just because it is popular. In fact, our e-mail discussion proved to me that an iconic brand does not need to be popular. My colleague Graham Staplehurst stated, “Iconic brands will still emerge where a significant minority has a shared experience with strong values and the majority see and understand it.” While this runs contrary to many people’s understanding of an iconic brand – where mass acceptance is a required property – a moment of reflection will bring to mind many iconic brands which are familiar to most but rejected by many: Harley-Davidson, Vegemite, Hummer, etc. You may not like the product, or what it stands for, but you do know what it stands for.
So what do you think? Is Google iconic? If not, does it have the potential to become iconic, or is it just popular? What other brands can you think of that might have the potential to be iconic? Please let me know.
Tags: Millward Brown, Nigel Hollis, icons, iconic brands, Google, Douglas Holt, How Brands Become Icons
(19 votes, average: 2.58 out of 5)
Loading ...
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 am
My definition of an iconic brand is one that people readily tattoo the logo on their body. By this standard Harley Davidson wins by a mile (or so I am led to believe). By tattooing the HD logo, the wearer makes a strong statement about the self and their relationship to the brand – what it means to them and what they derive from it. A sense of independence and a degree of patriotism. There is a degree of “cultishness” which I believe reinforces Graham’s comment. Somehow, however, I can’t see people tattooing the Hummer logo.
But I am curious to know whether Nigel’s readers in other countries have noted the phenomenon of logo tattooing. Do people do this in other countries, and if so, what logos?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I know little about branding I’d be the first to say it, however “buzz” and “hype” are manufacurable by-products of internet marketing. In some sense SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is the new graphic design and Google has a finger on the “I Win” button related to that. Internet presence counts thats for sure but personally I can’t rate a brand that I can’t touch/eat/drink/wear/drive over one that only virtually exists. Hence if Google released a clothing like that might be the catalyst for me describing it as iconic until then I still struggle with it as more than a logo and some code.
My first pick “Brand to become iconic” only extends to the UK but I would say “3″ mobile networks and “Giraffe” restaurants are my top 2 up and coming picks
August 28th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Hi Sam, a belated thanks for your comment. So the fact that Google is a virtual brand means that it cannot be iconic for you? That would certainly fit with the neuroscience learning that suggests super-familiar brands tend to have a balance of physical, functional and emotional associations. Maybe I am just too enthusiastic because I find freebies like Google Earth, Picassa and Gmail so useful. Cheers, Nigel
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Hi Nigel,
There are two comments that I have
1. Are iconic brands more likely to be local that global? Harley Davidson might be an iconic brand in US but it would be hard pressed to do that job across the world? Which leads to another question, can iconic brands be taken across the world?
2. ‘Iconic brands address acute contradictions in society’ - I am not sure about this as we had tried identifying iconic brands in South Asia & there were a quite a few brands which would satisfy the points Prfessor Holt is making except the one on contradictions. One good example is a haor oil brand called ‘Parachute’ in India which has God like status in some parts of India.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Hi Sandeep,
Thank you very much for your observations. It is great to get a POV from outside the US.
Yes, I do believe iconic brands are more likely to be local than global. There are not that many global cultures that they can tap into, although Blackberrys for business people might be an example.
Your second point is an interesting one. Maybe the difference you suggest has something to do with differences in society or values? I have been re-reading Holt’s book and suddenly realized that all his examples are drawn from the US. It made me wonder whether iconic branding is more likely where people seek out “identity” brands.
If you have any more examples please let me know and I will check out BRANDZ to see whether there is any systematic difference between SE Asia brands and elsewhere.
Thanks again, Nigel.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your reply.
There are examples across the world. Kolynos in Brazil, Landliebe in Germany, Tiger Beer in Singapore / South East Asia.
I am not surprised that Holt’s book gives examples of only US brands.
The point about contradiction is that most of the consumers are not aware of such contradictions (unless they are as evident as Vietnam war) and they normally would give you diffferent reasons for using it and loving it. Sometime we can fix the inherent contradictions as these brands tend to have very clear identity.
Interestingly brands which travel well across countries are Ferrero, Marlboro, L’Oreal, BMW, Ikea, Audi, etc. I am not sure these are iconic brands and whether they address any contrdiction in the socity.
Have a great day.
Cheers
Sadneep
October 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hi Nigel
As always, a very interesting and thought-provoking post.
When I think of an iconic brand, Apple immediately come to mind. I can’t say for certain whether it was cause or effect but they have certainly shaped the Zeitgeist of 21st century media consumption. If I were to attempt to analyse their success, I would certainly place emphasis on the impact of their product design - as Sprite never said; image is everything
October 14th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Hi Simon, thanks for the compliment.
Yes, I definitely believe that Apple is iconic - at least for their target audience. I think Steve Jobs would suggest design is everything. In fact he said it is “the fundamental soul of a man-made creation.”
if you liked this post you might like the latest one too.
Cheers, Nigel
November 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
My initial inclination was to agree with Sandeep that iconic status may not need to represent contradictions in soceity, but the more I think about it, the more I feel Holt has something going here. Sandeep’s example of Parachute Hair oil in India, for instance, actually supports this in my opinion. What that brand represents is a “get back to your roots” message (pun not intended) to consumers who have veered away from traditional hair care routines to more western products & brands. The brand appeal is really in the “purity” as opposed to the chemical nature of modern hair care (sort of like 7-Up’s Uncola appeal).
I thought Mini-cooper is another brand with iconic potential and it certainly represents a reversal of the trend towards SUVs and bigger, more luxurious vehicles.
But I do agree with Sandeep that the contradictions may not necessarily be very apparent to consumers and are not easily identified as the essence of the icon’s brand appeal.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Hi Satya,
Thanks for adding your comments to the discussion. You rise an interesting case with the Mini. It certainly was a counter-culture brand in the U.S. - sip don’t guzzle - but will it remain so or will the Prius Hybrid take its place?
Cheers,
Nigel