For the last day and a half, I have been ensconced in an English country house hotel discussing the state of branding with senior executives from many of the best-known brands in the world. Our basic conclusion? The theory of what makes a good brand has not changed, but the practice of marketing has gotten a lot harder.
The IAA Think Tank, which was the first event of its kind held by the IAA, combined breakout sessions for an invitation-only audience with a conference open to all. The breakouts were held on Tuesday afternoon with the conference beginning that evening.
The objective of the breakout sessions was to discuss the topic "New Brands – Old Tricks; Old Brands – New Tricks." What was different about the way "old" brands and "new" brands went to market? With the watershed between old and new defined as the advent of the Internet, brands like BMW and BP were considered old brands, while Vodafone and Yahoo! were new ones—although as someone observed, Yahoo! seems old by comparison to MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn.
My group decided to focus on Apple (described as "The Madonna of Computing" by one participant) and Porsche as old brands, and on Barack Obama ("Zero to Hero") and Red Bull as new ones.
We rapidly reached the conclusion that the basics of good branding were not really different between old and new brands – probably not surprising since old brands were once new. We summarized the common characteristics of brands that achieved strong branding as follows:
- A great product which exceeds expectations
- Strong, ongoing relationships with customers
- Strong core values
- A strong visual signature or design ethos
Once a strong relationship with consumers has been established, what then divides old brands from new ones?
One of the primary differences is simply the longevity of old brands. Today’s old and venerable brands have proven their ability to reinvent themselves and stay relevant over time. But the advent of the Internet does seem to have created new possibilities that some of the newer brands have been quicker to recognize and capitalize on. For example:
The ability to scale quickly Red Bull went global far faster than Coca-Cola. Obama, once a little-known senator, is now a well-known name around the world. (Note: in fairness to the truly "old" brands like Coke, we must note that new brands have enjoyed the advantages not just of the Internet, but of many new forms of technology and improvements in people’s standards of living that long predated the Internet. These include modern computing power, cheap air travel, and cheap long-distance telephone communication.)
Taking a collaborative approach to marketing Nike combined with iPod to create the Nike+.
Taking advantage of the networking effect of community and word of mouth Obama raised significant amounts of money online.
A more casual and human approach
It was agreed that new brands were willing to take more risks, but then, as was pointed out later in the conference, maybe they can afford to. The new brands have yet to have the pension funds staring over their shoulders. And maybe the old brands took risks too, back when they were the pushy young things. After all, the old brands we know today are the survivors, not those that were casualties along the way.
So what do you think of our reasoning? Do you see more tricks that new brands could learn from old, or old from new? Please share your thoughts.
(5 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
June 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
That just sounds like it would have been such a great conversation to be a part of.
Anyway, I’m interested in the term re-invention. If you look at your list:
* A great product which exceeds expectations
* Strong, ongoing relationships with customers
* Strong core values
* A strong visual signature or design ethos
A brand that does all this never really has to reinvent. It’s when one of these breaks down that reinvention is necessary. In the case of Apple, it took the reinvention of a great product to get them back. If anyone remembers the Power Mac days, with G4’s, G5’s, they were a brand scrambling to deliver #1, but had #2 (and the creative departments of agencies) as a cushion. (I had a Power Mac 6400. And it didn’t deliver on #1, especially since 6 months after getting it, the first G4’s came.
Maybe you already thought of all this. But to me, a strong brand doesn’t hiccup, and thus doesn’t need to reinvent.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:16 am
People talk about “post brand image” where brands are more multi-faceted and the image is more maleable to consumers’ individual needs. An obvious example is Google. But that is probably the nature of the service. Harder to see that in CPG. The least equity study I read said Heinz was the strongest global brand. Nothing very multi-faceted or maleable about that brand. Although some of the new brands that, in the West, are touted as successful may be different. Especially those that are seen as “sustainable” - method or innocent for example. They do seem to be more ‘open’ and have a more democratic dialogue with consumers. But I guess you are right. In the end the elements of success are the same - authenticity, relevance etc. - just a different way of getting there.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Thanks for the comments.
Matt, I guess that what we were thinking is that even strong brands will need to innovate to stay relevant and contemporary. Products and services must be kept competitive but now and again the positioning needs to be updated too.
Maybe it is because I am in the UK right now but the example of Lucozade comes to mind, it’s positioning as a drink for when you were sick was losing its power. Its re-positioning as a sports energy drink means that it is still a strong brand today.
Robin, I am intrigued by Heinz being promoted as a strong global brand, do you remember which study that was?
Thanks both, Nigel
June 27th, 2008 at 5:05 am
The Heinz finding is from Harris Interactive’s Equitrend. And I apologize. It’s not a global study - it is US only (and its specifically Heinz Ketchup):
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080619005662&newsLang=en
Although I also remember Jan Hofmeyr (Conversion Model) frequently cited it as a high commitment brand.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Hi Robin, no worries, our BrandZ data shows Heinz to be a strong brand, particularly in baby food in the UK and to a lesser degree in China. So I have little doubt that there is strong allegiance to the brand in some countries outside the US.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
[…] things. Some things will work. Some won’t. Some will make it to CNN, some won’t. But if you read here (and you should), you’ll see that smart people think it’s important to […]
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
[…] New brands, old tricks How well are you being […]
July 5th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I would have loved to be in that room, and listen to that dialogue. Fantastic post.
I think re-invention is part of the times, and allows for brands to be the “survivors”. The “old” brands that have been around have re-invented themselves over and over again, meeting the market each and every time. They change with the times without sacrificing their product/service.
I would add one more point to the 4 points made above in the post, and that would be:
* consistency
But then I guess if a product/service comes out strong and over delivers, but can’t maintain that… then they wont be around for consistency to matter much.
Totally loved this post and the comments above. Great thoughts.
Thanks,
Sam
July 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Hi Sam,
Thanks so much for the positive feedback.
I think there is a delicate balance to be struck when it comes to consistency. The trick is to refresh the brand idea without changing its basic promise until such time as circumstances mean you have to change or lose out. Consistency ensures that people know what the brand stands for but there may come a time when the positioning loses relevance because of innovation or demographic, social or cultural changes.
Cheers, Nigel