Brand semiotics

The semiotics of brand communications should be simple – the signifier and the signified. But I was sitting in on a ‘rebranding’ presentation the other day when a graphic designer was presenting some new logo designs, and I realised that in the conversation between the designer and client the distinction between the signifier, the new corporate signature, and the signified, the actual brand itself, were being blurred.

There was an unspoken dimension that somehow changing the brand identity would somehow change the brand itself – the signified.  It only takes a moments thought to realise that this is not the case – the visual image is only ever a symbol for wht the brand represents.

This statement of the obvious led me to think that if the client were not to spend what would be a six figure sum on the new identity an its implemetation – the signifier – is there somwhere the money could be spent on the signified, to actually materially improve the brand and its performance? In this particular case there was – putting the money into training for it’s client-facing staff.

This is not an argument against new brand identities, far from it, but it could be a useful mental exercise to ask, “If I don’t do it, is there a something we can do with the budget to really add value to the brand?”

Waitrose gets social

On the News Quiz on Radio 4, Sandi Toksvig said; “the only purpose of Sainsburys is to keep the riffraff out of Waitrose”. It is testament to the power of brand positioning that we all knew what she meant and were able to laugh at it.  But, hey: look what’s happening Waitrose! Their website is embracing social internet with blogs, forums and lots more.

Who knows, maybe they will even be successful in engaging with riffraff like me. Anyway the site is well worth a look and a lesson to retailers on how to harness social internet, even if Waitrose have still have not plucked up the courage to give up total control.

When the brand breaks its promise

One of the reasons why we choose brands is reliability: the brand makes a promise and our past experience shows that it has consistently kept that promise.  Every time we use the brand we enjoy the same result.  And every brand or product category has its critical promise, something that must be got right.

A brand’s reputation for reliability is built over time – over repeated experiences.  However, imagine that you have had 1000 good experiences of a brand and, for you, its reliability is at 100%. But if you have one bad experiences where the brand did not live up to its promise – what happens to its reputation?  Well, its reputation does not drop just by 0.1%.  A brand is either reliable in your eyes or it is not. It’s like a switch; if a brand breaks that promise of reliability its reputation may drop to virtually zero.

Green credentials as brand values

With global warming, sustainability and ecology high on the world agendas, it’s little wonder that green credentials are increasingly becoming a feature of organisations’ brand values.  I was delivering a training course just last week and as part of the session I was getting the delegates to clarify their corporate proposations. Out of eight companies, six included a ‘green’ dimension in their explanation.

While it really heartened me to find this close to the top of the agendas of at least these medium sized companies, it led me to question whether environmental responsibility can be considered a differentiator any more?  Increasingly (and thankfully) it may now be becoming a critical success factor – something every business must get right.

New media v traditional media

How does new media stack up against traditional media? 

There’s and interesting bit of research from Ketchum/University of Southern California on user trends in media usage by consumers. In brief, one of the key findings is that consumers rely more on TV and press than the web, in making their buying decisions.  Good news for media owners you would have thought – except like many academic studies the element of cost does not figure – comparisons in terms of effectiveness per pound (or dollar) might show a very different picture.

Another interesting finding is the importance of recommendation by a trusted friend in making buying decisions. This is probably further endorsement for social internet as a tool for enhancing brand reputation bu recommendation.

Read the summary of the report here.

How do we learn what we know about brands?

There are two main ways we process information about brands, one is actively dealing with facts and the other is information we absorb and deal with without consciously processing it. There are various terms for these but I tend to use Active Involvement Processing (AIP) and Passive Involvement Processing (PIP).

For example I can give you a lot of information about, say, the Mercedes brand – it’s a German manufacturer, has a particular range of vehicles, its history, pricing, dealer network, residual values etc.  You can actively use that information to make decisions by AIP.  But there is a lot of knowledge you have about the Mercedes brand in terms of its values, ethos and personality that you have acquired while never being consciously involved in processing – you acquired it by PIP.

The first kind of knowledge is very accessible to normal marketing communications techniques, advertising, PR, literature etc. – its the ‘what’ we tell customers. PIP is about far more – it is not just about the ‘voice’ and the ‘how’ we tell it, but it is about the organisation and products or services themselves. Once again it is about brand relationships.

Increasingly this is an area that can be explored by engagement with social internet: becoming involved in and listening to the conversations about our brands and products.

Brand and corporate personality as relationships

I was recently asked for a copy of a document I wrote back in 2005 on brands and relationship models.  So, following my previous post I thought I would lazily add it to the blog also.

Brand and corporate personality as relationships

Brands are dynamic, not static

Psychologist and relationship specialist Steve Duck, once stated that relationships don’t end, they just change.  Brands are simply relationships between an organisation, product or service and the people it interacts with.  Like all relationships, they are constantly changing as public perceptions and values change together with the brand values.

Look at a few major brands and think back a decade or so: remember the Tesco of the 1970’s and the values it represented then and now.  Think of a few others: Burberry, Virgin, Post Office, Microsoft, Guinness etc. Nothing remains the same.

The lesson for all of us with responsibility for brands is that of good stewardship. We should be constantly reviewing our brand and our audience and reacting to change – treat the brand as a living organism. Brands need nurturing and constant attention.  Maybe we need a new generation of brand huggers.

The trappings of brand identity

In our modern commerce-driven world it’s sometimes easy to forget that one of the prime functions of a brand is to unite people with a common purpose. A key factor in the success of humans is their ability to co-operate and there is a genetic advantage to form and be members of co-operative groups. These group brands are evident in the trappings of nations, religions, political parties and sports teams and their fans. An excellent example is given by Wally Olins in his 1978 book, ‘Corporate Personality’, where he cites the Confederate Stares in the American Civil War. Soon after the first states seceded from the Union, they realised that states could just as easily leave their new confederation if they they did not display the outward signs of being a cohesive organisation. So, in a few months they had a corporate colour scheme, a flag, a capital, an anthem… even currency.