Brand DNA? I don’t think so!

I often hear the phrase ‘Brand DNA’ bandied about, and for me, it demonstrates either a misunderstanding of what DNA is, or what a brand is.  DNA is a blueprint, it is unchanging and carries al the information a body needs to develop and grow. But a brand is constantly evolving and changing, not following some unchanging blue print.

If we want to think of a humanistic model, it may be best to consider the nature-nurture dialectic. Sure, the DNA represents the ‘nature’ what the brand starts off with, the entrepreneurial idea and all the initial collateral. But, then nurture takes over, how we ‘bring up’ the brand, the effect of its environment, culture and the effects of its peers.  Unlike a human, the original DNA might all but disappear. Look at WPP the world’s leading advertising group. Its DNA is that of a wire, supermarket trolley manufacturer. No, for brands forget the DNA and look at the living, breathing, changing brand.

Brand reputation enhancing by not branding?

I heard on the BBC that Carlsberg are dropping the branding (i.e. removing the logo) from child sized replica strips. Amongst others, Carlsberg sponsor Rangers and Celtic. Though this comes in advance of Government Legislation, obviously this will be seen to be enhancing the brand values by the parent companiy’s actions as a responsible drinks organisation, acting before it is required.

The fascinating paradox is that a company is here looking to enhance its brand by reducing its branding.  Perhaps there is a general reminder here that brand value communications embrace the whole channel mix in a far more suble way of  (in this case press and public relations) not just slapping a big logo everywhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6717225.stm