June 2007

"Let's change it!"

Those words are often heard in the ad business. It's usually no big deal. Make the logo a little bigger or say the phone number a couple of more times...it's par for the course. However, when I hear those words associated with an established branding program, such an utterance usually causes convulsions. Here's why:

The Keebler Elves. The Golden Arches. The Goodyear Tire Man. These have at least two things in common. First, they are advertising icons in long-running branding campaigns; and two, their usage has been consistent over time for three successful companies. Subsequently, it is no revelation that these two commonalities are linked. In other words, they have been successful and achieved iconic status because they have been used consistently over time.

Ten years ago I was asked by a client to build a brand identity for his bank. Great! We did the research. We acted on the research and developed a concept that achieved distinction and relatibility in a socioeconomically diverse market. Things were going well...quite well, in fact. Everyone was pleased. However, three months into the program, the president decided that, "We've done that long enough. Let's change it. People will get tired of it so come up with something new." Interesting thought. His response would have been correct if people frantically and excitedly searched the newspaper for the latest ad. Unfortunately, he was the only person looking for the bank's ads with that kind of vigor. The normal consumer's response would have been less than vigorous and less than enthusiastic. The affects of solid brand oriented advertising rarely equals that of a jolting, taser to the backside. Although over time, the consumer would have come to associate that institution with the icons being established through the branding program. In time, that institution would have had a distinct brand identity rather than an alarmingly bland identity. 

Yes, brands bend and take on revised slants to accommodate the marketplace, but the core of the brand should remain constant. Brand's typically evolve from a foundation of consistency. For instance, regardless of how McDonald's store fronts have changed over the years, adding Playlands, etc., the golden arches and other branding elements have provided a strong sense of foundation for the brand. Other examples are not hard to find:

• BMW has been the ultimate driving machine for more than 30 years.

• Volvo has been selling its "safety" concept for more than 40 years.

• Domino's Pizza is still more strongly identified with delivery more so than any other pizza place--most of which deliver.

• FedEx may be evolving to provide a wide array of delivery services, but it is, indeed, "Overnight Deliver" in which the core of the company's brand is centered.

• Disney's brand constantly evolves around the core concept of "family fun" by introducing new characters, rides and shows to it's entertainment portfolio.

Yes, brands should evolve, but established brands should not necessarily be changed. Brands establish branding elements and advertising icons which achieve a relational status with consumers. Changing those elements at a time when the consumer is just starting to "get it" and "make the connection", is a mistake. Typically, people don't go seeking advertising, but rather are incidentally exposed to it. Steadily hammering home a unified, consistent concept is going to build brand identity more efficiently and effectively than completely revamping every three, six or 12 months. For the most part, "people won't get tired" of it. You will. I will. Just when we're sick of it is just when it's beginning to stick with the consumer and the brand is starting to take shape. 

  © BrandVision Marketing. 2007. Matthew Scott Trueblood. All rights reserved.

   TO READ ARCHIVED SET YOUR SIGHTS ARTICLES CLICK HERE!