DIY - or will it build itself? The Brand.

To borrow a line I once heard: Brand is a set of associations attributed to the firm in the minds of consumers.

Building a brand, then, is a difficult task. It's like solidifying a national identity.

I went running with a friend yesterday and we passed by a inukshuk at a park called Inukshuk Park and we chatted for a bit on how distinctly cool that symbol is, and how much it stands for. While an inukshuk may not have stood for much to, say, my grandparents, lately it's becoming a symbol of Canadian pride.

There are two nation-building theories out there and they work well with Brand. The first is Sovereignty - or Territorial Integrity - where the head-of-state has supreme power over the territory and people, and can enforce a top-down approach to nation-building. The second is national self-determination - and it comes from the idea that the people are free to choose their own national identity, boundaries, etc.

(you can likely see where I'm going here)

A country can choose an anthem, a flag, a name, and can promote the nation through nation-building exercises. The culture is more-or-less dictated. And the government has enough power to enforce the culture. In the other sense, national self-determination, it is the people who create the culture - or what it means to be "x".

It's the same with Brands. Building a brand takes a lot of time - you create a Brand Identity through logos, wordmarks, service-scapes (if it exists), websites, copy, and all other marketing collateral. However, once created, the brand belongs to the people. And it's important to let the brand grow on its own.

So why am I writing about all of this?

Because GM Chairman Ed Whitacre recently re-visited the GM brand identity and altered it forever. It's a crucial time for GM. They're not the heavy-hitting, third-of-the-big-three, un-touchable company anymore. For years North American companies lived by the "we know best" mantra. And waited until they were near bankruptcy to swallow some pride and ask for some help. They're at a point now where the public is shaping the direction of the company. And it'll likely be a good thing, too.

But GM's move to put Ed Whitacre in an ad was a sketchy move. He may be one of the brightest minds in North America - or maybe he's just supported by them. But he's not the GM brand. And he became the GM brand overnight. And so here's my thought (finally)..

If the ideal is to create the Brand Identity and then let the Brand create positive associations through performance, what are the ramifications of changing the Brand Identity? Graphic designers (who all hopped on the Branding bandwagon over the last few years) will tell you that re-branding is inevitable or a natural part of the process.. but if a logo/wordmark/flag/anthem is created well to begin with - it should never be changed, it should never be altered, as the firm no longer owns the brand.

If positive associations have been created - why change them? I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone about the backlash suffered by Tropicana who changed its product packaging..
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/in_brief_tropicana_hits_comman.php

It leaves me wondering - if a brand ain't broke - why fix it.

Now this brings me to another point. If your brand is dead - or dying - is Brand Identity re-design the best way to save it? Or is it the brand equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig?

just a thought.

Thinking in Threes..

So here I am, starting a blog - is it vanity? Who knows. But for now I'm just going to keep it as a space where I can store the bagillion thoughts that run around my head every day. A Cameron Couch thought-repository, if you will. Are you going to read it? likely not - but I will - and well, as it stands now - it's a blog for me, anyway - not for you.

I was thinking in nines this morning, as I think everyone else was - even momentarily. I'm not sure I'm affected by it, but it is moderately cool to think that I'll be the ripe old age of 1031 the next time we get a uni-numerative date. (Yes, I just made that term up). January 1st, 3001. *Shudder*

Perhaps it's because three is the square root of nine, but after reading the Globe and Mail this morning about the takeover bid Kraft Food Inc. is offering Cadbury PLC, I'm starting to think in threes.

Is it possible that there exists room only for three options in any given category any more? Are we weary of too much competition in a given space? Is the ideal competitive space one in which there are only three players, and where they've driven up the cost of entry (almost solely in the domain of top-of-mind brand awareness) so that new entrants aren't even considered? Name the space, and it seems there are only three players.

Music Labels: Sony, Universal, EMI.
Pornographic Magazines: Hustler, Penthouse, Playboy
Canadian National Newspapers: Star, Globe, Post
Canadian Federal Political Parties: Conservative, NDP, Liberal
Major US Networks: CBS, NBC, ABC
Shoe Companies: Nike, Adidas, New Balance
Canadian Wireless Companies: Rogers, Bell, Telus
Dare I mention Automobiles?: Ford, GM, Chevy (this is still playing out)

Why am I mentioning this? If this takeover bid goes through, Kraft-Cadbury becomes the confectionery market leader with a combined share of 14.8%. Mars Inc, who currently enjoys a leading share of 14.6% will fall to 2nd place. Nestle remains third, but is small potatoes with less than 10%, and Hershey, Ferrero, Van melle, and Lindt are left struggling for power with less than 5% each. So this begs the question: What about three?

If Cadbury and Kraft merge, that drops the number of players from 8 to 7. If Nestle counters and buys up Hershey, it'll remain third, but with a significantly greater piece of the pie and the number of players falls to 6. But will Mars relinquish its dominant space? If Mars buys Lindt, they're back on top, and the number falls to 5, etc.

With the economy supposedly back on the mend, is it possible that banks will be more willing to lend takeover money to support the perhaps natural competition quota-leveling to three?

Do you build a strong brand by only having 2 competitors? Just a thought. One of many.


for more information on the globe's article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/deal-making-back-in-style/article1280133/