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.