The Guardian had an interesting post recently, titled “Brand is becoming meaningless“, it (brand) is being replaced by a company purpose that the organisation can rally around. Yes, there is a study that this is linked to, and quotes. To paraphrase, brand is the effect, not the cause, and that has made it lose its fashionable shine. Someone should tell Maggi this, they just lost $200 mn in brand value, even as the corresponding goods value is ‘only’ $50 mn! (via) Now, just so we are clear, I am not completely against this thought, all the more because this is something I have been writing about for a while now.
(via)
On the same day, elsewhere on the internet, Adliterate published “Does every brand need a purpose?” It makes a very valid case of the title, arguing that not all brands need it, and some brands just fulfil a role in a consumer’s life. It also paraphrases from the Cluetrain Manifesto – (original) “Companies attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their market actually cares about.” In many ways, I think this post is an answer to The Guardian.
The post echoes my thoughts on this subject. The concept of brand, in my mind, ranges from the specific “all Ps remaining the same, what makes you choose one <soaps to online retailer> over another” to the generic “entity that does a job in a consumer’s life“. i.e. Tata Sky vs Airtel DTH and Cable TV vs Netflix. Purpose can do a great job in the first part, but in equal measure, I think consumers can gravitate towards a worldview. I see everything from Tanishq’s second marriage ad to Zomato’s Facebook feed to Cleartrip’s stand on internet.org as an example of this. None of these are a ‘purpose’, but it increases my affinity and consideration towards the product/service.
On another front, one could argue whether a consistent purpose is something that is possible/feasible in a fast-shifting business landscape where your business’ next disruption could come from some entity far outside your competitive sphere. As I’d written earlier, Are we getting to a point where the only constant in a brand purpose is relevance and value in the consumer narrative and the brand is guided more by a set of unique principles and perspectives that are constantly reshaped by its environment?
I think the methods of brand building have changed and will continue to change. The other thing that will continue to reduce is the time a brand will get to communicate and live out its promise. To give you a perspective, Nike is often used as a case study for brands that ‘get’ purpose. The organisation started in ’64 and ‘Just Do It’ happened in ’88. A contemporary brand manager is lucky if he/she gets 1/10th that time! But even as the methods and timeframes change, a brand’s role in the overall business narrative is not something I’d question. There could be many ways of framing it. It could be an external manifestation of an organisational purpose, it could be the best articulations of the product/service’ role in a consumer’s life, it could be a cohesive worldview on things that its consumers relate to and so on. Fundamentally, it is how an offering is perceived by the people who consume it, and to that end, I think ‘brand’ still has the firepower to help.