In life, and in work, there is a balance that can theoretically be achieved between popularity and prestige. But as time passes, one is more often than not, bound to follow one of these tracks. To the extent that it almost becomes output vs outcome. In a world of signals and perceptions, is one path better than the other, contexts aside?
A bunch of factors – ranging from an explosion of interfaces to the expectation from brands to take a stance on societal issues – made me reflect on the idea of brand. Is being consistent the way forward, or does retaining the brand essence in vastly different contexts warrant a different approach?
Brands not using the local language has long been a pet-peeve for many consumers and marketing practitioners as well. It is true that sometimes the reasons offered are callous, but there are chances that there has been some thought put into it. This is an attempt to bring out a few of these possibilities.
When Nike took a stand last year, I saw it as an excellent brand play. While that hasn’t changed, recent developments based on LeBron James and the protests in Hong Kong are proving to be a test of character for the brand, because billions of dollars of revenue from China are at stake. Despite the high stakes, this could prove to be an invaluable lesson for the brand on how to shape its personality to navigate the storms that lie ahead. The die is cast, and Nike now needs to fill its own big shoes.
Is efficient scaling an oxymoron in a dynamic business environment? Or an arms race in a zero sum game? If it is, is there an alternative? How can a scalable organisation and business be built around this alternative approach?