A few days back, Manish had an extremely interesting post titled ‘Image vs Algorithm’. It questions the relevance of ‘brand image’ in a scenario where people just ‘do a google’ when they need information about a product or brand.Yes, I know that you don’t google when you want to buy a razor or a soap, such brands would still need some good old marketing communication and POP to help swing the purchase decision in their favor (though adverse information, and the net’s ability to disperse this information would still affect them), but how about the considered purchases, where Google does its share of the work in giving information to consumers? More importantly, what does this mean for all those brands that complete their entire revenue model online?
Wikipedia defines brand as a “a collection of symbols, experiences and associations connected with a product, a service, a person or any other artefact or entity.” (for some interesting branding quotes, drop in here, courtesy @shefaly). Earlier there was a large degree of control that the brand had on all three parameters. The internet, however, made the experiences of consumers shareable, and that has now started shaping associations – forcing official brand custodians out of the control seat, because a search for the brand throws up not just their official communication, but blogs, microblogs, images, videos, and what consumers have to say about them and competitors.
Most of the brand lessons and theories we have evolved are from an age when communication from the brand and consumers’ individual experiences were the only parameters of judging a brand – which perhaps meant that brands like Coke took decades to become a super brand. With the advent of the net, and social media, the brand’s consumers are taking to each other. I’d touched upon this topic a while back, and mentioned the paradigm shift presented by Saatchi’s Lovemarks concept- from “You->Your Brand->Consumer” to “You->Consumer->Their Brand”, which perhaps explains the success of internet brands like Google, Yahoo, Facebook etc. These brands have had evangelists almost right from the time they started, and the best type- consumer evangelists.
In many ways, the 4 P’s of marketing are still relevant – the net allows very little room for ‘fluff’ around brands. WYSIWYG is a better way to be for brands, which means the product has to be fundamentally strong, and solve a problem/satisfy a need. Price comparisons are a click away, so a brand’s selling price has to be in sync with the value being offered to the consumer. The ‘place’ can be viewed from a digital perspective too – making sure the information about the brand is available easily to access and share, and if a sale can be made online, ensure that it taps into all possible sales avenues online. While the original intended meaning of ‘promotion’ still holds, perhaps its also time to ‘promote’ the evangelist consumers of the brand, helping them to share their experiences, and giving them the recognition they’d appreciate. And i’ll be a bit presumptuous, and add a lil P of my own – Pertinence (which is quite connected to ‘Place’) , “Relevance by virtue of being applicable to the matter at hand”, because we are already quite into the ‘real time web’, and heading towards the semantic web rapidly. It also means that marketers would do well to acknowledge the fluid nature that this gives their brands – in terms of what a search result (and we’re getting social on search too) would throw up, as well as the changes that would entail in the associations formed in the consumer’s mind.
until next time, here’s to a piece of the consumer’s mind, and for peace of the marketer’s mind 🙂
PS. Building a brand vs building a business. A good read.
