1. Many [brands] don’t know who they really are, and what their true value proposition is
2. Many [brands] want everyone to like them, as the de facto measure of success

Okay, so that’s actually two problems.  My argument stands.

The problems, as I see them, are inherent to us humans. Variants of these same problems appear in our personal lives. And yet as marketing strategists and practitioners, one might think we’d see getting this part – brand value –  right as, well, kind of critical. The first item on the list. A checkpoint on the QA procedure. A juncture on the flowchart. The part of the process that doesn’t get skipped over, ever. You get my point.

Selective Authenticity

And yet the problems persist.  Value props get muddled or shifted in a desperate attempt to hit the right chord. Wide acceptance weighs more heavily than the smoldering passion of a small tribe. With no clear idea of our brand’s reason for being and a rabid compulsion to snare any slow-moving target with a dollar in her wallet, we continue to vie for the attention of the crowd. Take big, swooping swaths out of prospectkind. By intentional design, we strive to appeal to anyone that ambles buy our sites or stores. It matters little who they are or what’s important to them or if we’ll mesh beyond the transaction on a service, satisfaction, or value level.  It’s a big world out there, why narrow our focus? Sigh.

We lay good offers on top of bad design on top of “meh” messaging over and over again.  Then later we huddle around the meeting table, eyes wide and mouths agape, stupefied about why our programs and campaigns didn’t blast through the upper atmosphere. I mean, everybody likes <insert bland thing here>, so by sheer statistics we should have hit our numbers for the program.

<taps mic> Hello? Anyone listening?

“Everyman” Branding Doesn’t Work

A lot of time and money gets spent trying to persuade consumers to buy stuff. We work like mad gerbils to convince them just to try it (whatever “it” is) – they can unsubscribe/cancel/return for a full refund later.

But here’s the rub:  you can’t make everyone like you or your brand. And you should stop trying. Your product isn’t appealing to everyone because it’s truly impossible to meet the emotional and functional needs of the entire population.*  When plans are mapped, creative designed or content written in hopes to please the mass majority (or not polarize the minority), the good stuff is spread so thin that it becomes transparent. Insubstantial. The brilliance, the luster, the magnetic power that makes price point a non-issue is gone.

It’s been a long time since a brand struck me as so acutely self-aware, organized, and bound with a taut cultural thread that I stood up and took notice. I’m on the lookout for marketing communications that effectively bridges honest brand positioning with real consumer sentiment. Because everyman branding just doesn’t interest me.

* So why not set your sights on being superfreakingly awesome to a select group of users instead?

But that buzz and interest doesn’t amount to a bushel of beans if the brand itself isn’t memorable (a tagline can help).  If  people in need of your service can’t connect the dots between what they want, a recommendation given to them, and your brand.

Unfulfilled needs leave customers settling for next-best solutions. That kind of missed opportunity does more than equal the a loss of a one-time sale. It’s one less chance to positively affect a customer with a strong potential lifetime value. It’s one less person (connected to other people) acting as an ambassador for your brand in the coming months and possibly even years. Indeed, one missed sale amounts to a number of downstream results.

This kind of marketing power – endorsed customer preference – can’t be bought. It’s earned. And if you’re killing it out there on the street, why wouldn’t you do everything in your power to reap every possible reward?

Case in point -

[Home phone rings]

Me:  ”Hello?”

Caller:  ”Are you the guy? The one Lynell talked about? The one who pushes snow and delivers wood? I need my house and my uncle’s taken care of for the season.”

Me:  ”Um, sorry. This is a private residence. And I don’t do those things.”

Caller:  Silence. “Are you sure? I heard about you. And I really need this squared away before the snow comes.”

Me:  ”No, really. I don’t know how to push snow, and I don’t own a chainsaw. I’m sorry, I can’t help you.”

Caller:  Heavy sigh. Sound of frustration. “Well. Alright then. Agnes said this was the number, but…Maybe I can figure it out. Goodnight.”

“Preferred” status is elite. As consumers we collect frequent shopper points to attain it. As business owners, we need to nurture and cultivate the preference and trust we’re earning. And we need to make darn sure positive impressions and endorsements are easily and readily attributable to our brand. The lady who called me accidentally? She had a need, and had received a referral. She was ready to do business. She just didn’t have that one piece of information – a brand name – critical to helping her overcome what must have been a typo in the note she’d undoubtedly jotted down when talking with her friend.

Being the best seamstress/plumber/cheese maker/tutor/whatever doesn’t mean a bushel of beans if the tie between reputation and brand is weak. Help your customers, help yourself.

Flickr image courtesy of fab4chicky.

Our favorite people are close to our hearts because of their blend of humor, perspective, intellect, carriage, grace, style, values, and energy. Their wit, intuition, drive, selflessness, curiosity, honesty, and dependability ebb and flow to create an array of dimensional prisims that help define our moments together and the things we experience.

Flawed as we humans are, we show each other both crystal-clear and occluded views. The occlusions are generally accepted because the moments of pure light – the pleasure we give others – is so bright as to cast shadow over our “meh” moments. We forgive the forgotten $20 bucks due because Joe didn’t mean to forget and to remind him would make him feel bad. He’s got some stuff going on right now, so why add to his problems?

In many ways brands (created and managed by those flawed people) demonstrate similar behavior. They give users good along with not-so-good experiences. But unlike those real-world, person-to-person relationships often forged in ways that create visceral, deeply emotional memories, brands are at a disadvantage. Brands are remote. They’re housed in concrete buildings or gated factories. They always look photo-ready. They’re buffered by complexity and mystique (just what are the 23 flavors in Dr. Pepper?). Brands are not as easily forgivable because well, there’s no bond. Brand personality (the specs in the official guide book) alone doesn’t forge one.

Humanize the brand to give users something to relate to. It’s more than a buzzword. Humanization closes the distance between your entity and my household.

It’s rare that a user can see a brand for the humans within and come to know all the Bobs and Kathys for their vulnerability and genuine personal appeal. If your brand personality doesn’t allow for a culture of customer and employee bonding opportunities, then you’ll be hard-pressed to find forgiveness when mistakes get made (and they will).

So the next time you face low net promoter scores, unfavorable customer feedback, or an uptick in online ire, consider these things:

• Are you creating the conditions for a habitat of happiness within your four walls?
• Are your employees empowered to make the kinds of decisions that immediately reduce or eliminate customer pain?
• Do your rigid procedures tie metaphorical hands, adding to the remote and cold perception of your brand?
• Do company leaders pontificate one thing during team meetings, but take a left turn when the rubber meets the road?
• Are informed, researched, and intelligent employee mistakes punished?
• Do you measure what matters most, or do you count what you can easily identify?

Humans want to be liked. Brands are in business to be liked by humans. Bridge the gap by acting like one.

Take this tagline from Pepperidge Farm ( I was parked. I swear). It says “Good is in the details.” While some of you may think there’s nothing original about this particular phrasing, I think it’s quite remarkable in its simplicity. It harkens back to hand-crafted foods lovingly prepared with attention to delicate flavors, mindful ingredients, quality, and presentation. I don’t often buy their cookies, but when I do I turn up the clever to find an unlikely hidey-hole. These cookies are not for sharing, and certainly not for my kids’ philistine palates (corn dog, anyone?).

More about why this tagline works:

• The adjective good reminds me why I eat a cookie. No, not for the fat and calories (a lagging effect, yes). But because I want a little yummy in my tummy. A little “yay!” in my day.
• Well details just nails it, yes? Compare a package (you can’t even call it a bag; it’s the Donna Karen of bags with its dainty separator cups, foil liner and heavy paper construction) of Milanos to a package of Oreos. One’s an indulgent, multi-sensory experience to be savored. The other an all-you-can-eat buffet at a dorm cafeteria.

Part of the branding process involves acknowledging the differences between your brand and others. Sometimes those differences may first appear as disadvantages, like the way Pepperidge Farm cookies are more expensive than Nabisco. But by embracing the differences to enhance the emotional value of the product, a brand can sweep barriers aside to own a remarkable position. Rather than apologize for the additional cost or ignore it all together, the company subtly lets consumers know it’ll be worth the extra. The implication is that feeding-frenzy Oreos lack the love of a Milano.

According to their web site, Pepperidge Farm ranks in the top 2 percent of brands worldwide in brand equity and topped $1 billion in sales (2001). That’s a pretty good place for an expensive cookie to be.

The story of your brand is a love story. It starts with a spark and you flirt with the idea of making into something more permanent. As the  relationship develops, you learn more about what works for your brand and what doesn’t. In the end, you and your brand become tied together in something that resembles a flourishing marriage.

But as with every marriage, it takes continuous work to build and maintain a brand. Cracks in the foundation start small. It can start with missed opportunities and develop into embarrassing, public snafus. It doesn’t help that you’re often burning the midnight oil working on your brand. Anyone can experience burnout after that kind of intense focus for any significant length of time. Sometimes you lose the passion that once fueled you. Sometimes you fall out of love in your brand while getting caught up in the millions of little things it takes to maintain every day.

So what do you do when you’ve fallen out of love with your brand? Well there’s no real easy answer. Start with remembering why you were so passionate about it in the first place. Go back to those early days and think about what you wanted to build and where you wanted to be by this time. If you have a partner, take them down memory lane with you to help you remember. Often, the loss of passion comes from straying from the core principles you built the brand upon. Sometimes you can find that loving feeling again just by identifying where you’re off track from your original goals and make moves to get back to them.

If there isn’t necessarily a break from your original vision for the brand, maybe it’s time to think about re-branding. Go over your brand with a fine tooth comb and identify the areas that aren’t working. Look for areas producing lack luster results or that have lost their shine over the years. Slash and burn the things that embarrass you or hold your brand back. Consider bringing in a third party to consult with you on where you can make thoughtful changes that deliver big impact. Once you know what to change, re-branding practically directs itself. You can schedule a relaunch of a new, improved brand you can be proud. It will have all of the bones of your old one with new life from your changes.

The third option is for those who have fallen so far out of love with their brand that there is no turning back. There maybe no straying from the original path or need for new ideas at all. Your brand may be moving along smoothly without any trouble at all. It could actually be at the top of its game. You just don’t want any part of it anymore. In that case, there’s nothing to fix. Instead, you should start looking for ways to pass on your brand to someone who is still passionate about it, whether that’s a current partner, a new partner or selling it to another party entirely.

Whichever route you choose, just remember that it’s not failure to fall out of love with your brand. It doesn’t mean your brand is worthless or that you’re doing something wrong. It just means that something isn’t working. If you can figure out what that is and how to approach it, you’re still in good shape.

Guest Post: Princess Jones is the founder of P.S. Jones Communications. She writes about entrepreneurship and branding on She’s Self-Employed, a website for women who own and operate their own businesses. For information about branding, business and passion, connect with her on Twitter.

We say it’s important, a vital part of our sales and marketing strategies. Builds a strong brand. Gain the customer’s trust and we’ll hold onto them with a ferocity that makes Velcro look like your weak-armed, pasty-faced cousin from Omaha.

When customer trust is violated, when it’s threatened or compromised through purposeful intent or inadvertent oversight, the damage to the brand can be significant. The cut can run deep and the sting last long after the surface has healed. You’ll pay for it (revenue loss) and you’ll hear about it (customer satisfaction, meet your new friend social media). A brand’s practical decision to change policy or the introduce a new process might provide a brand with short-term gains or even lay a foundation for future programs. But the costs for such tradeoffs might sacrifice hard-won and entrenched customer supporters.

Trust, academics, and art

Case in point:  In 1951, Peggy Guggenheim bestowed Mural, a work of abstract expressionism by Jackson Pollack, to the University of Iowa. The U of I School of Art and Art History had been recognized for its creative experimentation and innovation. Ms. Guggenheim owned one of the most respected art galleries in the nation. With her donation (which included several other important works, including other Pollack pieces), she was demonstrating implicit trust in the University’s ability to manage and protect an irreplaceable and highly significant work of art. The piece served as a symbol of creative accomplishment and confidence in the University’s commitment to developing an exceptional art program.

As time went by, some legislators stopped seeing Mural as a work of art, selectively forgot that it was bestowed in good faith to an institute of higher education of some repute, and started seeing dollar signs. A few pork-bellied lawmen claimed sale of the painting could offset expenses from the great flood of 2008. Others claimed the painting would better serve the university’s art community if it was sold to fund grants and scholarships.

Riiiiight. That sounds like a good idea. If you lack all sense of propriety and don’t value your university’s brand image (or have no need of future gifts, in which case call me up, I’ll take a painting off your hands). Selling an expensive, irreplaceable, and esteemed gift isn’t a good way to honor the Ms. Guggenheim’s spirit of intent. And let’s face it, she didn’t give the university’s art department the canvas so that they could barter it off when somebody with a little power got itchy. Plus, selling the piece for financial gain is just something a greaseball would do, anyway. (BTW, greaseballs don’t attract rich benefactors, so don’t blow this U of I).

The connundrum of brand trust

The state was in financial need because of the 500-year flood, you might implore. Scholarships are necessary to ensure talented artists get training, others chant.  There are a million ways we might rationalize this issue, among them that the painting costs the university a sightly amount to insure.

But here’s the deal, kids. Trust? Well, the reason it’s such a big deal is because it’s complex. It can’t be easily rationalized when selective morals disease takes over. Trust is a fragile, living bond that requires care and attention. Nurture and protection.When you decide trust is part of your customer relationship equation and pursue it works to your advantage, you darn well better not abandon it when the room gets warm and the walls start crowding in.

Defense of your customer’s trust may mean your business has to make tough decisions. Ones that drive you to do the right thing even as you swallow the knot in your throat and stamp out the temptation to run for the hills.

Have you ever been part of an organization faced with a difficult decision involving customer trust? What happened? How did it work out? Please tell me the greaseballs weren’t invited to the meeting.

One of my favorite quotes related to branding is from Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com.  When speaking of a company’s reputation,the legacy under recursive construction, Bezos said something like “Your brand is what they say about you when you’ve left the room.”  The “they” in that sentence being any audience or segment and the “you” being the company, the brand.  The guys in charge.

The way I see it, small business needs a better understanding of the role internal audiences play within the branding infrastructure, the manner in which their perceptions lead them to do their jobs, and the way they embody the brand on their own accord.

The brand beneath the surface

A brand is a living, breathing organism.  It experiences failures, successes, and everyday trials.  While the vast majority of small business resources are placed behind developing and promoting the brand externally, that approach discounts the value held by employees.  We need to cross the streams.  The very people that solve the problems, deliver the goods, negotiate manufacturer pricing and code the site can offer unique perspectives if only they’re asked.  Their individual roles means they have a direct line-of-sight to the customer not held by anyone else (more so if they’re old-timers or have had lateral or successive roles).  These people are a gold mine of information that can help:

• Bubble up flaws in process or procedure (create value through efficiency or increased ease of use)
• Identify barriers to purchase (functionality, policies, taxonomy, etc.)
• Define future marketing communications strategies (bet you don’t know what those guys in the other room know. Ask.)
• Spark innovation (brilliant ideas come from everywhere. Don’t be myopic and brainstorm with the same staid group)
• Solidify personal ownership, end-to-end (give ‘em the complete picture, how their role affects the whole)
• So, you think smugly, you’ve already asked their opinion?  In a SurveyMonkey poll in Q4 2009?  You see where I’m going with this. After you collected the information, did you do anything with it?  Or does the cross-tab function in your Excel only work when it involves tangible assets like inventory?  In this case, not only are you missing out on valuable, relevant, and timely insight but you’ve also probably sent a poor message to those who bothered to participate.

The brand within each of them

If you aren’t tapping into your paid assets (so to speak) to find out what you don’t know, then chances are you’re not giving sufficient thought to how well those valuable assets live and breathe the brand (see above).  While admittedly some people want to clock in, do a job, and cruise on home, most people truly want to be part of something bigger than them.  I’m talking about the people out there on that floor, in that warehouse, in those cubbies – they’re ready to be emotionally invested in their work.  Are you walking blithely by, oblivious to those folks just waiting for a rally cry?

Building your internal brand is more than the logo’d coffee mugs and calendars that nOObs get handed on day one.  The gear may be flags they can carry out into the field, but that stuff holds little meaning if the tools and training (read: mentorship programs, career development training, joint efforts between HR and marketing, and leadership that walk the talk and dive into the trenches) establishing internal brand culture isn’t in place.  When the purpose, the meaning, isn’t there, then it just becomes a job and subject to all the vulnerabilities inherent to anything perfunctory.

The brand on the street

Your employees buy groceries, run to the post office, and play Little League with a bajillion people.  These people, as people will, ask your employees “So, where do you work?” and “How do you like it?” If you had to guess, what do you think the responses would be to the latter?  Answers can range from the practical “The pay is fair.” or “The benefits are good.” to the more telling responses invariably leading to … wait for it … wait … culture.

If people in authority micromanage, it speaks to the culture.  If there’s inequity in employee perks or disproportionate leniency for some, that speaks to culture.  If one guy is allowed to be a loudmouthed crude jerk or another gal only fills openings with her cronies or hand-picked recruits (irrespective of true qualifications), that speaks to culture.   As the boss, you may not always hear about such things but if they’re happening, you can bet money the rank-and-file are talking and commiserating.  And they’re telling their friends.

The point

Systematically, purposefully building an internal brand-centric culture as part of a comprehensive strategy can lead to heightened customer-focused actions and stronger bottom-line results.  What are you (or your employer) doing to develop the relationship between employees and the brand?

—

This post originally appeared on Social Media Explorer on September 20, 2010.  Written by Heather Rast.

There are many cases in favor of joint venture co-branding; it can introduce a mature brand to new markets, help brands further penetrate existing markets and rejuvenate the lagging interest of fickle consumers.  Co-branding programs can be designed for flights of time in an effort to grab short term sales gains as with a promotion or limited time offer.  Programs can also be set up as part of a longer term integrated marketing strategy designed to build loyalty.  The former is more of a tactical execution of a marketing idea; the latter is a strategic business undertaking.  Both require months of work and a lot of cash, from R&D to packaging to merchandising and on.

There are plenty of valid business reasons to explore a co-branding partnership of either short or long form.  Sometimes the perfect balance can be struck between header and subservient brand, making the new association feel like a true marriage rather than curious tactic.  Co-branding is used extensively in grocery and food service (restaurant) industries, and I think food marketing practitioners see success there because of the close association between the ingredient brands (pun not intended) and the highly emotional triggers pulled by consumables in general.  I mean, Duncan Heinz brownies and Hershey’s syrup naturally go together (you can eat them both), and yummy chocolate makes me happy.  Check, check.

But I’m not still convinced that co-branding is a good idea.

Case in point:  When I say “Accenture,” you say ___________? Gotcha, I heard you answer “Tiger.”  Tiger Woods’ personal indiscretions earlier this year cast a long shadow over a long-standing prominent strategic partnership with Accenture.  Theirs wasn’t a celebrity endorsement; it was a co-branded positioning campaign (no, I don’t think “campaign” and “sustained” are mutually exclusive) for professional services.  Tiger’s dalliance forced Accenture to decide if “High Performance Business” could carry forward under its own steam, or if the message had fallen victim to a double entendre.  Theirs was a six year investment which abruptly ended on a low, very public negative note rather than strategically timed graceful separation.

More on why co-branding shouldn’t be entered into lightly:

Reason #1 To Say No To Co-Branding

There’s just too much risk.  A great many brands just aren’t mature enough to survive negative publicity or a drop in consumer sentiment unscathed. Sure, there are contracts and clauses, agents and intermediaries. Things lawyers can do to help protect a brand’s interests (on paper).  But so much just can’t be controlled, and the sorting out happens behind the skirt, anyway.  At the end of the day, each brand has its own corporate board and interests to maintain.  Risks include:

• Risk of poor management by the partner brand, and the myriad downstream effects (crisis planning, anyone?).
• Risk of striking the wrong tone or being an ill fit (did anyone think of the consumer viewpoint on this?)
• Risk of brand depreciation (what if Brand X were to take a nose dive?  who wears the egg?) and the effects on brand equity.
• Risk of diluting both brand images as consumers struggle to distinguish the relationship (cognitive consistency).
• Risk created by falling out of bed, getting the finger, and cutting and short-changing an investment.
• Risk of brand power inequity, in exchange for other asset (like distribution channel).
• Risk of a divergence between consumer expectations and experience with the co-branded product; the double-whammy let-down.

Reason #2 To Say No To Co-Branding

Consumer-to-consumer influence (h/t @mackcollier) trumps celebrity endorsement for the long haul.  Simply put, there are better options available than hitching your brand star to another.  Note I didn’t say “more visible options” or “faster options,” because, well, peer influence is earned.  And it takes awhile to bubble up.  That’s why it carries so much weight – its tied to something of personal value, and earned the hard way through investment.  Your reputation.

Reason #3 To Say No To Co-Branding

Many co-branded products and services struggle with authenticity and effective alignment.  Try as the brands might, the wrong chord gets struck or there’s no discernable added value with the partnership. The consumer can end up feeling gamed or “sold to.”  After the newness of Orbit Whitening Gum Powered By Crest chewed off, did anyone see any difference in the whiteness of my smile?  Huh.  Guess it was just regular gum.  So why the special package?  Did I pay extra for that?  Bottom line – some brands will forsake a customer-centric perspective for a bigger slice of the pie.  Consumers are intuitive enough to  feel the wrongness, and the brand image may suffer.

And what about the convergence of the two visual identities themselves in packaging?  Are design attributes (dominance of the space) determined by the contract?  How does the final heuristic representation affect consumer perception of the product?  Does it loose some appeal?  Simply put, can the darn logos work together, or do they fight, further leading us down that path to wrongness?

Those are my thoughts on the matter.  What are yours?  What co-branded product really worked for you, from a marketing perspective (and hopefully in terms of experience, too)?  Was there one that didn’t work for you?

The people that remain customers when you raise your price due to market factors, the increasing cost of raw material, the rise in the cost of logistics?  Those are your loyalists.  And when you resist passing along the “shared costs” or sheepishly explain why the “extra” whatever is temporarily unavailable, you’ll bring it back as soon as you can?  Those loyalists love you more for being real, and for knowing they’re suffering too.  You’re sharing, and bridging a gap.  What you provide them with is value, and sometimes value costs more than a cheap alternative.  The value is in your reliability, the confidence your wares/services bring to the user.  It’s in the emotional meaning tied up in making the choice.  The choice means they’re still in control, and they’re going with you.  There’s great responsibility in that.

The people that recommend your company to their friends looking for a great new job, the one they should escape to from their old crappy job?  Those are your evangelists.  Their reputation is on the line, and they thought of you.  Wow.  In the age of social currency, your brand is heavy coin.

Brand fans, loyalists, evangelists are an earned tribe, they are not hired. They’re not sponsored.

Buying your company’s product doesn’t make someone an evangelist any more than earning a paycheck from your company does.  Those are transactions.  What are you doing to tie in or bring out deeper meaning?  The irrational but oh-so-powerful kind?

Fans, loyalists, evangelists cannot be bought or leveraged.  They may endorse, but only because they believe in the brand so wholeheartedly that they’re thrilled to have an open mic and an official nod.  They’re ambassadors for your message and your product.

Evangelism may be earned when a brand evokes emotional responses on its way to creating consistent and memorable experiences – often passed down and passed around.  It’s earned when the brand delivers rational benefits as it delivers on relevancy.

I don’t care if we’re talking about a commodity like butter or a specialized service like small business tax consulting.

Give love, get love.  It happens in business, too.

Take care to empower everyone in your business – make every single person – responsible for delighting the customer.  Employees will do it because it’s expected, but more so because they can and want to, if its part of your culture (message+motions).   People inherently want to make a difference, so let them. Don’t restrict them with manuals and protocols and limitations on their “let me make you happy” power. When the brand essence pervades every choice made from the top down – when doing the right thing doesn’t net the hairy eyeball, then the folks that represent your brand will also live your brand.

And that can make all the difference.

If you’re with a start-up, chances are you’ve had your head down in financial projections and your back end seated in chairs at the bank and the accountant’s.  Your ideas are gelling and long-laid plans are emerging into a reality.  Along the way, you may have given some thought to a logo and business cards.  Definitely a web site.  Customer-facing pieces like these line up on your To Do list like dominoes, just behind those gotta-get-done line items scratched in red ink.

Whether or not you realize it, even when you talk financials you’re talking about your brand.  When you’re talking about sales methods and pricing models, you’re talking about your brand.  Logo and web site?  Yup, definitely brand territory there.

A company’s intangible assets (like brand) can form up to 80% of its corporate value.  So shouldn’t we take a tougher, longer look at the concept and the framework brand establishes for business, both operationally and in communications?

Brand Development

Building your brand starts long before color palette A or color palette B come into question.  Ages before the question “Should the logo be bigger?” is pondered. Your brand is more than any single piece of marketing communications material or chunk of honed copy.  Your brand transcends the pithy elevator pitch, emanating from the core of its leaders and out through the products/services in a guiding light I’ll call RTB or reason to believe.

Brand Ownership

I think brand RTB – reason to believe – is like the sturdy 3-legged stool comprised of these parts:

1. Internal brand: encompassing company values and beliefs, leading to behaviors and priorities.  In this way, culture becomes your internal brand, influencing people’s choices and some of their decisions.  These forces guide the direction of the company.
2. External brand:  the position the company seeks to hold, the messages laying claim in the marketplace, and the manner in which it (and its representatives) conducts itself with customers, prospects, and other valued audiences like the media and business community.  These are the words and deeds seen by those outside of the organization.  This is the brand promise.
3. Third Parties:  Internal and External activities will lead to third parties forming ideas about the brand and associating value and weight based on their personal experiences or perceptions.  One goal of nailing parts 1 and 2 above is to create customers who hold (and share) positive connotation with your brand.  As they use your products or services, they’ll come to place a value on the impact it had on their lives, and the place it holds in their hearts, often with considerable emotion.  Did your brand save them money? Remove some of their pain (inconvenience) points? Did it allow them to recapture some of their lost time/vanity/sanity?  These people have come to own your brand in their minds, and the memories are theirs.

Can a business survive with a $99 logo, table-based web site design, and a lock on the cheapest-priced widget around?  Sure, at least for awhile.  But as discussed in this post about building enduring brands and memorable taglines, it’s a hardscrabble life, one forever on the edge of obscurity because it wasn’t strong enough to take the weight of fluctuating markets and fickle consumers.

What do you think about the 3-legged stool idea?  Is it too much to expect?  Does it leave out important parts?  Get us thinking with your comments.