Brand Humanity

I was chatting the other day with someone who works for a multi-national company with a variety of products and target audiences. The challenge he’s been thinking about is, “What’s our one thing? Every good brand is all about one thing.” So we had an interesting discussion about whether it’s necessary, or even possible, for a large and multifaceted company to have a single point of focus for the brand.

 To solve this kind of problem, I’ve always relied on pattern recognition: delving into customer needs, company strengths, and the competitive landscape to find the common denominator. This works great for smaller companies with a handful of customer segments. But for large and diverse corporations, does this still hold true?

 My inclination during this conversation was to question this classic way of developing the brand strategy. What if, in this overly fragmented and customer-driven new world of ours, brands no longer must stand for one thing? In the Cluetrain society, brands must be able to adapt to their various constituencies and become fluent in the many conversations in which it must participate. Perhaps the classic Reis & Trout brand theory – owning one word in the customers’ minds -- is dying along with the command-and-control world in which it was born.

 But taken to an extreme, this could lead to brand schizophrenia. How can we maintain a semblance of undiluted brand identity while simultaneously staying relevant to the variety of groups with which the brand must interact? I believe it’s possible when we recognize that corporate brands are not all that different from individuals.

 Let’s look at a hypothetical Jane Doe; she’s not only a wife and mother, but also a VP for a large corporation, a board member for a local charity, a traveler and outdoors enthusiast. Jane is one individual who shows up differently depending on the situation and the “target audience” with which she’s interacting. She may be a conservative suit-wearer by day, a nurturing and attentive mom on weekends, and a tiger in the bedroom at night. She may have a lot of different interests and attributes, but at the end of the day she’s still Jane.

 The question is: what makes Jane, Jane? Daily she changes clothes, hairstyles and the way she talks to different people, but she’s still uniquely herself. It all comes down to beliefs and values. Being, not doing. How, not what. Perhaps in Jane’s case it’s about being honest to a fault, low-maintenance, a good conflict resolver, and curious about the world. People know when she’s acting “out of character.” 

 And that’s how we need to view brands. There’s something quite Stepford-Wife-y about an individual who wears the same style of clothes, uses the same style of speech, and tells the same stories over and over, day after day. We wouldn’t be friends with this person; why would we develop static brands and force them into sterile perfection in every situation? Brand owners must allow some flexibility – some humanness – into their brands, while simultaneously holding to core values that keep the brand from appearing too flaky.

 Many of the new social technologies are facilitating this brand humanity. Blogs, forums and other customer communities are enabling employees to fully connect with each other and the outside world… when the executives are brave enough to allow it. First comes the value definition: how we want the company to show up in its interactions with others? Then comes the cultural shift: loosening the reins and giving permission for genuine personality to shine through the cracks in the corporate wall. We reach a level of trust and maturity where value guidelines can take the place of rules and regulations. The company then can maintain a coherent identity while participating in varied – and often radically different – conversations.

 This is what I mean when I talk about the ecology of business: one ecosystem, many parts, all working together. Change and consistency. The one thing – and many things – simultaneously. Somewhat of a paradox, but it works.

Comments

[Wendy]

JR,
This ties into your work with the brain...look at your title, "Brand Humanity" - that's not possible, isn't your brain jammed up just trying to process that? What is that? What you are searching for is a contextualized identity statement and what we are both trying to accomplish is getting marketing to focus on identity statements and using the product to support her in her various identities throughout the day. The consumer is human not the brand. The brand enhances her life. The brand fits her contextualized needs and neurally manages her life for her. I'd love to talk to you about your work..I think we are both trying to get to the same place. I think.

[jennifer rice]

Johnnie, thanks for the elaboration. Brands are definitely emergent and co-created, although I think there still is a role for a brand manager to ensure that the core values of an organization (the way in which the company dialogues) is consistent. For example, sex jokes are consistent with Hugh McLeod's brand; they're not with mine (at least not with my clients!).

And JBR: thanks for your comment and observations. I view a brand as an idea that resides in the minds of customers (and employees, etc.)... and that idea is created by what a company says or does through its employees. It's all about interactions, connections and reputation. Your marathon sponsorship is one of many ways that a company can connect with a community and create an impression. It's ideal if the company not only sponsored the event, but its employees were active IN the event as ambassadors to help humanize the brand.

[jbr]

I am not a mktg/branding type or expert. Thus, my opinion may or may not have weight/meaning. Regardless, people will have a positive/negative view of a company by how they interact with the company. It may not be a direct interaction, but it's an interaction that gives an impression that sticks in a person's mind.

For example, my company sponsors a major marathon each year. We don't "make or sell" marathons or running gear. However, we likely receive a positive impression of our company from people in that marathoning community. It's not a brand of ours, but it is something that provides an avenue for interaction.

So, for me, it can be about many things that provide interactions. From a personal level - an employee leaves a good impression on a person and that person then thinks the company is "good" because of that interaction - to the above marathon example. I think a company needs to see the totality of how they can be perceived to effectively go about exploring how to "brand" themselves....hopefully, this makes sense.

[Johnnie Moore]

You won't be surpised to find me nodding approvingly.

Brands emerge from all the human interactions. They emerge; they don't follow the tune of would be branding Pied Pipers. This is bad news for conventional branding consultants and all their dull, complicated pyramids, missions statements, value propositions etc etc.

I find the whole Ries/Trout notion of owning words in people's heads a bit dated too, as well as a little unpleasant. Maybe it works for thing products, but not for services that depend on lots of human interest and engagement.

I think the focus needs to move away from brand strategy and towards facilitation: creating atmospheres inside organisations that allow folks to collaborate well and support individuals in taking risks. That probably means making a nice bonfire of all those corporate identity manuals, showing your Madison Avenue agencies the door and getting better at good conversations, minus the jargon and the hype.

There, you got me going.