The added association such as an attribute, benefit, or personality should be valued by the silo organization but not by the “rest of the world.” One energy company had a well-defined brand that worked throughout the world. However, in a South American country, customers were used to being cheated at the pump and getting less than they paid for. An honest pump was a believable and relevant point of differentiation. What was added to the brand promise in that country was in no way inconsistent with the global brand promise but, rather, reinforced aspects of it such as trust.
With a country spanning silos, the brand could add a local or country flavor by infusing associations that connect with the culture and heritage of the country. A brand in the French market, for example, could use a local sponsorship of an arts program to link to the France culture. There can be a tension between being local and global but being both is very doable. Sony has long had the objective of being three things in each market—global, Japanese, and local— the best of all worlds.
STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES VS. PROOF POINTS
The brand vision implies a promise to customers and a commitment by the organization. It cannot be an exercise in wishful thinking but, rather, needs to have substance behind it. Every brand vision element should ultimately have proof points, capabilities, and programs in place that enable the organization to deliver the promise of each brand vision element and its associated value proposition. Proof points can be visible or behind the scenes. The visible proof points behind Nordstrom’s claim of outstanding service are its return policy and its empowered staff. The employee compensation system, together with hiring and training programs, are proof points the customer doesn’t see.
When proof points are weak or missing, a strategic imperative is needed. A strategic imperative is a strategic investment in an asset, skill, people, or program that is essential if the customer promise is to be delivered. Delivering on a strategic imperative might require significant investment or a change in culture.
Consider the following. For a regional bank brand that aspires to have a comprehensive customer relationship, a strategic imperative might be to equip each customer contact person with access to all of the customer’s accounts with the bank. For a premium audio equipment brand that aspires to be a technological leader, strategic imperatives might include an expanded R&D program and improved manufacturing quality. For a value subbrand for a household cleaning product that wants to have a price advantage, a strategic imperative might be to develop a cost culture.
The strategic imperative represents a reality check, because it makes the critical “must do” investments visible and thus stimulates an assessment as to the feasibility of the brand strategy. Are the investment resources available? Is the commitment from the organization really there? Is the organization capable of responding to the strategic imperative? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the organization is unable or unwilling to deliver behind the brand promise. The promise will then become an empty advertising slogan that at best will be a waste of resources and at worst create a brand liability instead of a brand asset.
For example, if the regional bank is not willing to invest the tens of millions of dollars necessary to create the database needed to allow appropriate customer interaction, then the relationship bank concept will need to be rethought. If the audio components firm is not willing to create innovative products and improve manufacturing quality, a high-end brand may be doomed. If the household cleaning product manufacturer is not willing or able to create a subunit with a real cost culture, then the value market may be a recipe for failure.
THE BOTTOM LINE
There needs to be a brand vision to provide direction, inspiration, and justification to the brand-building effort. The brand-vision model is multidimensional, has core and extended elements, includes an optional essence, is tailored to the brand’s context, is aspirational, and can be adapted to different product markets. A key part of the process of developing a brand vision is to create labels for clusters of aspirational image elements. Identifying strategic imperatives can distinguish “wishful thinking” from realistic aspirations. The next six chapters discuss concepts that can be called on to populate a brand vision.
Chapter 4
A BRAND PERSONALITY CONNECTS
A brand that captures your mind gains behavior.A brand that captures your heart gains commitment. —Scott Talgo brand strategist
What is the worst thing you can say about a person? No personality? Who wants to spend time with someone who is so boring they’re described as having no personality? Better to be a jerk; at least then you’re interesting and memorable. Having a personality is equally helpful to brands.
Brand personality can be defined as the set of human characteristics associated with the brand. Psychologists and consumer researchers have shown conclusively that people often can and do treat objects, from pets to plants to brands, as if they were people, even giving them names. When brands are treated as people, perceptions and behavior are affected. In one study, individuals who were asked to think of creative uses for a brick and were exposed subliminally to an Apple logo instead of a IBM logo, generated more unique ideas. In the same study, subjects behaved more honestly after exposed to a Disney Channel logo vs. an E! Channel logo. The behavior difference in each case was attributed to the power of the personality of the brands.1 Mere exposure to a brand logo prompted individuals to behave in ways consistent to the brand personality.
Not all brands have a personality, or at least a strong, distinctive personality. However, those brands that do have personality have a significant advantage; they are more likely to stand out from the crowd and have a message. Personality is an important dimension of brand equity because, like human personality, it is both differentiating and enduring. Once established, it will provide benefits (or harm) over a long time horizon. Creating or supporting a personality should be part of the brand vision discussion for sure.
BUILDING A BRAND—WHY A BRAND PERSONALITY?
In building a brand, the brand personality construct can help:
Represent and Communicate Functional Benefits
A brand personality can be a vehicle for representing and cueing functional benefits and brand attributes. It can be easier to create a personality that implies a functional benefit than to communicate directly and convincingly that a functional benefit exists. Further, it is harder to attack or copy a personality than a functional benefit, because a personality is based on many elements and usually has been established over time. It is not easily changed. Consider the following examples:
• MetLife, the insurance company, generated a personality represented by the Peanuts characters that provides a warm and humorous dimension to a firm that otherwise would be considered bureaucratic, profit seeking, and impersonal. The personality softens perceptions and makes the aspirational “caring and approachable” dimension come to life.
• The Hallmark-as-person is sincere, sentimental, warm, genuine, wholesome, and ageless as well as competent and imaginative. This personality says much about the Hallmark offerings.
• The Energizer brand, because of its name and its rabbit symbol, is an energetic, upbeat, indefatigable personality who never runs out of energy—just as the battery runs longer than others.
• The Zara personality of being daring, trendy, exciting, spirited, and imaginative affects people’s perceptions of Zara, its stores, and its products.
• Michelin’s strong and dynamic personality, as reflected by the Michelin Man, implies that its tires will have strength and agility.
• Wells Fargo, as represented by the stagecoach, reflects an independent, cowboy type that delivers reliably. Although competitors may actually deliver superior reliability and safety of assets, because of