Why is the ‘B’ word so divisive?
When it comes to Brand, the simple answer lies somewhere between being perceived as subjective, and being widely misunderstood.
Despite evidence to the contrary, so many still consider brand to have no relevance beyond the logo, and the opposing argument plays out across editorial and social in a flush of experts who tirelessly defend its value. Understanding brand to be a compass for impact and cohesion, they campaign for an early seat at the table to ensure brand’s impact on business has a voice.
Those of us who work in the brand space have had to, at some point, explain, educate or defend investing in brand. Working to remove the bias against what is seen as frivolous, optional or unnecessary, and reaffirming brand as a valued tool to improve mental availability in market. Pushing up against a negative bias is debilitating.
At a singular level, deprioritising brand investment or treating it like a necessary evil and forcing it to struggle on the end of a tightly held budget leash, is missing out on its potency in building business visibility and impact.
The academic research proves that brand activity, pared with a tactical approach, known affectionately as far ‘the long and the short’, outpaces any temporary spike of tactical activity alone.
Nothing goes viral like a feel-good story, and this emotion cuts through. In fact, emotion builds deeper mental pathways creating deeper influence than rational content, contributing to building mental availability in the minds of potential buyers.
I’ve said it ad nauseam, if nobody knows about you, then you’re not even in consideration. Especially relevant in B2B, where potential buyers revert to known brands when in market. Mike Maynard articulated this in his Forbes article:
“Many brands are excluded…because they never made themselves available to be considered in the first place. They have not developed and maintained an awareness campaign to achieve the heft of recognition required to be invited in, and to hold their ground once there.”
Particularly evident in the technology sphere, companies embrace product development, understanding that best practice protects customer experience as a vital component to nurture prospects, but they fail to connect poorly articulated positioning, or inconsistent creative communication with its negative effect on business perception.
So, what is brand?
It truly touches everything, but simply put, brand is the way your organisation is perceived. By industry, by the market, potential and existing customers and your employees. Perception is influenced by every single interaction and experience, not just the products you offer.
Translated into corporate speak, it could be something like:
Brand is reputational management through consistency and clarity.
While reputation and brand are different, everything that your company does, from the language you use to describe your products to how you present their effectiveness, to the images on your website and the colours and typography used in your ads is connected. It constructs the perception of your brand built on the combination of all components. It’s not one singular thing, and certainly not as reductive as only your logo or a colour. It’s a holistic approach on how you take your company ‘to the world’.
In developing brand, components like positioning, language, expression and context are all considered, essentially answering the questions: Who are we? What is our communication voice? What do we look like? And where do we show up? Some of these parts influence others but if your visual expression is the first thing you develop, it’s really the tail wagging the dog.
Why in matters in practice.
Fractured communication and lack of cohesion lead to inconsistent and confusing messaging, and that’s simply not good for business.
Ensuring your position, language and expression work in synergy, supporting one another, consistently, across every channel and consumer touch point builds familiarity, which in turn, builds trust. And a clear framework that informs how your business presents itself, strengthen the connection between consideration and commitment.
If customers have a bad experience, or a wonderful one, who will they tell? If negativity hits the socials, potential customers may believe the commentary before they’ve even looked at your website, engaged with your team or sampled your product.
And while brand is more than a first impression, the associations people have with your company can be influenced by so many things that are not even remotely related to your logo. If you want your business to be personal and approachable but the way you deliver a keynote is aloof and disinterested, it could potentially erode trust.
Would you do business with a company that you didn’t trust?
People transact using their money and attention. To buy or promote products they love, value, use and identify with and around 90% of these decisions are driven by emotion. It matters to them what their relationship to your brand signals to others about them personally, or as a professional status indicator.
If I were cheeky, I would say that if brand wasn’t important, then the C-suite would be driving around in functional, reliable Toyotas instead of European sports cars. And while brand doesn’t always equate to material status, this stereotypical example highlights the theory of how people connect value to brands as an extension of how they want to be understood
Brand is a whole of business responsibility.
‘Brand’ is not (or should not be) the domain of the marketing team alone. Internal engagement, understanding and advocacy is vital for companies to strengthen their position in market and industry standing. This advocacy provides strong inducement for potential employees in a part of the brand equation called the Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Built on the ethos that great people with a strong affinity to their company and who feel valued, are happier, work better and contribute to recruitment through their own networks, which ultimately keeps the business culture a positive one.
Brand does not have to be a mountain.
Working with companies at every stage of their lifecycle, from the seed of a new brand to a fully-fledged, well-known entity has shown me that each require the same core components, the only difference is how fast you can move. Existing equity combined with a larger cohort of stakeholders does require more consideration and balance, but neither need to be a mammoth undertaking.
Getting clear on what you stand for as an organisation, what you want the industry, the market and customers to believe about you and your offering is the running start. Everything flows from that: Your expression (logo, typography, colours, imagery etc is simply a scaffold for you to communicate your value to the market. Being disciplined about guardrails for consistency and how much these can flex will ensure sustainable support for your company and a tight, cohesive brand.
Written by Tania De Masi