Skip to main content

Total Branding: All or Nothing


We live in an era of total transparency, an environment in which we are judged not by what we say but by what we do. Our thoughts and actions are publicized or shared via social networks. But sometimes, the image that social media portrays is not always the truest representation of a person, brand or corporation. For instance, most brands feel, think and act differently than their social media presence. As a result, there’s a lot of distrust for brands and confusion as to what they really stand for. In order to thrive within a culturally transparent society, we need total branding, a method that perfectly aligns feelings, thoughts, and actions. It’s all or nothing.  
Most brands suffer from cognitive dissonance, which is existing in a state of inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes. This is problematic for brands since society is already skeptical of them and their motives. The numbers attest to consumer cynicism:
The crux of the problem is that most companies still work in silos.  In other words, companies have internally segmented themselves and, more often than not, these segmentations do not work together: marketing the “heart", finance the “brain” and day-to-day operations the “muscle.”  And what’s more troubling is that branding is often treated as a communications exercise instead of a company’s operating and investing bible. This segmentation has not served companies well—there’s a total and complete disconnect.  And in today’s digital economy, this is unacceptable because consumers now have a total view of organizations, which has created both an empowering and ruthless consumer. Consequently, the sentiment “all marketers are liars” (to quote Seth Godin) is a widespread feeling. 
Let’s pick on United Airlines, for instance, who has been in the news recently for a flight scandal. We’ll break the company down by segment in order to see where and how the brand lost its united front:
  • The heart: UA’s marketing promised friendlier skies, which means better customer service.
  • The brain: UA’s finance department spent (and still continues to spend) large portions of its profits on dividends and stock buybacks instead of raising employee wages and R&D.
  • The muscle: UA’s operations has a chronic problem with frequent delays, flight cancellations and lost luggage.
Passengers surveyed by Skytrax, an airline quality rating agency, gave United Airline a 3 out of 10 (the same rating that was ascribed to Spirit Airlines, a low-cost carrier).  To compare this to other airlines: American earned a 4, Delta got a 5 and top-rated carriers like Singapore Airlines, All Nippon Airways and Qatar Airways received 7s. So what the “heart” promised, the “brain” didn’t invest in and the “muscle” didn’t support either effort because it couldn’t deliver on a good customer experience, which ultimately influenced investors’ and consumers' opinion of the airline. 
United Airline is not alone in this problem, most big corporations (e.g., Bank of America, British Petroleum, Amazon) face a similar challenge. But the brands that do get it right, make major sacrifices, which are often times downright painful. For example, CVS Caremark stopped selling tobacco products because it conflicted with its roles as a health company. The company also launched the quick smoking campaign #OneGoodReason and rebranded its corporate entity as CVS Health.  Last year, Guinness pulled out of NY’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade because the LGBT community was excluded from participating. And the UK supermarket, Tesco, removed candy from the checkout area.   
In an era of total transparency, branding can no longer be considered as a communications exercise. Branding needs to be invested in, all or nothing.  It’s a worthwhile gamble. In order to gain trust, a company’s thoughts and actions need to perfectly align with the brand that they promote in advertising.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…