Would it be fair to say that convenience is an enemy of brands as well? Let me explain. There are ‘brands’ that have been built on the proposition of convenience. Given the internet’s penchant for eliminating middlemen who do not provide its kind of value, and its ability to create convenient interfaces, everything from Google and Amazon downwards is built on the idea of convenience. That’s not what I am talking of. My line of thought is whether convenience (also) leads to a certain kind of commoditisation – it becomes not so much about what I want, but more about how easily I am getting it. So long as the product/service is comparable in terms of price and value proposition, and not necessarily superior, I’d be fine. The premium is on ease and time, and not on the brand/product. 

But maybe there is a middle path, where the abundance of choice is layered with customisation. Amazon, I have experienced, does this well in patches. Great on televisions, and surprisingly bad with books! (I think it doesn’t have enough data on me with regards to the latter) It doesn’t follow me around the web (retargeting) instead sends me a mail with relevant recommendations for the product I’ve been browsing on their site. But the brand I am really a fan of in this context is Netflix. There is a vast amount of content, and from it, Netflix starts throwing at me stuff that is relevant. I hadn’t heard of either The Bletchley Circle or Broadchurch but totally loved both the recommendations. (read) And that increased by resonance with brand Netflix.

Brand building and media are intrinsically tied together, even in the era of digital. In the last few pages of Finite & Infinite Games, and in a totally different context, there is a nuance that James Carse brings out – the difference between resonance and amplification. Pull vs push, broadly. Interestingly, digital offers both opportunities to brands. You could either collect and use data intelligently, or you could spray generic ads across the web. In many cases,the ‘ease’ factor results in media (largely) being used to create a surround sound effect rather than a data-based micro targeted approach. In my case, both Amazon and Netflix are using relevance to build resonance, and easily winning.

(borrowed from a Sony ad)

There is an interesting way to describe ‘brand’. When there is an abundance of choice, and all purchase-related factors are comparable, why would a consumer choose one product/service over another? Arguably, that ingredient is brand. It is an umbrella term that could describe the product, experience, emotion and so on. It can be built in many ways. Broadly, amplification builds on convenience, and resonance builds on conscious choices. One is a finite game, and the other is infinite. Digital media has helped brands build reach, and in some cases where data is used well, even relevance. But it also fools itself by claiming to be going after ROI, when it means Return on Spend. (the difference is the timeframe) Resonance, I think, will require an investment, and the relatively ‘infinite’ game it is playing, will be brand building.

P.S. There is a layer I wanted to add to this, but the post is already long!  I’ll write about the role of AI in all of this in a bit.

The ‘tyranny of the big idea‘ is oft discussed here and the more I see platforms evolve, the more I feel the need (for brands) for nuanced strategy and propositions that are relevant in various contexts and take into account the radical change that is two-way communication. (as opposed to broadcast) I think this is an inevitability of consumption fragmentation as well as changes in attitudes/behaviour/expectations, and sustained nuanced propositions is one of the key ways to create ‘network effects’ across platforms.

In this context, I thought the ‘Moving Forward’ section in this insightful post titled “Killing Big Strategy” captured it perfectly. Also, through it, I came across something that helped link the product-brand stories – “Finding the right job for your product“, a fantastic alternate perspective on traditional market segmentation, and some excellent lessons in defining competition and positioning. Not to forget this gem from Drucker “The customer rarely buys what the company thinks it is selling him.”

So where does this all begin? Though ‘purpose’ is increasingly being used as a buzzword  and also espousing a corporate-centric view (unfortunately) I still get to see a lot of relevant literature that does more than lip service. At a broad level, this little framework of Purpose – Delivery – Resonance, for instance, is a good start. There are many needs that brands fulfill and many reasons why they are loved, and these could start as pointers for a brand to figure out its purpose. John Hagel’s “The Untapped Potential of Corporate Narratives” offers some excellent perspective on how user-centric narratives gets several ‘pull’ factors to work in tandem and offer numerous sustainable advantages. The examples include my usual favourite – Nike, and this is a subject I have touched upon earlier as well, (1,2) though not as eloquently. If you think about it, this is also another way of ‘finding the right job for your product’.

(via)

On delivery. Russell Davies’ “Activities not audiences” draws the distinction between users and user needs and calls for focusing on the latter. Again, another rendition of a product doing its ‘job’. This post, titled “Brands: One System Of Touch“, explores the misalignment of brands which view customer experiences in isolation, by channel, whereas customers of course view and grade their experiences cumulatively. This is a good starting point to think about what needs to be changed internally to deliver a cohesive, relevant and useful experience to the consumer.

In the meanwhile, I came across quite a few examples of brands adopting the ‘product doing a job’ approach even though it might be an isolated exercise at this point –  Hermes’ silk knot app, Volkswagen’s and Audi’s Augmented Reality apps to repair/know the features of their cars. While they might seem too self serving to qualify for the concept under discussion, they’re definitely a step in the direction. Uber’s response to a bus driver strike with free rides might be a more evolved example. Another one might be Ford’s platform to ‘hack’ its car hardware and software. Many more examples of ‘branded utility’ can be seen here. I think that in the looming collaborative economy, platforms like Google Helpouts will help brands become a real time utility in their domains.  Interestingly there are also examples of brands (Citi, Kleenex) which are trying to create value beyond their core purpose/utility. Levi’s’ ‘School of Make our mark‘ is another example.

The last bit in the framework (though the framework also mentions differentiation, I see it as something that needs to be built into purpose and delivery) I referred to earlier is resonance. I think these above experiments will not only help brands learn what it takes to build sustained resonance in various consumer contexts but also how to amplify this to potential consumers who might share similar needs. This will require learning and application beyond the conventional mass reach tactics employed currently. The corollary is that measurement paradigms would also need to change. I could see this being aligned to all the points mentioned in this superb post –  ‘The Future of Marketing‘ – messages to experiences, rational to passion, adaptive strategy, simulations, brands to platforms.

To bring it all back to the link between the social product and the brand, I now (again) see technology (including social) as an enabler in the product and marketing road maps – working in tandem to deliver the brand’s purpose and help it augment resonance.

until next time, utilising brands