The Brand Bubble

About 18 months ago I read a paper based on some analysis of Y&R's Brand Asset Valuator that had a powerful conclusion - brand value is created through brand energy.  It led me to ramble on about what this might mean for communications a few times.  More importantly, it made me think a little bit about whether the assumptions we have built our model of how brands are built are really true and if, in fact, we have a different objective and therefore need a different model and blueprint.

The authors of this paper (who include John Gerzema, one of the most generous and sharpest planners I have ever met, and who is unwittingly partly to blame for me moving to the US after meeting him a while ago when he was at Fallon) have just published a book.  It's called The Brand Bubble and it expands on both the diagnosis and prescription of the earlier paper.

Essentially, the book argues that we face another financial bubble (timely heh?), this time caused by the market valuing brands more than consumers.  Because when they analyzed the BAV data, it's clear that brands, more often than not, fail to create value. They are not valued by people, they are not seen as different and they fail to command a price premium. 

They go on to argue that the exceptional brands that are valued by consumers have a common trait.  They are seen as having energy and momentum.  That's a powerful conclusion as it challenges a lot of the assumptions that underpin brand management, marketing and communications.  It argues that consistency is a false idol; change, momentum and energy matter more. And this leads to a very different kind of marketing and brand management.  John explains this thesis a little here:

The Brand Bubble from Brand Bubble on Vimeo.

I urge you to read it.  It's provocative and for once offers some fresh thinking (with the data to back up a radical idea).  You can also visit their site, blog and facebook page.  And this is a rather nice widget to get a sense of the BAV tool:

Comments

[O.S]

This is indeed very very interesting. And in line with the new thinking about bigger ideas becoming smaller, but more, and more interesting ideas. It also shows how very "dangerous" it is to trust old "truths" and models, as the world changes quicker than ever. Will definitely read!

[Paul]

Interesting idea. I wonder how he defines 'energy'? I have always liked the idea of 'potential energy' for brands - similar to the physical definition. Brands build potential energy similar to how politicians build political capital. Maybe Brand Capital is a better term? Brand Capital is why companies like Apple can get away with releasing sub-standard products and live to tell the tale.

[gareth]

Hi Paul,
The definition they use of energy is "the consumer perception of motion and direction in a brand". They then break this into three core components: 1. vision (the brand's purpose and aspirations), 2. invention (product and service innovation, content and other tacticle, demonstrable brand experiences) and 3. dynamism (how the brand expresses itself in a dynamic way)

[Miguel]

This is a very interesting idea. It is absolutely true that a brand's value needs to be measured by how consumers perceive it. However, the argument that consistency is a “false idol” could be an excuse for the complacency that businesses have with products. At Schawk though, we firmly believe that -- given the rise of globalization and the proliferation of product SKUs -- that creating a visually consistent brand across all touchpoints and geographic locations is critical for success.

At Schawk, we have found that packaging is one touchpoint that can often make or break a product, since more than 70% of purchase decisions take place while shopping. The visual experience from a package is key to a brand resonating with a consumer, thereby strengthening brand affinity and increasing loyalty. Part of building brand personality is creating successful visual elements, such as logos and packaging, to improve brand affinity. Because the visual experience influences a person’s perception of the brand, it also impacts the brand’s value.

Today’s consumer may expect businesses to have “energy and momentum,” but businesses also should have the means to bring new products to market in a manner that continues to build brand affinity. Schawk recognized this need and turned to brand point management, which integrates strategic, creative and operational excellence, helping businesses deliver consistent and compelling brand experiences across all mediums and geographic locations. Our work with Coke, which was recently ranked as the number one brand according to Interbrand, reinforces the necessity to strengthen core design characteristics thereby improving brand value.

I am curious to have your perspective on how brand point management my further improve a businesses ability to foster brand value. Schawk has a collection of white papers available on Scribd.com. The following link will take you to the Operational Efficiency white paper that may be of interest: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5093361/Brand-Point-Management-Operational-Efficiency-White-Paper-Final

[Herman]

John Gerzema (author of The Brand Bubble) was interviewed by a blog on his new book. Link to interview: http://www.marklives.com/wordpress/2008/09/29/the-brand-bubble-the-looming-brand-crisis-and-how-to-avoid-it/

[Michael Hastings-Black]

love this, curious to read and see how the idea of transparency plays into it. a smart planner I know was once asked by a client how to better brand their poor product. his response? make a better product:)