Its about a philosophy thats being hotly debated in marketing circles: consistency. Strong brands are those that are consistent over time with respect to its identity, position, visual imagery, and theme or slogan.
So what prompted Iodex to suddenly jettison its ooh, aah, ouch campaign and suddenly develop a serious, almost sombre identity? Its new ad tells consumers: If Iodex doesnt work, then nothing else will. Its time to see the doctor. Now thats a dramatic shift for a brand that one remembers using for the occasional minor sprains after a game of football.
To be fair, there are legitimate rationales that prompt highly respected marketing companies to tinker around with the identity of their prized brands. In Ariels case, its brand identity appealed to a limited market. So it needed to search for ways to broaden its market. With red ink splotched all over P&Gs balance sheet, not many could fault them for trying.
But in his book, Building Strong Brands, marketing guru, Prof David Aaker, raises some very interesting issues about why consistency is so hard to achieve. Aaker says that there are substantial forces above and beyond the more obvious rationales that bias managers towards change and away from a consistent identity. Often, simply being aware that there are psychological forces at play that influence managers decisions regarding brands helps to thwart mindless tinkering.
* Come on, lets nick the problem once and for all.
Youve just hired the brightest bunch of MBAs from the Indian Institute of Management. This creative bunch is raring to go. And you genuinely believe that youve created the right culture which emphasises isolating and solving problems and detecting and responding to trends in the market. And there are always problems and new trends to address.
Sir, M&K placed substantial weights on media last month. Their SOV (share of voice) was a good 10 points higher than ours. Our brand tracking studies clearly show that on contemporariness, they score over us. Not surprising then that our shares are down by 2.9 per cent. Shouldnt we respond?
Or, Sir, I think we should seriously consider what Hiro is up to. Their low-priced colour cosmetics will dent our volumes. If you see, the source of business data that Ive just run, 30 per cent is from our brand. And with their new direct marketing channel, we will find it difficult to bludgeon them on the mass media. How can we fight them?
In these difficult times, market shares, even for the best brands, face dips and competitive pressures. New trends in distribution, customer motivations, and innumerable other areas are continually emerging.
An aggressive, capable manager often believes he or she should be able to improve the situation, and that usually means changing one of the drivers of brand equity. Often, says Aaker, the prime candidate for change is the brand identity, position, or execution. The temptation is to dig in, diagnose the problem or trend, and take action even when the action course may actually end up hurting the brand.
At your next annual brand review, observe what happens when you ask each of your brand managers to make a presentation on how he or she planned to improve the brands performance. How many of them would actually get up and say: Well, I suggest that we continue pursuing the same gameplan that weve pursued last year. Thats the best way to protect and sustain our brand equity. Instead, I have a very dramatic strategy of pumping up brand saliency and increasing frequency of usage, which should get us out of the woods, sounds a lot more professional and, clearly, a lot more exciting.
* Hey, Im on a stretch target. Im not resting till Ive nudged the brand two share points up by the end of this year.
Not only is your highly motivated brand manager an eager beaver, he is impatient to outperform the rest. Hes clearly not the sort whos happy doing as well as last year. The goal is always to do better, especially in terms of sales and profits. And if the brand is to improve on prior performance, an obvious implication is that something must be done differently. Changing the identity/execution is one option.
* Man, I think last years execution is just too fuddy-duddy. And mind you, I dont mean any disrespect to my predecessor. Consumers are evolving and evolving fast. Why cant we get our ad agency thinking on a new format thats a lot more hep.
The pressure to change is enormous. It can best be restricted by those who are committed to the brand and its vision. But very often, the identity and its execution is likely to be developed by others, who since moved out of the company or moved on to more challenging assignments within the same company. A new, transient brand manager will seldom have a pride of ownership and involvement in the identity/execution. Says Aaker: The conclusion that the brand and its message are not responsive to the current market, and that a major improvement is possible, is thus personally painless. Doesnt it remind you of Louise Woodford?
