My Relationship with Brands

It just took me over 20 minutes to look up the name of my Management & Organizational Analysis professor, but I finally emerged victorious (working in search really hones your sleuthing skills). The reason I was Googling Reinhard Bachmann was because I wanted to admit that I finally understand the importance of his book Trust Within and Between Organizations. I never thought I'd actually be using information from my MOA class. It seemed like a colossal waste of time the whole time I was taking it (and long after), but I find myself thinking about the lessons more and more these days.

The personification of brands is not an uncommon practice. Ronald McDonald is the first example that comes to mind. But the difference between the brands of yore and the brands today is that today our information about brands come from a multitude of locations. Even though some people might find Ronald McDonald creepy, our image of him is still something carefully crafted by the wizards at McDonald's Corporation. And for the longest time, Ronald equaled McDonald's; when someone thought of McDonald's, Ronald was not far behind. Fast forward a couple of years, and Ronald is no longer the first thing people think of. With today's access to information, the customer service, the sustainability of the food, Supersize Me, and Ronald all hold keys to determining McDonald's brand in the minds of its stakeholders. Now if I were to personify McDonald's, Ron English's fat Ronald is more on target than the kind Ronald in charge of Ronald McDonald House Charities.


Which one is more on brand?

I believe that brand personification has a new meaning these days. It's not just about creating a character for your brand. Aunt Jemima, Mr. Clean, and Eddie from Accounting are no longer the sole brand reps. The new brand character is the imaginary person you invent in your head when you combine all of the information you've learned about a brand. BP might claim it's a green company, but in my mind BP is a woman who claims she has a compost heap but in reality just throws all her trash in her neighbor's yard.

This is where I start thinking about how trust plays into today's world of brand definition. If a corporation says one message through its marketing channels, but somehow consumers experience another message, trust in the brand decreases. In order to gain the consumers' trust, a company has to make sure that the brand message from all angles is consistent. That doesn't mean making sure advertising campaigns match what's in the corporate press releases. I mean taking the time to ensure that actions match the words. Would anybody ever trust a person who promised to help move furniture while running quickly in the opposite direction? No. Then why would anyone trust a company that does the same thing?

If a company manages to earn trust, consumers (aka the trusting party) will be more willing to allow the feeling of vulnerability and follow a company as it grows. I know that people make mistakes so I'm willing to forgive and forget if someone I trust fucks up occasionally. If someone I don't trust screws up, that just reinforces the belief that I shouldn't trust that person. I hold corporations to the same standard.

The role of search and social influence marketing is becoming more important in determining the brand character people build in their minds and in helping corporations maintain consistent brand messaging. Both of these channels are able to interact with people just as they're thinking about the brand. The power of search ads comes from their ability to address needs at the exact time someone wants answers. Twitter and the likes take that to the next level by allowing direct communication with the brand. JetBlue understands that. Zappos understands that. Intel sorta gets it but still mostly pushes corporate news.

So my one bit of advice is to be true to who you are. People will appreciate the honesty. Don't pretend to be someone you're not because you will always be found out in the end.