A brand is an experience that lives at the intersection of promise and expectation. That promise can either be overt (made by the organization) or implied (made by third party, such as the media). Both manage consumers’ expectations. When consumers’ expectations aren’t met, stocks go down, products sit on store shelves and the brand comes tumbling after. Such is the case with the launch of Apple’s iPhone 4s.

Apple makes outstanding products and has perhaps the world’s strongest brand. Competitors chase Apple’s innovative products and throughout the world people reference Apple as the poster child for Branding, Marketing, Innovation, Product Development, Pricing Strategy, etc… The list goes on and on. But the failure in the iPhone 4s isn’t an issue with Marketing, Innovation, Product Development or Pricing Strategy. It was a failure to meet consumers’ expectations.

This is the problem with brands. The truth is, brands can’t be managed. The only thing we can manage is consumers’ expectations. And this time Apple got it wrong.

We’re sure that Apple will do quite well in the long-run. They’ll likely sell a record number of iPhones. After all, FREE has historically been a great motivator! Everyone will update to the iOS5, many will sign up for iCloud and everyone will love Siri (we’ve been using the Siri app for some time. It’s great!).

But, what if the name and physical design were different? These would signal change, and in today’s technology obsessed world, they would signal “better.” Both the iPhone 4s’ name and physical design tell us that not much has changed. This is similar to the automotive industry where a new body style equates to a “new” car. We equate the new design with innovation. It triggers our mind to look for what’s new, better, more advanced. The same old name, the same old body style, these are signals that it’s the same old thing.

The issue here is that we, the consumers, expected the unexpected and we got what we deserved. There was a great weight on Apple’s now Chief Executive Officer, Tim Cook’s shoulder. To Impress this crowd he would have had to have introduced, not just something better, but something different. After all, we were expecting the unexpected and we got a better version of the same. This is the problem when “the consumer owns the brand.” We always seem to disappoint ourselves.

The idea of using a signature scent as a marketing device is nothing new. Religions have been engaging our olfactory receptors with burning incense since the beginning of time and retailers have been known to leverage atmospheric scent as a motivator: Bloomingdales bathes its infant department in the scent of baby powder and Exxon uses the aroma of coffee to persuade customers in their convenience stores.

Engaging all the senses creates a completely immersive customer experiences that helps to foster deeper emotional bonds between brand and consumer. While vision is unquestionably our most powerful sense, when it comes to garnering an emotional response, scent may be the more powerful. We don’t process scent the same way we do sounds or images, because the receptors that allow us to smell are directly connected  to the limbic system, the region of the brain responsible for emotions, behavior, decision-making and long term memory.

Studies have shown that ambient aroma can impact consumer behavior. Noted neurologist and psychiatrist Dr. Alan R. Hirsch studied the effects of fragrance on human behavior and found scent to be a highly effective motivator. Dr. Hirsch’s study at the Las Vegas Hilton resulted in gamblers inserting 45.1% more coins into slot machines within the presence of a pleasant fragrance. At first, it would seem that the gamblers might have been attracted to the pleasant aroma and chosen the machines in those areas over the control group. However, when the Hilton provided the final figures to Hirsch, the results showed that, not only did the scented areas receive more traffic, the slot machines in the fragrance-free areas showed zero decrease in revenues.

Perhaps no one knows this more than automobile manufacturers who have long recognized that the intoxicating scent of a new car is key to linking their marque and new owners. As a result, many have optimized this scent, bottled it and sprayed into new vehicles. Take for instance Cadillac who infuses interiors with a custom scent called Nuance, to ensure that their models smell distinct from other vehicles.

Scent design permeates other markets as well. As part of their sensory environment Westin Hotels, infuses a white tea fragrance throughout its lobbies (The signature fragrance was chosen for “it’s simplicity and its ability to both relax and energize”). SONYstyle infuses the scent of mandarin orange and vanilla in their stores and showrooms and is exploring methods to radiate the scent from store windows to entice shoppers with a whiff of a new flat screen, camera or laptop. While Singapore Airlines began distributing brand scented towels nearly a decade and a half ago.

Testing has shown that scented products are to be considered both of higher value and better quality than “unscented” alternatives. However, before you go scenting your own product and environments, remember you can’t just use a pleasant scent and expect it to work.

For emotional communication to be effective the fragrance has to be congruent with the brand and product or environment it’s supposed to enhance. On top of that, many fragrances consider to be intoxicating in one market may be repulsive by another. Developing a scent that has international appeal and reflects the values and image that the brand is trying to present can make scenting global brands very tricky business.

Download Video: MP4
HTML5 Video Player by VideoJS

Whether you’re creating a name, logo, color, sound or other brand signal, one of the most important ways to claim ownership of this intellectual property is by trademarking it. In this Brand Related Talk, attorney Stephen Baird discusses trademark law and its role in branding.

Please note that we (Blackcoffee) are NOT lawyers and are not dispensing legal advice! Mr. Baird, on the other hand, is an attorney. The advice and opinions he shares here are his own and not those of Blackcoffee. Also note that the information in this talk is related to US trademark law and may not apply to the laws of other countries.

Speaker: Stephen Baird
Stephen Baird is the head of the Intellectual Property and Trademark and Brand Management practice groups at Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.. Stephen counsels clients on trademark usage and clearance, branding strategies, domestic and worldwide portfolio management, litigation and enforcement, internet domain name disputes, licensing and prosecution. He also handles trademark litigation matters in federal district court and in proceedings before the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

He writes on Winthrop & Weinstine’s blog DuetsBlog (Collaborations in Creativity & The Law).

Most companies see brand building as a process of addition, where every touch point adds to the overall experience. They summarize that each point of contact adds to their brand’s overall equity. Yet, branding is not based on the process of addition. It’s based on multiplication. The greatest return doesn’t come from improving the variables with the most value but rather from improving those with the least. In fact, a single point of failure can negate everything.

Building an effective brand requires that the organization shifts its point of view to see each and every action it takes as a multiplier. We want to be very clear about this; we don’t believe that building a brand is a mathematical equation! What we are saying is that if you view your efforts and actions as multipliers, you’ll approach the problem differently and find those efforts to be more effective. So now that that’s been established, let’s do the math.

Let’s say Brand A scored nearly perfectly in two out of three variables, but COMPLETELY FAILED in that third area. However, Brand B scored just above average across the board.

Brand A: 9 + 9 + 0 = 18

Brand B: 6 + 6 + 6 = 18

In an additive process the results would be equal, when in fact the brand experience is not. The issue here is not the variables; it’s the equation. Brand value is the product of many variables. Price, functionality, product performance, et cetera. Each has a synergistic effect, so total failure in any given area means total failure in the brand.

Let’s look at Brands A and B again. This time, we’ll use multipliers.

Brand A: 9 x 9 x 0 = 0

Brand B: 6 x 6 x 6 = 216

As you can see, a single point of failure kills the viability of Brand A. This doesn’t mean that a brand should try to be all things to all people, nor that average brands triumph.  What it does mean is your brand promise needs to be clearly defined, articulated and delivered upon. After all, your brand is the product of consumer expectation.

A zero variable can be overcome if consumers don’t place that variable into the equation. If they do, then that single point of failure will cancel the whole thing out. To be effective, your brand must not only be the best at what it does, it must also improve upon its weakest traits or remove those variables from the equation all together. This shifts the comparison from apples to apples, to apple to oranges.

If you can’t do it well, don’t do it at all!

Why do redesigns receive so much flak?  Because people are passionate and largely resist change. Even a “great design” may be rejected if it violates consumers’ sense of “how things should be.” That’s because the human mind sees good and bad through a lens of context. Branding works because people have a basic human need to distinguish one thing from another. People either accept or reject changes in brand identity based on how well those changes align with their own experience and expectations of that brand. A new identity that violates what the mind knows to be true is often met with disappointment and disapproval.

Consumers use brands as a method of augmenting their own identities, and a change considered “off brand” can clash with the consumer’s own sense of self. However, there is a far more utilitarian benefit to a consistent brand identity – wayfinding.

Brand signals act as a wayfinding system, allowing consumers to navigate the marketplace. This allows them to identify and differentiate one brand from another. When companies make drastic changes to these signals, they alter the brandscape, frustrating consumers by turning shortcuts into detours. This makes it harder for consumers to find their way because the new logo, name or other brand signals are inauthentic. They simply don’t equate to that brand. Once consumers have lost their reference point they may never find their way back.

Many redesigns are poorly executed, others are simply brilliant. Either way, the strength of a brand’s identity is based not on its graphic appeal but on consumers’ relationship with each signal as it relates to the brand. The further the signals deviate from the current brand meaning the less likely they will be immediately accepted. This is why some redesigns are met with passionate responses and others with indifference.

It is imperative that any change in a brand’s identity reflect changes in the underlying strategy. Over time any signal can take on new meaning, but ultimately good and bad are a matter of context. Which is why a beautiful identity can never clean up an otherwise ugly brand.

Companies must be clear as to their intentions when changing their brand’s identity and temper their actions to manage consumer’s expectations. When people understand the reason for the change, they are more likely to accept it. This is true both inside and outside the organization.

Many identities that people love now were met with similar resistance when they were first unveiled. Today, they embody the specific meaning as it relates to those brands.

When it was proposed that the Eiffel Tower be built as the entrance to the 1889 World’s Fair, the citizens of Paris were violently opposed to such an “ugly structure.” Today the Eiffel Tower has become one of the most recognizable structures in the world, and an icon synonymous with both Paris and the French. If it were proposed today that the tower be taken down, or a new tower put up in its place, it would likely be met with similar opposition.

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think.

It is often said that a brand is a narrative. This is because stories are fundamental to how we process information. The human brain organizes much of our experience, knowledge and thinking as stories and, as we all know, rivalry makes for a great story. Without an antagonist, things get boring quickly. Rivalry leverages exclusionary positioning, providing an antagonist that adds to an existing identity.

Loyalty and rivalry grow in proportion to one another. Each feeds on the energy created by the other. Brand rivalry not only helps to validate brand position, it has the added benefit of honing focus. Intense competition forces brands to work harder to differentiate in the battle for market space, mind-share and consumer preference. A strong rivalry forced both Apple and Microsoft to push each other to create better solutions and stronger brands.

The brands people choose are a reflection of their own values and sense of self. A brand is a belief system, and the beliefs of one brand community are in opposition to those of its rival(s). The brand and the community have chosen a side, and in their minds it’s good vs. evil. They are as much against the antagonist as they are “for” the brand. Red Sox fans chant “Yankees Suck” rather than “Red Sox Rule.” Apple fans say “I don’t do Windows” rather than “I’m a Mac.”

A strong rivalry decreases the overlap in brand preference by increasing the passion that consumers feel for their chosen brand. It is the very presence of an antagonist that strengthens consumer’s bond with the brand, which ultimately strengthens the brand community. Rivalry validates brand position and forces each brand to push themselves further than they would without such a strong competitor.

Sports and politics, products and services, each use rivalry to validate their brand position: Red Sox vs.Yankees, Republicans vs. Democrats, God vs. Satan…
We welcome your comments, even if you’re a Yankees fan!

More often than not, a company’s vision and mission statements fail to capture the true nature of what the organization’s core purpose is, what makes them different, relevant and authentic. Successful brands are those who understand that the brand’s core concept serves as a compass, guiding the organization, their partners and their consumers.

Brands are essentially shared understanding of a singular meaning. Without a shared understanding of what the brand represents, employee and partner actions are set adrift. It is therefore, critical that the brand team has a theme to guide their efforts.

The brand theme ensures shared understanding by providing a singular concept that acts as lighthouse and litmus test. Your brand theme must be clearly understood by everyone throughout your organization. Your theme must define and articulate the essence of your brand in a clear, concise and compelling manner.

A successful brand theme defines the brand’s core purpose as one, simple and succinct concept that is both quickly understood and easily remembered. This provides brand consistency because ideas work towards it and can be measured against it.

Example: Apple’s theme could very well be “Einstein meets Picasso.” This “A meets B” format provides a spectrum of influence which juxtaposes characters to provide two extremes that work in harmony, here reflecting Apple’s position of artful technology. This forms a unique vocabulary that centers the brand team around a single vision. Despite the task a partner or employee is asked to perform, the question is always “How would the collective mind of Albert and Pablo approach this problem?” Would they agree with this solution or start anew? “Have we focused too much on Einstein and ignored Picasso?”

The very process of developing a brand theme forces the team to align their focus by providing both a common purpose through analogy, simile or metaphor.  However, unlike an advertising theme or “Big Idea” this is an internal language. It may be shared with the outside world but it is by no means a tagline or slogan. This ultimately drives the organization’s thinking and actions, not merely messaging and campaigns.

How does your organization discuss concepts relating to your brand? Do you share a common purpose, or is your core purpose lost in translation? Creating a brand theme will help to guide your team and ensure that they stay on track.

Download Video: MP4
HTML5 Video Player by VideoJS

Acoustic Branding mp3 file (audio only)

Speaker: Wilbert Hirsch
Wilbert Hirsch is a senior partner & co-founder of the audio consulting group, founder & board member of the Composers Club Germany and was actively involved in the founding of FFACE (Federation of Film and Audiovisual Composers of Europe) and ECSA (European Composers and Songwriters Alliance).

Companies sell products. People buy brands. Why? Because brands don’t just help us to identify and differentiate an offering, they serve another function as well. The brands we choose contribute to our own personal identities. It’s a sign of our standards and code of behavior.

We choose brands whose values reflect our own. By doing so, we’re able, not only to find products that are most likely to deliver on our expectations, we are also able to declare our values to the world. We are making a statement: “I’ve purchased X, because I’m the type of person who values what X represents.” In this way, the brands we choose help us to either fit in or stand out. Sometimes it’s both.

Our desire to express our own individuality and our need to belong to something bigger are not mutually exclusive. We buy brands that declare that we are both individuals as well as part of a larger collective. This allows us to be part of a larger movement without losing our own identity. By mixing, matching and often juxtaposing unlike cultures, we maintain our individuality within each collective. It’s a way of saying “I’m like this but I’m also like this and this and this”. These identity collages often breeds entirely new cultures.

A community is made up of many individuals. So, when the mix is just right, these new subcultures can go mainstream as more people take interest and declare that they too are part of this collective. Many brands capitalize on this by providing that bridge between consumer and community. Ironically, this allows anyone who sees the value in that community to join the larger group and assert their individuality. It’s a case of culture for profit.

However, the opposite is also true. Many brands have built cultures by living their own values rather than adopting and leveraging existing cultures. These niche brands have established tight communities that span continents. Brands such as Apple, Saturn, Ecco, Harley Davidson and LL Bean have each harnessed the power of group identity to create, what many have called, cult brands. The members of these brand communities have a shared consciousness and sense of moral responsibility that connects the members both to those brands and to one another.

The key to brand development is building a community that resonates with consumers’ sense of self. This is a matter of perceived value: functional value (what it does for me) and emotional value (how it makes me feel). It doesn’t matter if the brand assumes a culture or the culture emerges from that brand. What does matter is that the experience is genuine and not merely a cultural facade. Think Apple sans Steve Jobs, or Harley Davidson under bowling company AMF’s rule.

Successful brands have a symbiotic relationship with specific cultures. Over time the two become so entwined that they become synonymous with one another. This is why the true value of a company is in the culture of its brands. Someone will always make a better widget. However, cultures evolve with brands to a point where the value of the relationship is beyond the value of the widget. Be it brand or individual, it’s a refection of who we are, what we stand for and what we believe.