^ian^ wrote:Excellent work DK, I didn't realise we were going to get into Brand Theory, but now you've broken the ice, let's talk about another off-shoot, which is Brand-apathy.
I have read some discussion on the Ruwaad campaign that the extent and length of their teaser campaign may have already lead people to become apathetic of the brand, so much so that when they finanly do launch, they'll be greeted with a big yawn. Just another developer.
And my favourite - Brand Dissonance. Take for instance Etisalat, which appears to have a high level of BD in the UAE. This has been brought about undoubtly by high prices coupled with poor levels of services, not to mention anti-competitive practices. The net results of this is no matter what Etisalat/Reach do, it will be treated with suspiscion and contempt by the average consumer.
I will go on to say, that I bet there was a LOT of money spent on Etisalat's rebranding to Reach, and a lot of psychology, analysis, focus groups... and of course a lot of media spend to raise awareness. But do people have any faith in that Reach truly delivers on what it promises?
No. Because they have no Brand Integrity.
I have worked a fair bit with branding, and have even been the father of a few brand names (thankfully never the mother), and I can tell you a lot of people see rebranding as a means to fix their problems, or generate perception where no perception exists. Put simply, it won't. A brand should be a 2 way promise to both the public and the internal system of the company as well.
Again using Etisalat/Reach as an example, if they're going to brand themselves as a company that helps you reach beyond the UAE, then they should practice what they preach instead of engaging in anti-competitive and gouging practices.
In summary, a brand is just a logo, until Joe Public can see the brand and automatically attribute the qualities of the company to that logo, and the hard work takes place within the company structure and the offerings to the end user, not at the branding agency.
Ah, the hoary old subjects of Brand Apathy and Dissonance has raised its weary head! Yes mate, these are both prevalent. Another term more commonly used is 'Brand Blindness'. Over exposure of a brand identity can eventually lead the consumer to subconsciously make the brand 'invisible' as we are creatures of habit and take really very little notice of the environment around us. The OOH Association ('Out Of Home' is the US description of Outdoor Advertising) has undertaken extensive research into the effects of brand blindness as it most commonly occurs in the billboard and poster market. It was discovered that the maximum period a person is aware of the message on a billboard is approximately 40 days, particularly in commuters who habitually use the same route to and from work. After that, it becomes merely a part of the background scenery 'clutter' and is ignored by the brain. Changes to the graphic instantly create a much higher awareness as the brain then registers the difference to the background and forces you to become aware of the particular space once more and therefore the communication message.
We cannot help it, we get bored easily. Just using a logo as a teaser does start the brain asking questions, however if the campaign goes on for too long, then the questions are not satisfactorily answered and Brand Apathy sets in. The eventual product unveiling therefore falls flat as it does not deliver the promise our own minds attribute to it.
As for Brand Dissonance, this is a common problem with consumer oriented products or services that fail to live up to their claims or product quality offering. Car maker Alfa Romeo suffered very badly from this in the 1970's as they had a very high consumer perception for making really exciting Italian sports cars, a reputation built on years of success on the track. Their engines were marvels of engineering that produced lively performance from comparatively small and light units. Unfortunately, one of their steel buyers decided to cut corners and purchase a batch of recycled metal, which was not properly treated and went onto the bodywork production line. Many new cars, particularly the really attractive and sporty Alphasud, left the factory and within a very short period of time began developing severe rust problems.
The situation became so bad that confidence in the Alpha Romeo marque plummeted and there was even an association jokingly called the 'RAC' (Rusty Alpha Club) set up in the UK by unhappy Alpha Romeo owners. The damage this did to the brand equity of Alph Romeo was terminal and the company never recovered, being bought by Fiat 2 years later. Since then, the brand marketeers have had to fight long and hard to re-build consumer confidence in the brand and even today there are references made to the potentially poor quality of the bodywork despite the fact that the cars are completely sound and offer a distinctly Italian flavoured and stylish ride.
Your reference to Etisalat is interesting as most branded government institutions or monopolies are treated with scorn and suspicion. The recent brand refresh (read complete face lift!) for Etisalat could be read as an attempt to try and alleviate many of those consumer misgivings subconsciously associatied with the old and familiar Etisalat identity, however it was looking dated and the new bright and shiny Etisalat is actually quite fresh and smart in my eyes. The campaign that underpinned it was innovative and clean, however it only served to introduce the new identity as the product offering behind it remains exactly the same and there would have been no real reason to do so, except as an attempt to build consumer loyalty...but what is the point of that in a monopoly? The arrival of 'Du' (now there is an example of a clever brand identity!) is obviously making the faceless beurocrats with their fingers on the telephone keys a little nervous? We shall wait to see what happens when the lights go on at their little control panel!
The guru is switched on...
Knight
