BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

This week, the World Economic Forum is hosting its Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where the leaders of the world’s most important companies, countries and media get together to discuss world issues.

One item on the agenda caught my eye, a session entitled, “Brands: Today’s Gods?” In my opinion, that’s a misnomer. Consumers today don’t worship brands any more than they did 40 years ago. As long as there have been brands consumers have used them as navigational tools, not totems. Consumers need brands to help them determine which direction to take with their purchase decisions. The best brands know that in order to be of any use as navigational tools they must sharply define and clearly communicate what they stand for and why it’s relevant. This is how brands are supposed to work. It’s how capitalistic societies work. We’re not going to stop the train.

What we’re seeing today is the result of a world gone exponentially branded. Brand choices have proliferated at an incredible rate, along with branding channels. Branding doesn’t stop when you turn off the television. It’s everywhere. This means brand organizations have had to become more sophisticated in their branding to be of any navigational value to consumers. They’ve had to find ways to make maneuvering through brand choices simpler. Now, there is no question that as consumers we’ve always had an insatiable desire to define our identities with brands; younger consumers, especially so. This, too, was as true 40 years ago as it is now. The huge difference now, of course, is the sheer number of brands and branding messages to which our youngest consumers are exposed. Given this, to mitigate any concern relative to the branded world in which we live, it’s essential to teach kids how to see brands as the navigational tools they are – and should be – and, more important, how to use them to make the right brand choices.

Brands are not today’s Gods. They are and always have been navigational tools by which we determine which way we go in our buying and social behavior. Brands are supposed to provide good direction. It’s our responsibility to determine whether or not we follow.

Yes, this YouTube clip of Stephen Colbert’s explanation of Cingular’s name change to AT&T is funny. Even as a branding guy, I laughed. However, as a branding guy, I also recognized how well it underscored the confusing nature of the telecommunications industry and, specifically, the challenges inherent in building a strong telecommunications brand.

Despite the audience laughter, the name change is actually the easiest branding challenge this new AT&T will face. From a business strategy perspective, it was the right decision. While not perfect for all sorts of reasons, the AT&T name is simple to remember, has higher awareness on a global basis, and a decent amount of trustworthiness. With enough advertising, people will forget about Cingular. The bigger branding challenge for AT&T will be its ability to imbue its brand’s name with something consumers will recognize as being different and relevant to their telecommunications needs – relevant differentiation being at the heart of every powerful brand. AT&T may be promising our world delivered. But if it can’t deliver its brand promise in meaningfully, tangible ways, I’d stay tuned for more fun courtesy of Stephen Colbert. Which, from my branding guy point of view, would be no laughing matter for AT&T.

I get Google. I get that it’s like having the nicest, smartest kid in the class sitting next to my desk 24 hours a day. I can ask it anything I want and it gives me the answer. Or, at the very least, it suggests where I might look for the answer. I also get Las Vegas. I get that it’s the vacation destination for people of all ages, highly entertaining and never, ever dull. I can take my kids there and know they’ll have fun. I can go with my friends and know we’ll have fun.

Google and Las Vegas are great brands. What makes them great is the fact that consumers understand exactly what they stand for. Their messages as brands are clear and concise. More than this, they appeal to the masses rather than a niche market. According to the Newsmaker Brands Survey I mentioned yesterday, Google and Las Vegas topped the list of brands that were hot in 2006, and predicted to be hot, if not hotter, in 2007.

Google has been first among the survey’s winners for two years running. The brand has continued to expand its offering with, arguably, the most powerful search engine on earth, which is both at the core of its business and at the heart of its brand promise. Las Vegas has been number 2 on the brand winners list, again for two years in a row. Las Vegas is obviously fun — however you define it (and whether your definition “stays” in Vegas, or not).

It’s no secret to the most successful brands that there’s no secret to brand success. The most successful brands send a simple, clear message as to what they stand for. And what they stand for is relevant to people. Based on the results of the Newsmaker Brands for 2006 and 2007, it’s apparently relevant to lots of people. If you want to find out more about the survey, why not Google it?

Brands simplify life. A good brand defines itself clearly and concisely so consumers can easily understand what it stands for and why we should like it. In BrandSimple, I write about how the best brands do this.Lists also simplify life; especially lists of “winners and losers.” They provide a simple filter through which to make judgments. When it comes to branding, it’s a filter that allows consumers to quickly communicate which brands they like, and which they don’t. It’s also a filter that allows brands to assess quickly where they stand with consumers.

In December of 2006, branding experts at Landor Associates and our research specialists at partner firm Penn, Schoen & Berland fielded a study that asked over 2,000 participants to rank 92 brands familiar to them, ranging from products to celebrities. The study assessed which brands were hot in 2006 and which would hold their status into 2007. It also determined which brands would most likely fall in status.

While the Fourth Annual ImagePower® Newsmaker Brands resulted in a list of “Winners and Losers,” there’s a lot of detail behind it. Bottom line, the study concluded that whether product or celebrity, the most successful brands have a clear and simple message. It also concluded that brands that vary their appeal across customer segments were most favored by consumers. Having said this, it came as no surprise that brands including Google and Las Vegas topped the winners’ column for two years in a row.

For now, however, let me simplify your life. Here’s the list:

Steve Jobs’ recent announcement that Apple would be dropping “Computer” from its name seems as intuitive as its company’s products. We’ve long taken for granted that Apple is about more than just computers. The introduction of its iPhone is just further proof. Much like Apple transformed the computing industry and the portable music industry, I believe the iPhone could very well transform the mobile phone and the PDA industries. Jobs, it seems, has cracked the code on what it takes to design an easy multi-tasking interface. More than that, he’s cracked the code on what it takes to keep a brand successful. Put simply, keep it releventaly differentiated from anything else on the market.

The user interface on the iPhone, typical in both Jobsian design and functionality, relevantly differentiates the iPhone from other mobile communication devices in kind, rather than degree. It’s not simply a matter of a new look or feature; it’s actually an entirely new way of using a phone. With a high-resolution touch-screen and powered by the basic Apple OS X operating system, iPhone users can shuttle effortlessly from phone to music to video to Internet.

While the iPhone is a no-brainer for the fanatically loyal Apple user base, my predicition is that it will soon become a no-brainer for anyone interested in making the job of multi-tasking easier and more fun. (Would that be most of us?) The fact that Apple has partnered with Cingular, Google, and Yahoo makes the competitive equation even tougher.

In an industry as commoditized as the mobile communication industry, Apple found something relevantly different to offer. This is not just a proprietary technology coup, but a proprietary branding coup. It seems intutive that it would be Apple leading both revolutions.

Recently talked with Jack Sweeny editor of Consulting Magazine on the similarities and differences between consulting and branding firms and how they tackle corporate brand challenges. Take a listen.