For the last ten years we’ve heard no end of tales about the triumph of the Internet over mass marketing. Some robust sources like Wired have informed us that brands are in decline and some, like the American Marketing Association have even declared that “Brands are Dead“. Jonathon Salem Baskin announced in his book that “Branding Only Works on Cattle”.
Before we get to the answer we have to have a working definition of what a brand is. Surprisingly, many business-people (not necessarily marketers) still think that a “brand” is a “logo”. That’s not true. Crucially, a brand is not a thing, it’s a set of perceptions that exists in the minds of consumers. A brand is a collection of perceptions about pricing, quality and consumption experiences. Brands are defined in consumers’ minds by the recommendations, criticisms, tastes, and “jobs well done” they themselves have experienced or heard about. On top of all this, the brand logo is the “brand mark”. To use an analogy based on roads, the brand mark is the sign that says “M1″, but it’s not the motorway. The product is the motorway, the brand mark is “M1″ and the brand itself is what people think and feel about the M1 as means of transport relative to other options.
Now let’s swing back to the Internet. The Internet is of course a glorious place where the consumer reigns supreme and the truths about products and services are revealed to all. In this Utopian dream, companies, brands, corporates and institutions can no longer ‘hoodwink’ the consumer. Consumers can “talk directly” with brands and have a customised one-to-one relationship based on “digital conversations”. All things from the past are now aged and obsolete
Well that’s one point of view. The Internet is also something else. It is a ‘cesspit of false information’. With no barriers to entry and nearly frictionless production and distribution, it’s easy for false information, lies, doctored images, and other forms of deception to infiltrate the Internet. Now that’s not my point of view, it belongs to Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google and the engineer of its post invention growth.  Yes, the Internet is also the home of spam, cloaking, deception, bank account thefts, fraud, consumer scams, false and misleading reviews, viruses, trojans, hacking and many other types of cyber crime.
So, where does this leave brands in the digital age? I’d argue that the truths represented by brands coupled with the complexities of increased choice and the realities of the darker side of the Internet mean that brands are more vital now than ever before. The world is getting more complex because more choice is being offered. Many sources of products and information can’t be trusted. Consumers use brands to help simplify decision making. Brands are ‘the solution not the problem’ according to Eric Schmidt at Google, ‘brands are how you sort out the cesspool’.
Follow us on Twitter
Trevor Beattie brings PR into BMB
Trevor Beattie’s BMB agency has announced the launch of an in-house PR function and in the process one of the founders, Andrew McGuinness broadened his definition of what BMB does from advertising to ‘publicity’. As moves by one of the UK’s strongest creative agencies, these developments are worthy of reflection. I see two points of interest:
First, BMB’s move into PR could indicate the arrival a new agency philosophy. The Internet has created a new mechanism for consumers to better inform their purchasing decisions. Opinion on any product or service is now just a click away. There’s been a democratisation of product information. Communities of consumers can exchange notes on any brand. Non-users can easily access these online opinions to inform their own decision making. The formation of brand attitudes is no longer closed and personal, it’s open and communal. As a result, almost anything that costs more than about £20 is now habitually researched on the Internet before being bought. It follows that any agency in the business of helping companies sell products or services needs to understand and respond to this information rich buying model. By putting PR at the heart of their ‘publicity’ offering, BMB are recognising that brand information can be as important as brand imagery.
Second, ‘publicity’ is a great definition of marketing communications. After the 90’s shopping sprees to buy direct marketing, research and experiential agencies new terms for our industry were emerging left, right and centre. The buzz words became ‘360 degree integration’, ‘total communications’ and ‘media neutrality’. Saatchi and Saatchi’s Charlotte Street entrance signage tracked these changes nicely; the agency used to be called “Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising” proudly announcing that it was in the business of making ads and nothing else. Then I noticed the sign over 80 Charlotte Street was reading “Saatchi and Saatchi Communications” as the agency aimed to get into a wider basket of additional marketing services. Now, perhaps on the basis that less is more, the sign reads simply “Saatchi and Saatchi”, with the agency preferring to define itself by nothing more than its name.
At the end of the day we are trying to make something more famous and better thought of than it was yesterday. But we don’t seem to like simple definitions. For me, the word ‘publicity’ is unashamedly simple and so very strong. It’s also the term used by two of the greatest brand managers the world has ever seen; Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham.