Brands must find a new balance between stakeholder interests and engage in reciprocal relationships to create meaningful value. As meaning and value are defined through ongoing dialogue, brands must shift from one-way communication to interactive engagement where they help construct shared meanings. To remain relevant, brands will redefine their relationships and relevance through authentic, personal dialogues that reward all parties.
3. No! But also yes… value is still about creating
more than we consume…
• Increasingly, brands are being questioned about their environmental, societal
and labour ethics, fundamental purpose, values, profit margins and integrity.
• This means brands have to find a balance between their diverse stakeholder
interests – one that satisfies all interest groups.
• Yet, reciprocity of interests was never how business was defined – it therefore
fundamentally questions the global economic paradigms. Yet, there are no
clear answers to it.
• It means business needs to find ways to be more productive, without incurring
greater labour or other costs or making staff work too hard; charging too
much for their brands that it distorts the competitive context or value delivery
equation; use inferior materials in the process of production; distort the value
equation for brand users - or do anything that distorts the input: throughput:
output balance.
• It is arguable as to how a brand can do this sustainably… it will rely upon a
very fine balance of interests of value created and value delivered. And all
have to be totally transparent. There is even a limit to what the very best
value delivery can charge.
6. Can true reciprocity between the owners
of capital and society ever exist?
It will require a new mindset!
And greater levels of transparency and engagement.
Yet, we need to create more than we consume, otherwise we will consume the
planet, as we are doing in some ways today! All resources are part of this
equation, capital, natural resources, clean air & water, people skills, etc.
7. Most brands are parity offers,
they do very little that differentiates.
Consumers even see them as being the
same.
8. Real functional innovation will define
consumer and investor value.
• This undermines value in categories, i.e. airlines.
• This undermines consumer choice, because even if there are many
brands, the lack of discernment makes choice almost incidental.
• This undermines category value.
• Over-time, it erodes brand value.
• The only way out of this remains innovation, hence the battle between
Samsung and Apple.
• Innovation will drive higher demand – but it will arguably only be able to
do that up to a point.
• Transparency sets a theoretical limit upon what innovation can charge.
9. The paradox of innovation.
• Innovation holds the seeds of its own demise, just look at Apple today:
innovation “re-sets” consumer expectations to accelerate at an ever
increasing rate.
• The more you innovate as a brand, the more you need to innovate to
remain competitive. I call it the “paradox of innovation”.
10. How brand development evolves.
Customer needs
& wants.
Current
customer
behaviour. Technological
capabilities.
Current
competitive
context. Convergent
industries & lateral
competitors.
THE TREND LINE
Copying/
traditional
differentiation.
Imagination.
Solving basic
problems people
have.
Creating meaning
around ideas/ concepts.
Brands that solve
basic problems.
Traditional research useful Exploratory, experimental, pilots
11. Understanding people, patterns and how
they create meaning and engage.
• Despite fears of “1984”, we are now able to understand:
– Who, where, how, when and why people use brands.
– What works, what does not.
– What they do to engage with brands and other people.
– What they do to create and destroy meaning for themselves and for other people.
– What issues, patterns, viewpoints, new brands and new trends are out there.
– What is talked about and why it matters to people.
– These patterns are critical to understand how to create brands that will deliver the meaning they
want.
• We need to use the data, digital footprint and information at our disposal to really
understand our customers, track their behaviour, understand how they engage, become part
of their frame-of-reference in a natural way.
• This is why data insights will be the new competitive advantage.
13. As long as people have needs; products &
services get named = yes.
• I find the debate about the future of brands ridiculous: whilst people have needs
and companies make things to satisfy these needs, there will be brands.
• What has changed, is that brands have to balance their price against their value
delivery, unless that is fair, these brands will die. Social media accelerates that.
Industries that have no differentiation and that have become commodities, are
under threat. Yet, even in highly commoditised industries, there are better and
worse players.
• So if there are products and services that service needs better than others, they
will bear a name, hence they will be brands. A good name will distinguish itself
from a bad name – and that remains the essence of branding.
• So I find the “no logo” debate a bit futile, even if I buy the sentiment that
underlies it.
• Whilst integrity is now more important for brands; and having a purpose or ideal
to strive for as a brand – one that is more than just profit, as brand custodians,
we can only be the catalyst to remind of and ensure integrity.
15. The Internet has created a widespread
notion that great content is “free”.
• Whilst there are important exceptions to this rule, it is a fact that the
Internet is dominated by free content.
• Beyond this, there is widespread copying of content, by people who would
never consider themselves being “thieves”.
• Price is no longer a definitive determinant of the quality of content.
• This places serious demands upon marketers and brand owners.
• Whilst the the notion of “value” is endless, the notion of “margin” is finite.
• Why pay for a small, local newspaper brand when you can get a global
medium for free?
• The historic logic of value delivery is totally distorted and there is no clear
answer all agrees to.
• This is a fundamental shift for business with no clear answer.
17. This argument is not new…
• The famous article by Levitt, “Marketing Myopia”, is old, yet most companies still
define their brands within set industries.
• This means we remain parochial as brand owners in how we view competition.
This restricts innovation and brand value.
• Competition is always from the viewpoint of consumer-choice, and often bears
little relationship to traditional competitive boundaries.
• Apple redefined many “categories”, again reinforcing that traditional categories are
often irrelevant to consumer decisions about brands.
– An Apple iPod is an MP3 player, a replacement for CD’s, a replacement for a music store and many
other things… it transcends many existing product categories. It very being made many other things
obsolete.
– As convergence grows, this is true for brands like Google, etc.
• Prof Gary Hamel states that 90% of innovation will come from outside of your
industry, so there is little point in reviewing trends within your industry, you need
to look at other industries.
18. This argument is not new (cont.)…
• Industries are overlapping, replacing one another and converging.
• Consumers are making buying decisions between, alongside and across industries
– very rarely even thinking within traditional industry boundaries of brands.
Consumers find solutions to their problems or yearnings, regardless of where they
come from.
• Brands and their value delivery are thus more important than products or
industries, as brands can transcend categories of needs or given sets of
competitors.
• Yet, most brands are not defined this way.
• This gives rise to what I call “concept brands”, brands whose value-set is greater
than the traditional boundaries of industries. Some brands are more able than
others to transcend categories, i.e. Apple and Sony versus Nokia or Toyota.
19. To re-construct value, you need to de-construct how
customers solve problems & reconstruct how value is
created.
Then you need a serious overlay of imagination.
Useful toolkit from
Osterwalder&Pigneur.
21. All of what a brand will ever do, is to retain and grow the
revenue and margins from the customers we have;
and acquire the customers we want,
at the margins we require and consumers are willing to pay.
This is true for any business.
Acquiring
new
customers.
Increased customer value.
More products, same segments.
Building brand value/ business value.
This is detailed overleaf.
22. The number of clients.
The lifetime value of these clients.
The profit margin of these clients.
÷
At the same or a lesser cost to acquire,
retain and service than rivals.
Actual revenue.
Cash-flow.
Actual profit.
Company value.
Profit margin.
Share price.
Growth potential/ sustainability of revenue & profit stream.
Leveraging customers
to create company
and brand value.
Adapted from: MIT Sloan Management Review, Can Marketing Lift Stock Prices? Summer 2011.
Is a function of:
23. 1. Whatever we do is designed to build company value for
stakeholders, both internally & externally. This may change, but
capital will only be available if the trade-off makes sense to
those who have capital.
Stock market
value
24. 2. The tools we use to do this, are revenue and margin derived
from customers: acquiring them, keeping them and growing
them. At the same or less costs than rival companies.
Leverage the
lifetime
value of the
consumer
Stock market
value
25. 3. This means retaining the right customers, growing their
revenue and margins, and acquiring the desired customers.
Leverage the
lifetime
value of the
consumer
Medium
customer
lifetime value
Low customer
lifetime value
High customer
lifetime value
Negative
customer
lifetime value
Potential high
consumer
lifetime value
Stock market
value
26. 4. To do this, we need to identify the right market opportunity; the right
target customers; the right strategy & the right marketing communications/
media and brand delivery.
At the same or a lesser cost than rivals.
Leverage the
lifetime
value of the
consumer
Medium
customer
lifetime value
Low customer
lifetime value
High customer
lifetime value
Negative
customer
lifetime value
Potential high
consumer
lifetime value
What must be done, and
how must it be done, to
achieve incremental growth.
This sets clear and
measurable objectives,
enables accurate specs and
outlines key activities.
It ensures all activities and
resources are aligned to
achieve business growth.
Stock market
value
27. Creating & managing customer value is a function of various
elements that systematically and incrementally build: it is
unlikely that this equation will ever change.
Brand
Communications
expression
Brand
Trade
expression
Infrastructural & marketing costs to deliver the brand
Market
opportunity
or GAP
Value
proposition &
strategy
The alignment of those elements that construct brand value for the
customer
X X X
Brand sales;
brand margin
Brand
delivery
Market, industry and competitive factors
X
The marketplace results achieved
Growth is incremental and multiplies results: the greater the alignment, the better and more efficient the
outcome, conversely, the non-alignment of an element undermines the process of value creation. Optimal
alignment = optimal resource alignment.
28. Brand relevance lies in an ongoing dialogue in
which “brand meaning” is defined and re-
defined.
29. From one-way communication to interactive
engagement.
• The traditional notion was that brand names & identities were “short-hands”
for the brands and what they offer.
• Today, I believe they are instruments of reciprocal engagement between brand
interest groups.
• This means they are:
– Active, not passive.
– Variable.
– Not just identifiers.
– They become the “language” by which a brand engages, not just a name and identity. The
more a brand can create a new language, the stronger it will be. The more it can create its
own set of symbols, dialogue, words, associations, new terminology, new icons, new set of
meanings, the stronger it will bond with contemporary issues and people. This means brands
will either evolve - or they will die.
– They become “creators of meaning” (compare Roberto Verganti), hence a process of value
creation where the brand constructs meaning and value through its ongoing engagement with
customers and other stakeholders.
– This inverts the traditional brand paradigm, where “meaning” is owned by the brand owner.
Now meaning and its related value is in constant flux and gets redefined all the time.
30. “Meaning” is a function of the information contained.
That in turn, is a function of the “new-ness” & “meaningful-ness” of the
information.
That means the process of engagement, determines the value of the meaning
created. So much of the value of a brand lies in how it engages with me… in
brand design terms, this means the traditional concept of “information-
design” gets far greater traction.
31. Meaning gets created in an ongoing
dialogue…
Real dialogue depends upon true reciprocity…
authenticity depends upon the mutual give of meaning...
“Meaning” will only be “meaningful” if it is rewarding to all.
32. Google redefines the relationship and degree of relevance it has
every day… outside of defining the brand, it defines its
access, accessibility, authenticity, IQ and EQ.
Google becomes “me”, and I become my own Google.
This means it awakens fresh
interest in, a new relationship with,
a growing expectation from the
brand every day, hence it redefines
the brand meaning every day. The
brand listens & responds & grows…
hence its value gets redefined.
34. Value is exponential to the degree of
engagement that takes place.
More = Better.
Greater quality = Better.
More meaningful (new) = Better.
More personal = Better.
More unique = Better.
Too structured = Bad.
Too inflexible = Bad.
Too “me” = Bad.
“I” = Good.
36. Conclusions.
• The paradigm is shifting.
• A new context, content, demands a new way of working.
• This means:
– A new reciprocity between the interest groups, one that has no simple and clear answer about how
reciprocal value will be created yet.
– Increased emphasis upon brand value creation.
– A more complex environment where most content is free, undermining the definition of value
further.
– Redefining the ways in which brands are created, managed and how value is delivered to consumers.
– A change in how brands engage with consumers and in how meaning is created.
• Defining an era of meaningful brands, engaging in meaningful ways, delivering
meaning to all stakeholders in a manner that is reciprocal.
• Underlying this, will remain consistent ways in which a brand is managed, but it
will require greater insights, use of information and imagination: to create
meaning in which all stakeholders will benefit.
• Meaninglessness will have no value and no role.
• As brand custodians, what is our role in creating this new meaning?