Creating brand instrumentality beyond the product

Dr. Dan Herman

The main reason for the general fascination with brands is their ability to provide the consumers an extra value in addition to what the product\service\company themselves can provide. A value which becomes the major motivation for consumers to desire the product. Everybody agrees about that, but from here on it becomes foggy. First of all, what is this value exactly? We know, for instance, of the ability of a brand to signal belonging to a certain group or status but there are some who talk about brands as the objects of the consumer’s love (for instance: Kevin Roberts the CEO of "Saatchi & Saatchi") or even as a religion (as Young & Rubicam declared). Also, how precisely is this value being added and incorporated into the brand? Advertising professionals say it is advertising. They’ll love the ad – they’ll love the brand. Or: if they’ll see emotions in the ad – they’ll develop emotions towards the brand. Other marketing experts are saying lately that "a consistent and total brand experience" is the answer. So what should one do if he wishes to develop a brand? In this short article I attempt to provide a clear answer to both of these key questions and to suggest a workable approach to creating value added brands.

{viewonly=registered,special}But first of all I’d like to review three very common approaches to brand development. These approaches are used by many marketers with help from their advertising agencies, their consultants, their branding companies and their design firms. These approaches although widespread – are not very well founded theoretically and my observations confirm that they do not yield truly strong brands. The three approaches from which I advise you to beware are: the "decoration" approach, the "gluing" approach and the "Golem" approach (of Prague, London or New-York).

The "decoration" approach sees differentiation as a matter of appearance. "We branded ourselves" say the practitioners of the approach and mean that special name, logo and "look" have been created for their in a seemingly sophisticated development process. "We look different from our competitors, and therefore consumers will conceive us as different" they maintain. This naive approach barely exists anymore on its own. It is usually spiced with elements taken from the next two approaches to give it more credibility.

Followers of the second approach, the "gluing" approach, venture to attach "brand values" and other desirable meaning and associations to the name, the logo and the look from the previous approach. The rationale goes like this: "The consumer will see the values she holds dear, her coveted lifestyle or some characteristics she esteems (size/leadership, advanced technology) portrayed in our messages and will immediately feel that this is a brand that suits her". Some of them, enthusiasts of the "emotional branding" approach claim that they attach emotions to the brand in virtually the same manner (e.g. stir or model these target emotions in advertising).

In the third approach, the "golem" approach, branders embark to create a human-like entity with personality and even charisma, which is capable of having a relationship with the consumers and can make them love.

To my great regret this article is too short to allow an extensive discrediting of these three approaches which, I believe, lead companies astray to miss the true potential that lies in brands. Instead, I would like to suggest an alternative approach which I find to be much more fruitful and far better substantiated by current psychological and sociological theory and research.

Surprisingly, the basic logic for developing a brand with an added value is amazingly similar to the logic of product development. In both cases we create for a consumer a tool or means, to do something he wants to do. It’s important to understand what "wants to do" is. From my point of view, if the consumer wants to uplift/relax/excite/entertain himself, strengthen his self image, fantasize of an alternate reality, or any other psychological usage – that is something he wants to do.