Music Matters

Pic2a

For most of us music is an inescapable facet of everyday life. We all listen to it. In fact, on average, most of us spend around 18 hours each week actively doing so and many more hours passively consuming it in our living environment.

Extensive research has shown how important a role music can play in influencing our emotions, our mood and even our purchase decisions.

So how exactly does music affect us?

Music makes us feel better  

Certain types of music can stimulate the release of the neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine in the brain—which can make us feel happy and contented while regulating anxiety and stress. It also releases noradrenaline, which is a hormone that invokes feelings of euphoria

Rhythm and tone affect our emotions. More specifically, our hearts sync to the rhythms we listen to. Slow, reflective music, for instance, slows down our heartbeat and causes us to relax. Conversely, when we listen to fast-paced music it stimulates  more energetic neural activity, invoking feelings of excitement.

Similarly, if we are experiencing a stressful time, listening to angry-sounding music with an aggressive tone can actually help us release any internalised emotions. When we feel sad or contemplative, listening to soft, melancholic music can have a cathartic effect by helping to draw-out and express what we are feeling.

The power of suggestion

Humankind is remarkably good at recognising, and subconsciously responding to, information that follows recognisable patterns. We intuitively connect familiar motifs and sensual cues to make quick, instinctive judgements. Music provides some of the most powerful and evocative sensual cues of all and can trigger remarkably potent inferences based on unconsciously-learned associations.

Here are some examples:

  • The first few bars of a particular march from Mendlessohn’s opera ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ immediately evokes a wedding ceremony
  • A short extract of Leroy Anderson’s ‘Sleigh Ride’, or a few seconds of a seasonal favourite by Wizard or Slade, immediately suggests Christmas
  • The sound of bright (slightly distorted) musical chimes playing a traditional tune will, for many, immediately evoke an ice cream van (and Mr Whippy?)

Congruence

When several sensual cues are in harmony they become mutually reinforcing and collectively point, with greater certainty, towards the same conclusion. Such sensory clues are deemed to be ‘congruent’ and as more such cues are gathered our subconscious mind tends to expect new information to follow the same pattern. If, for example, you invite someone out for a romantic dinner they will take-in the soft lighting, the candles on the table and perhaps the alluring scent you’re wearing; in the corner a harpist is gently playing ‘Claire de Lune’ by Debussy. These cues are all seamlessly congruent, each reinforcing and in harmony with the others.

Incongruence is caused when a new cue fails to fit the expected pattern. If for example, your romantic evening is suddenly interrupted by a heavy metal band tuning-up in the next room, the arrival of a loud party of diners on the next table, or by an unpleasant smell wafting in through the window, the spell is broken and the conscious mind kicks-in to challenge and correct the subconscious assumptions. Incongruity makes situations harder and slower to comprehend because it forces us to actively process information, which demands conscious effort, rather than accepting it subconsciously.

Music can reinforce fluent behavioural associations

Restaurateurs have long known that classical music can influence customers to choose more expensive food and wine and to savour it for longer; whereas up-beat pop or rock music can encourage people to eat more quickly and move-on.

Pic4a

Pic4bA recent US study found that music can be  even more  directive. Diners in the study were given a menu offering a choice between an Italian pasta dish and a Spanish paella dish. Traditional Italian music was played on the first night and traditional Spanish music was played on the second night. Although the Italian dish remained the preferred choice on both nights, the number choosing the Spanish paella doubled on the second night (from 17% to 34%). Of the 300 diners participating in the study only two had consciously noticed the effect that the music might have had in making their decision.

A similarly designed UK study observed the effect that background music had on customers choosing wine in a retail store. A shelf was arranged with French and German wine carefully matched for price and quality. Traditional French (accordion) music or traditional   German (Bierkeller band) music was played as customers chose their wine. On French music days 77% of the wine sold was French, while on German music days 73% was German. In other words, customers were three or four times more likely to choose wine that matched the music than wine that did not.

Once again, only 1 out of the 44 customers questioned at the checkout mentioned music having been a factor in their decision-making. Nine out of ten of those asked specifically whether the music had affected their choice said that it definitely had not.

The behavioural influence of the music in both cases was enormous, but customers neither noticed, nor even believed, that it had any effect on them

Q1

Congruity is more important than likability

Do you ever go into a restaurant, bar, hotel or retail store and wonder how or why the background music was chosen? In many cases it seems to have been randomly selected according to the taste of the manager, rather than for its fit with the environment.

Another study, this time conducted in Germany, has shown that, after being ‘at the right volume’, the most important consideration when judging the music for a particular environment (e.g. retail space, bar or restaurant) is its perceived aptness, or ‘congruity’ with the environmental experience. In fact this was found to be four times as important as having music that was ‘liked’ or ‘popular’ (even by the manager). In practical terms this is best illustrated by an expressed preference for traditional Indian music by diners in Indian restaurants across London—none of whom had such music on their smart phones, nor would any of them ever choose to listen to listen to it any other context.

Music and brands

A brand is the perception of a promise that lives in the minds of its audiences. The strength of these perceptions is a function of the number of ‘congruent’ clues that coalesce into a promise with clearly defined expectations. One of the most important sources for such clues is any music associated with the brand. The emotional response to such music shapes our perceptions of the brand and, when it is congruent with the brand values, serves to reinforce the brand promise. Over time the brand may even become synonymous with the music—take, for example, the ‘Flower Duet’ (from the opera Lakmé by Delibes) and British Airways, or ‘1,2,3,4’ by Feist which still evokes the launch of the Apple iPod Nano from 2007, while   the drum solo from ‘In the Air Tonight’ by Phil Collins is inextricably linked with Cadbury’s chocolate. Those with longer memories may still recall the image of a Peugeot 405 driving through burning cane fields when they hear ‘Take My Breath Away’ by Berlin, or the line “Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet” when they hear Bach’s ‘Air on a G String’ even though neither has been seen on TV or cinema screens for over 25—the music for each having been remembered for considerably longer than any other aspect of either brand.

Pic1

How the right music can help build your brand

As we have seen, the right music can be used to provide additional clues about a brand, giving it a stronger and more enduring appeal without audiences even consciously realising. It deepens emotional connections and underpins core values by reinforcing the brand experience customers have instinctively come to know and trust.

If, however, we contradict or rupture what is currently assembled in their mind they may consciously reconsider their understanding of the brand and maybe even reject it.

Brands are like people…

Imagine, if you will, that your rather conservative grandmother hated jazz music.  She had never seen the point of it and frankly could not understand anyone who did. For as long as you can remember, she had always hated jazz music.

Then one day you find her listening to Jazz, nodding her head in pleasure and tapping her foot in rhythm… you ask her what she is doing and she looks up and replies:

“Hey, I’m just getting into the groove with my favourite music. You have to hear this trumpet solo, I’ve always loved this number…” 

You would have every right to feel confused. Perhaps a little annoyed—even cheated. The person who you thought you knew so well is behaving in a manner that defies your understanding, because it is incongruent with your expectations. Now substitute the figure of your mother with a brand with which you feel a particular empathy and with whose values particularly resonate with your own.

That is how it feels when a known and familiar brand behaves out of character, for example by being identified with the ‘wrong’ music!

Incongruity damages trust in brands, just as it does with people.

They capture your audience’s emotions

Neurologist, Donald Calne has observed that:
“The essential difference between reason and emotion is that
reason leads to conclusions, but emotion leads to actions” 

Rational arguments, therefore, may be a vital component in convincing your audience to make the right decision, but emotional responses are the essential component that enable them to believe that they have made the right decision. Music can play a vital role in generating the emotional appeal your brand needs by reinforcing its distinctiveness, creating empathy with its target audience and maintaining a consistent and familiar experience.

How to choose the right music?

There are many models, tools and approaches that we can use to determine the music that best fits the purpose and values of a particular brand. In the light of our recent research in this sector, and for the sake of discussion, we will look at three top-level themes most pertinent to a destination or service brand targeting international business audiences.

We will call these:

  1. Country music
  2. Tribal Music
  3. Mood music

1. Country Music 

Pic6

For some brands ‘country of origin’ is a key component of their distinctive identity (e.g. Harrods, Volvo, Chanel, Fosters, Victorinox, Muji)

 

 

 

 

 

Questions to consider:

  • How important is the country of origin to the appeal of my brand?
  • How can I leverage the appeal of national music to add value to the identity of my brand?
  • What kind of national music is relevant? How and where can it be used to reinforce the appeal?

2. Tribal Music 

Pic7People naturally cluster into like-minded or culturally-aligned ‘tribes’. These may be defined by a shared lifestyle, religion, demographic or perhaps an expressed preference (for a football team… or musical hero or genre)

Music can become the cultural signifier of choice for some devotees of a particular artist, band or genre and it becomes an important part of their own identity (e.g. goths, rappers, etc.) or image (culture vultures, etc.)

This can be polarising, as music that strongly connects with one tribe can seem quite repellant to another…

Questions to consider:

  • To what extent do my audiences cluster into distinct music ‘tribes’ or genre types?
  • How can I leverage the appeal of particular music to add value to the identity of my brand?
  • How can I segment my audiences to provide each group with the music they will best respond to?

3. Mood Music 

Pic8Music has a powerful ability to set the scene in any situation and the right choice of mood music can be critical to setting the right tone.

The starting point is to define what mood is being sought.

Do we want people to be attentive or put at ease?

Stimulated or relaxed? Should they feel challenged, enthused and expressive or reflective, thoughtful and earnest?

One of the most powerful ways to get the mood right is to start by getting the music right!

Questions to consider:

  • How do I want my audience to feel emotionally?
  • What do I want audiences to remember about the character and implied ‘mood’ of my brand? 
  • How can I leverage the different effects that different kinds of music can have on my audiences and use this for different purposes at different moments?

Conclusion

  • Music is a widely appreciated and powerful means of communication which can strongly influence choice and preference.
  • Choosing music that fits is much more effective than choosing music we like.
  • The right music will build distinctiveness, relevance and consistency for our brand as well as reinforcing its instinctive, emotional appeal.
  • Music that empathises with national or regional identity can be particularly powerful for some brands. The culture of the audiences should also be carefully taken into account. Finally remember the mood and emotional ambiance that you are seeking to create.
  • From today make a point of listening to the music that surrounds you and question how it could be better… after all, music matters.
Advertisements

The Right Brain Drain?

RightBrandDrain

20 years ago there was a hot topic in marketing circles:
Will management consultancies take the place of advertising agencies?

In November 1997 Campaign magazine published a feature under the title: ‘I’m only a client but…’. It argued, from a client’s perspective, that consultancies were confidently outclassing agencies in the boardroom, not just analytically and operationally but strategically in the area of brand planning. Above all, their professional credibility, outside the creative cloisters of the marketing department, was more widely appreciated, as was their ability to command robust fees for intelligence and intellectual guidance (without a creative execution in which to hide them—a traditional agency tactic).

Plus ça change! The topic seems as topical today as they did then. Given that the feature was mine, I thought I would look again at the subject with the benefit of 20 years’ hindsight.

RBD_1

Of course, much water has passed under the marketing services bridge since then. The evolution of agencies (and the umbrella groups that operate them) has been steered partly by a quantum shift towards what has become known as ‘digital’ and partly by tighter client budgets, combined with higher expectations of cost-efficiency and accountability.

But while agencies may have become leaner,  more serious and arguably less hedonistic places to work, they remain as focused as ever on producing inspiring ‘right brain’ creative solutions from the pencils (now made by Apple) of the brightest creative talent they can hire. The days of the national TV network spot might have passed, but creative teams remain as ambitious and competitive as ever to make their mark and to win the admiration of their peers (formalised by annual industry jamborees in Cannes and elsewhere), agency ‘suits’ gush proudly to their clients who, in turn, glow with satisfaction as they mentally add another accolade to their CV and re-plot their career trajectory.

The drama and emotion of this ‘right brain’ culture, whether by default or design, has remained a significant factor in differentiating agencies from their consultancy interlopers and may be the key factor in assuring their future survival.

The great cultural divide

In essence, the archetypal consulting mindset is set on adding demonstrable value through intellectual solutions that will direct, shape or reconfigure a business to meet its corporate objectives and, ultimately, enhance shareholder value. As Bain Consulting puts it: “our mission is to help management teams create such high levels of economic value that together we redefine our respective industries”. Consultancies typically research and determine best practice then stress-test potential solutions to destruction before they are implemented—along with the performance metrics needed to monitor and demonstrate their impact. When the engagement is complete, it will become a case study on which future best practice is based. It will then be tagged and filed for global reference across the firm.

The agency archetype, by comparison, has licence to take a somewhat less empirically-grounded and more imaginative approach. In their quest to deliver emotionally-engaging creative solutions they are expected to demonstrate the courage of their convictions (rather than their analyses) and even champion seemingly uncertain solutions because they are ‘exactly the big idea the client needs’—even if the client does not yet know it. When they get it right the impact can be game changing and the client’s investment will be returned many times over. Or it may not.

RBD_2

An article in Forbes magazine recently claimed that ‘Consultants Are Eating The Agencies’ Three-Martini Lunch’. The analogy is evocative but I venture that a three-Martini lunch is about as alien to the cultural milieu of most consultants as a Boots Meal Deal would be to Don Draper. We might humour the metaphor, however, to illustrate the cultural contrast between consultancies and agencies. Suppose you were a marketing director intent on enjoying a bowl of lunchtime soup and that the choice was between a consultancy and an agency. The consultancy would be a bit like a dependably good, masterfully-blended soup from a reputable team of chefs at a decent establishment in a comfortable part of town. They know exactly what you came for, every ingredient has been certified, you get precisely what they promised and leave feeling confident that you got what you paid for and the cost was justified. The agency, on the other hand, would be the soup of the day from a highly creative, if slightly unpredictable, gastro boutique in an edgier part of town. The ingredients are artfully chosen and come together with varying degrees of success, there is rarely a dull moment in the kitchen and the the chef’s potential for culinary magic is legendary. On a good day you will be so enraptured that you’ll want to tell the rest of the world. On a bad day you just hope no one sees how much you’ve just paid.

The changing professional landscape

But times are changing. The gulf that once divided the two worlds appears to be eroding as the functional gap between their services is bridged. After years dipping their toes into the water consultancies are now jumping in with both feet. Whether they sink or swim is, ultimately, another story but there are some important reasons why their moment has come. Here are some of the key drivers for this:

  1. The rising predominance of cloud-based enterprise software (Microsoft 365, Salesforce, Oracle, etc.) has meant that technology-focused consultancies (notably Accenture, IBM, Cap Gemini, etc.) have seen a steady shift in client focus away from the analysis and management of client systems towards the implementation of e-commerce solutions and the provision of digital content and services.

Impact: agencies experienced in developing the digital content needed by clients have become irresistible targets to consultancies keen to integrate these functions into their client offering.

  1. Marketing chiefs no longer see traditional communications channels as stand-alone activities, rather they are integrated into a spectrum of activities virtually all of which, from data analysis to customer relationships, are now managed and tracked digitally. In fact they are equipped like never before to track the returns on every marketing investment, at every stage in their customers’ journeys from a galaxy of digital communications platforms and applications to traditional broadcast media. Perhaps still more seminal is the enhanced ability to pretest creative concepts which can now be more quickly, accurately and economically rendered and assessed before they are rolled-out. This helps dispel some of the agency world’s traditional mystique and reduces the client’s former dependence on an agency’s ‘black box’ of experience and intuition for creative counsel. As the obstacles to integrating an agency’s activities into the rest of the marketing programme are overcome, so the reasons not to incorporate these activities into an integrated portfolio of services that the consultancy can manages, also fades.

Impact: Consultancies are already measuring and managing all manner of wider digital activities for clients. Now that marketing communications activities have become easier to integrate it would seem illogical not to do the same with them.

  1. Most client organisations need to be able to think and act with ever more seamless global integrity. The major consultancy groups are equipped to deliver client services of a similarly global nature with operations that are consistently and systematically coordinated, have low internal inertia and which complement the needs of their clients. Most agencies, if they have an international network at all, are rarely consistent across them and, in many cases, comprise a patchwork of variable local capabilities held together by a squirts of corporate glue from the parent group. If a consultancy could credibly extend its offer to include high-quality, strategically-aligned and creatively-consistent communications solutions as part of its global service, it would have an extremely compelling client proposition.

Impact: Global clients looking for properly-integrated global solutions are driving consultancies to find ways of incorporating the services currently provided by various local agencies, networks and groups.

  1. Perhaps one of the qualities most highly sought in business over the past decade or so has been ‘innovation’. A McKinsey study reported that 70% of senior executives rated ‘innovation’ among the top three drivers of growth for their companies. It is, by definition, the act of finding new ways of doing things, seeking fresh perspectives and novel approaches. Being innovative, essentially, means harnessing creativity. Consultants instinctively analyse, research and interrogate to determine best practice proven by precedent. Agencies do the opposite, they intuitively generate inspiring new ideas that could never have resulted from deductive analysis. In fact, so inspiring are some of their best ideas that, even though they might not strictly answer the brief, they are simply too good not to be used. Which begs the question: would a client wanting an innovation workshop be better served by a lamentation of left-brain consultants or a radiance of right-brain agency types? Yet it is consultancies who are often tasked to address the need for business innovation. By acquiring more right-brain resources they could become cerebrally ambidextrous—the best of both worlds.

Impact: Consultancies are keen to access the kind of creative and intuitive thinking that agencies have always mastered. They can leverage it across a range of business services and they know their clients will pay for it (NB: they can also package it considerably more profitably than an agency could).RBD_3

Little wonder that Anatoly Roytman, MD of Accenture Interactive for EMEA, was recently reported as saying that he wanted Accenture to become the world’s biggest digital agency, adding that: “CMOs have to think about more than advertising and communications in a connected world that is going through digital transformation… brands need an agency to manage the whole consumer experience and every touchpoint along the way, from the inception of an idea to developing and designing a product, building awareness and then selling and distributing it… Accenture Interactive can be this new breed of shop… we are close to being able to do the entire spectrum”. But it is not a one-way street. Agencies, too, have  much to gain from joining forces with consultancies. Most notably the promise of C-suite credibility which has long blighted agencies’ client standing, from this comes the opportunity to influence the strategic thinking that leads to the brief and the potential to leverage this to climb out of the tightening marketing implementation niche into which they have allowed themselves to be squeezed. Recent revelations about major FMCG cut-backs will intensify the imperative to find solutions. In such circumstances long-held objections to partnering with consultancies might give way to the need for change to survive.

So is it just a matter of time before marketing services agencies morph into divisions of management consultancies?

It would probably look that way through the lens of a consultancy. From their perspective it would appear to be a logical progression, with all the concomitant cost-saving, efficiency benefits and growth opportunities. Indeed, rumour has it that Accenture has already made overtures to WPP with potential collaboration, perhaps even a merger, in mind.

The fly in the consultancy soup?

RBD_5Creativity (unlike the analytical prowess, intellectual horsepower and rational analysis that we associate with ‘left-brain thinking’) is a uniquely fickle human talent. To thrive it needs nurturing and encouragement. Great creative ideas often lurk among ridiculous ones, they may even depend on them to get noticed, they can come from the most unexpected places and might only snap into focus after other, more promising-looking ones, have been eliminated. Creative agencies are built around incubating them, it is their raison d’être. They indulge artistic temperaments, giving them licence to navel-gaze for days with nothing to show before finally, all being well and often at the eleventh hour, they are presented with something that brings a tear to their eye (preferably in a good way). Consultancies, for all their extraordinary capabilities in adding structural value and implementing outstanding solutions across the rest of the client’s business, simply cannot and never will work this way. Their engagements are well-planned, their time carefully monitored and their thinking critically appraised while their deliverables are tested and quantified (and rarely cried over). To incorporate more ‘right-brain’ thinking into their offering would mean being willing to embrace a fundamentally different management approach to sustain it. The evidence suggests that if it were that straightforward it would probably have happened years ago and agencies would be a legacy of the past. Anecdotally, it has been suggested that those agencies that have joined consultancy groups gradually take fewer creative risks and start to become more like their owners.

We have all seen, heard or read about creatively-inspired boutiques, studios, restaurants, musical instrument makers, luxury goods manufacturers, car makers, et al, who have been taken under the wing of well-meaning, if over-ambitious corporate parents promising to improve and expand them, only to see their creativity stifled by management incompatibilities and their creative lifeblood drained away. Yes, it can sometimes work, but often it does not. The challenge of creativity, then, lies in the culture.

It’s the culture stupid 

RBD_6As WPP’s Sir Martin Sorrel recently commented “it is much harder to scale creative than technology… one is more science and one is more art”. Creative thinkers need the right conditions to be fruitful and rarely blossom in a rigid, results-driven culture like that of most consultancies. Sorrel knows that maintaining a positive agency culture is a prerequisite to getting the right results, hence his strategy of ‘horizontality’ (encouraging independently-managed agencies across WPP to work together as one). The emphasis here is one of lateral cooperation (which preserves autonomy and creative integrity) rather than vertical control (which would impose restrictions that would stifle creative thinking). Contrast this with the stance of Accenture’s Roytman who is reported to have said that: “[agency holding companies] have got a big, big challenge. To ensure you have the correct set-up, when you have so many [agency] brands that are not collaborating, that are not integrated, it’s very difficult. They have to collapse themselves and create one P&L”. This kind of rationalisation sounds eminently practical for a manufacturing or distribution empire, but could risk compromising the cultural sensibilities on which agencies depend.

Of course agencies can and must be rationalised and merged from time to time, but to do this fruitfully often involves a measure of ego-massaging, personal assurances and face-saving title-aggrandising if more is to be gained than lost by the disruption. Even WPP, which is well practiced in such change, handles agency rationalisation with caution: “To make an omelette, you have to break eggs and I think you risk breaking too many” said Sir Martin after coming under pressure to be more radical in rationalising the agencies in his group. The functional and systematic approach typically taken by most consultancies’ would probably break as many eggs as necessary to arrive at the structure deemed to be most efficient—it would also be less likely to take account of the soft needs of particular talents on which the future value of the agency relies.

Maybe one of the reasons why the most creative agency groups have the most complicated structures is because they have evolved around the creative talent that lays the golden eggs which hatch into remarkable solutions. Rationalising them into high-efficiency creative delivery systems might be the equivalent of turning them into creative battery farms, which may indeed be more productive in churning-out eggs but, to borrow Mr Sorrel’s analogy, it is likely to result in a very large, but bland and forgettable, omelette.

Nurturing a creative culture

Creative agencies are not unique in their need to nurture the creative talent that becomes lifeblood of their future success. Innovation is at the heart of companies like Google, Apple, Starbucks and Dyson, all of which have been eager to resolve the cultural incompatibilities between running a systematically-planned, international operation—with all the control needed to maintain corporate efficiency–while also fostering a creative environment that values and rewards creativity. Each has invested heavily in developing distinctive solutions, from physical space (Jonathan Ive’s Apple Park circular campus in Cupertino: “the most creatively inspiring office building in the world”) and cultural environment (Google has been fostering links between its new London operation in Kings Cross and the neighbouring Central St Martins School of Art to be in: “one of the highest concentrations of brilliant, creative people in London”) to developing a corporate mindset willing to take risks on potentially ruinous new product initiatives (Starbucks closed down 7,100 stores to retrain its baristas and ran a ‘Tweet-a-Coffee’ promotion offering free coffees to customers’ friends, or Dyson’s ‘Animal’ cordless, bagless, vacuum cleaner which launched at more than twice the price level of its established competitors). They work hard to break down rigid internal structures to accommodate smaller operating units with greater freedom to explore new ideas without the distraction of short-term financial imperatives. The antithesis, you might think, of a consultancy culture where the norm is to rationalise everything put it into one P&L. Just to be clear, some of my best friends are consultants and consultancies are where some of the most intelligent and capable people I have ever worked are to be found. But they are different horses for different courses than agencies.

RBD_7As Rory Sutherland of Ogilvy recently quipped: “The most vital thing in an ad agency, is that you have a culture where its okay to fail, a culture wherein you can make stupid suggestions and still get promoted”. Perhaps consultancies will, one day, create and sustain such a work culture.

Only when, and if, that happens will agencies be a thing of the past.

Once upon a time there was a brand…

gorillaA recent advertising campaign for a certain low-cost supermarket made me smile. It used a tried and tested formula involving a taste test between two similar looking products, one a known and trusted, premium Swiss chocolate brand, the other their own-brand alternative. Discerning chocophiles, after declaring their devotion to the Swiss brand and confidently asserting their ability always to recognise it, are flabbergasted to discover they actually prefer the taste of the supermarket product. It makes me smile not because of its novelty or insight but because it succinctly illustrates two of the key factors of successful brand management.

Promise: make a clear and compelling brand promise to attract the right audience.

Delivery: consistently deliver against that promise to maintain enthusiasm and build loyalty.

No matter what the brand or sector, if the promise is insufficiently relevant and differentiated in the target audiences’ minds they can hardly be expected to maintain a preference for it, particular if a competitor comes along with what appears to be a brighter, shinier proposition. Similarly, however compelling the promise, if your brand fails to deliver against it, they will not stay fooled for long.

The image of lipstick on a gorilla, as an analogy for a brand pretending to be something it isn’t, often seems to strike a chord (visit our website and you’ll see what I mean). Perhaps we might extend the analogy by imagining the customer as a fairytale prince (which should, in itself, prove cathartic) and that the brand is the princess of his dreams with whom he wants to live happily ever after (brand loyalty personified).Q1

We can then think of the brand in the guise of one of the following caricatures:

1. A princess 

A compelling promise, perfectly delivered

The ingredients for a long-term relationship. But remember, there are other princesses being preened to distract the prince, so keep an eye on them and give him no reason to look elsewhere.

2. A gorilla dressed-up as a princess

A compelling promise, hideously delivered

All that pretence will be worth nothing when the prince finds out the truth. She needs a fundamental transformation. Fast. Otherwise she’ll get dumped and, when word gets out, her reputation will be ruined.

3. A princess in a gorilla suit 

An unappealing promise whose delivery might exceed expectations.

There is little point in exceeding expectations if those expectations are so low you that you don’t get invited to the ball (er, shortlist). With so many tempting alternatives on offer what self-respecting (and a little image-conscious) prince will take the risk? She needs nothing less than a total makeover, a fresh aroma, sparkling conversation and a confident smile.

4. A gorilla

An unappealing promise, hideously delivered.

Best not to waste any more time or money on this one. She belongs in the zoo, not the ball.

 

Of course, such caricatures exaggerate to make a point. But perhaps you will recognise some aspects of them in your own brand? The second and third analogies are particularly apposite for most brands. For example:

Your brand might lean towards being a gorilla dressed-up as a princess if:

Trial is high, but loyalty is low (delivery fails to live up to expectations)

The experience surrounding the brand is underwhelming or inconsistent with it

The brand promise erodes or shifts from the one that originally attracted them

Your brand, similarly, be something of a princess in a gorilla suit if:

It has relatively few customers but the ones it has are happy and loyal

Potential customers are reluctant to take a risk and give it a try

It is hard to win distribution even though it is arguably better than its rivals

So, could that supermarket chocolate bar be likened to a princess in a gorilla suit? Well, if what she offers really is as satisfying as the glamorous rival she is ‘aping’, then yes. If, on the other hand, we are being conned with a false promise, she really could be nothing more than the gorilla we always suspected. You’re the prince. You decide!
Q2

What’s in a Name?

Desert_Fox “How do you do?” said the smartly-dressed man with a refined German accent, “my name is Günter”. We continued with the meeting and Günter immediately engaged with intelligent, well-articulated arguments and persuasive insights. Perhaps, with hindsight, I just imagined it but he seemed unusually keen on robust, but good-natured, confrontations with his colleagues usually with a mischievous glint in his eye. We broke for coffee. “I suppose you already know Herr Dr Rommel?”, said my neighbour, I found myself locked in a firm handshake with the smartly-dressed man. “Günter Rommel” he announced “How do you do?”. Suddenly, it all made sense, he must be related to the great Erwin Rommel, ’The Desert Fox’, the famously brilliant German Field Marshall and I had been exchanging verbal crossfire with him only moments earlier. The meeting resumed and, despite my resolving not to, I found myself exercising perhaps a little more caution than before, I was more conscious of not being wrong-footed and I confess to feeling even a trifle intimidated.

I have not seen him since and, to this day, remain unsure how, or even if, Günter is related to Erwin. But I am certain that after having assumed such a connection in my own mind, it made a difference to my interpretation of his personal standing. Even in a firm where everyone is trained to dissent equitably, names have the power to affect expectations, imply associations and remind us of past experiences, because names signify brands. And a brand is, essentially, a promise that shapes what we can expect of a person, a service or a product bearing its name.

Names are, of course, meaningless until they are imbued with particular values and associations. What would the names Apple, Google and Facebook have meant to earlier generations? Yet they currently rank among the worlds most valuable brand names. Ironically, the values your brand stands for might be totally at odds with what your name might seem to promise. ‘Carphone Warehouse’, for example, has carved a distinctive position for itself in customers’ minds, based on its being a convenient and affordable outlet to get a deal on a mobile phone or broadband package, none of which really has anything much to do with ‘carphones’ or ‘warehouses’ (any more than ‘Blackberry’ suggests a personal organiser or ‘Axe’ a deodorant).The naming conundrum becomes still more complicated when brand names get together, perhaps as a result of a merger, acquisition or in some kind of promotional partnership. While Disney + Pixar, Rolex + Wimbledon, Visa + The Olympics have become harmonious brand cocktails, Chrysler + Daimler Benz, AOL + Timer Warner and Snapple + Quaker Oats left bitter tastes in the mouths of brand owners and customers alike, primarily because what looked good for the organisations on paper took no account of the values the brand names actually stood for in the minds of their customers. One escape is to create a new brand canopy, like ‘Diageo’ or ‘Mondelez’, and hide autonomous brands beneath it. The challenge here, though, is to create meaning from nothing, and such brand canopies usually remain wilfully anodyne and soulless for fear of standing for anything too distinctive. The most effective solution is, of course, to genuinely and deeply understand the essential soft value factors associated with your brand (not merely the hard operational factors) then seek to complement, or at least safeguard, them in any planned partnership. Even apparent dissonances like Rolls-Royce + BMW (which worked rather well on hard operational factors, but could have been a catastrophe on soft value factors) can be deftly accommodated with subtle understanding and careful attention to positioning, implied endorsement and brand architecture.

Like it or not we, and the firms or organisations we work for, all have names laden with associations – particularly among those most familiar with them. And that goes for professional services firms, charities and the civil service as well as more widely-known consumer brands. The question is what do these names trigger in the minds of their audiences and to what extent are you managing them. A brand is a promise. What’s yours?naming_q

Oh and if Günter Rommel ever gets to read this, my middle name is Montgomery.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

mallWho can fail to be touched by the withering into extinction of the great British high street and, to a lesser extent, its anodyne successor the shopping mall? Retailers are closing-down and shops are being boarded-up as ever more of us choose to do our shopping online.

And it is not that difficult to see why. Online shopping, for most of us, is a lot more convenient, it is quicker, cheaper and offers far wider choice without having to leave the comfort of our own home. This is particularly the case for products that are bought on specification (electrical goods, cameras, computer equipment, etc.) where it is easy to research and read reliable reviews before buying exactly the right product at a considerable saving over a retail store. Few of us would miss the ‘personal service’ that surrounds the purchase of such products which, to be honest, usually amounts to some spotty youth reciting a sales script before trying to flog you a product protection insurance you don’t need.

Sadly, it was only a matter of time before the likes of Comet and Jessops were squeezed out of existence. Q1But what about the other sectors coming under pressure, in particular, what about clothing? Surely few could have predicted that so many of us would be buying clothes online to the extent that we now are? After all we need to try clothes on, to check the fit, the colour, the fabric? Yet the market for some online clothing retailers has been booming (not just the Asos phenomenon, but the rise of niche players like Coggles, Boden, Joules, etc. as well as the online offerings from high street retailers), it seems that more of us than expected are willing to take the risk and order clothes before actually seeing or trying them first.

closingIt might have been an inevitability waiting to happen, but the growth of this market points to something more than passive acceptance. It suggests a degree of discontentment with the former retail offering which is better satisfied by the new online providers. Perhaps high street retailers have hastened the revolution by failing to offer what their customers were looking for, giving their online competitors important footholds in their markets? So what exactly have they been getting wrong? Three things: choice, service and trust.

Firstly, choice. The British high street lost its individuality years ago, 80% of shops are chains selling identical merchandise everywhere (most of which they now also sell online). But a more insidious reason why the choice on the high street is rather predictable, is that retailers are inherently risk averse. They seem more interested in looking over their shoulder at what their competitors are doing than looking ahead at what the customer wants. So, if an item appears to be selling well in store A, store B (its key competitor) is desperate to have exactly the same item, rather than taking a risk on a different item the customer might actually prefer. The exceptions are the more visionary and innovative retailers who know what they stand for and how to engage their audience (Primark, Majestic, Poundland and John Lewis spring to mind) as well as the specialist independent retailers run by knowledgeable entrepreneurs, who know their customers’ needs and use their expertise to source merchandise that cannot be found in the chains. Although they are lamentably rare in the UK these days, some are now setting-up online where they can reach a wider, if less personal, audience.

Secondly, service. With a few exceptions, notably John Lewis (again), most UK retailers have become woefully slow and unwilling to help customers. Ironically, these days if the size/colour combination you want is not available in store most retailers will suggest you order it from their website rather than going to the trouble of getting it in for you. Even the former national post-Christmas of queuing for a refund at M&S has become a guilt-inducing ordeal with much tutting and shaking of heads before a refund will be conceded. Is it any surprise that John Lewis is bucking the retail trend, its loyal and satisfied customers keep coming back almost entirely because of the superior service they receive.

Thirdly, trust. With a few exceptions (notably John Lewis, yet again), we simply don’t trust retailers that much anymore. Do we really believe that suit was ever priced at £525 before it was marked down to £399, before being slashed to £249 and finally £199 in the ‘Blue Cross’ clearance sale? Would the store own-up if they knew that the chinos they were selling so cheaply were being churned-out by a sweat shop in Asia? And when we see ‘Bond Street’ or ‘Saville Row’ on a label why are we not entirely surprised to find, on closer inspection, a concealed tag confessing ‘Made in India’ (or some other location miles from London)?

shirtsWell, the web-based retailers ought to have an easy lead with the first point and there is certainly a lot more choice available online. But look more closely and you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK retailers who have set-up online seem to have taken their conservative me-too mindset with them, because they just seem to offer a bigger variety of the same things. Take men’s clothing and smart work shirts in particular. They are fairly regular, staple purchase, easy enough to browse on a website and most men know their collar size and sleeve length, making them an ideal product to buy online. The rise of online shirt merchants such as Charles Tyrwhitt, T.M. Lewin, Hawes & Curtiss, (et al) are testimony to this. But peruse their initially-impressive arrays of merchandise and it is hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu. Whatever one offers, they all offer. Where are the distinctive products, the fresh ideas, where is the innovation? It need not all be pseudo Paul Smith edgy, but must it all be so pseudo M&S bland? Part of the defence from such would-be genteel brands is their desire to maintain longstanding appeal built on classical British understatement, conservative taste, discretion and so on. But really, are they not all offering undifferentiated substitutes for one another? Have they not, in fact, created a commodity market for themselves where price becomes the primary differentiator (3 for £60 or 4 for £90?).

With respect to the second point, service, despite their remoteness, most online clothing retailers leave their their high street counterparts in the dark ages with hassle-free returns, refunds and helpful online assistance. This is where the bricks and mortar retailers ought to have the upper hand. But it is, for the most part, an opportunity missed.

Finally, integrity. Once again, this ought to be an area in which the high street retailer should shine. It doesn’t, but, frankly, neither do the online operations that we were just looking at. For example, they all offer a wide range of shirts all of which seem to be permanently reduced from £75-£85 to £25-£30. In one example, a newly introduced design for this season (see inset – and, yes, this brand new ‘slim fit blue dogtooth’ really is about as innovative as it gets) has, supposedly, been launched with a price tag of £85. No sooner has the stock arrived and it is slashed to £29, or you can have 4 for £90 (which, based on its make-believe starting price, is practically a buy 1 get 3 free deal). But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, they are probably worth £85 aren’t they? After all, that is what you might expect to pay for a genuine Jermyn Street shirt isn’t it?
JermynAnd these are genuine Jermyn Street shirts after all, the website says so, the label says so and they have a store in Jermyn Street. Well, the basic cut and construction of the shirt are, apparently, based on traditional designs (as, to be fair, are those in most shops), but the shirts are, allegedly (it is all rather hush, hush) made in places as far from Jermyn Street as Turkey, India, China and Vietnam. Not that we necessarily mind that much, especially if it keep the price affordable, but surely honesty is the basis of trust (ask John Lewis!).

Given that the target market for these products is supposed to be well-educated professional men, how long will they go along peddling the pretence? Probably until a better proposition comes along to displace it.

Q2Perhaps if the high street hadn’t opened the door with its complacency, online retailers might not have stolen so much of their market – particularly the clothing market, which no one would have predicted a decade ago. But just as their predecessors’ introspection, lack of vision and inability to engage and inspire customers sealed their fate, is there not a risk that the same attitudes could, unchecked, yet come back to haunt the online generation?




Apple Worship

Bishop_CookePity Richard Dawkins. As if it were not hard enough to persuade the world not to worship a supernatural God, a large part of it seems to be enraptured by artificial ones. These man-made, virtual gods, intangible yet curiously powerful, are what we call brands.

If, as it has been popularly claimed by various recent studies, ‘brands are the new religion’, then Apple has probably come closer than most in generating a neo-religious sense of affiliation, devotion and expectation from its admirers. Its iconic products are displayed, like glorious artefacts, in glittering retail cathedrals throughout the world. The brand’s deification has come through the unswerving adoration and worship of its users, whose little white ear buds are worn with pride, like symbols of commitment. Apple does, after all, offer life changing experiences: iPod changed the way the world listened to music, iPhone revolutionised the global smart phone market while iPad carved-out a huge new category all of its own. Devoted followers watch, spellbound, as each new product launch reveals ‘incredible, ground-breaking innovations’ and ‘awesome performance enhancements’ before setting-off on their next pilgrimage, where they will wait in-line for hours to be among the first blessed with the latest product by the Apple priest or, rather, ‘Genius’. Of course, I am exaggerating, slightly, to make a point, but it can look strangely ritualistic to the uninitiated. The truth is, when a brand starts to emulate what we might traditional call ‘religion’, it transitions from being a product to a lifestyle choice and what it says about you matters more than what its products do for you. Are you in or out? Do you get it or not? Believer or agnostic? Have you ‘seen the light’?  AW_q1

As more established religions have found to their cost, problems can arise when faith is blind. When believers forget (or perhaps never really understood) what, or why, they believe; icons become more important than meanings and reasoned commitment gives way to unquestioning dogma. Then, when a crack appears in the brand’s seemingly infallible facade (say, an underwhelming product or a bad service experience), it would initially be met with denial from the believer (too much trust has been invested, there must be some mistake) countered by self-righteous glee from the unbeliever (always looking for an excuse to puncture the illusion). Unchecked rumours spread, discontentment gains momentum and denial turns into disillusionment. Thanks to the wonders of social media, that tipping point can come more quickly than ever. Apple’s recent Google Maps fiasco was a taste of such behavioural dynamics.

When a brand like Apple generates a devoted neo-religious following it might do well to learn from longstanding experts in the field. For example, if it were to ensure that its followers genuinely understood its credo and articles of faith (let us call them brand definition and guiding principles), they might be less likely to stray, disillusioned, when their brand’s omnipotence wobbles from time-to-time (which it inevitably will – it is, after all, only man-made pretender). We all need the arguments on which to base our rational judgements, even if they are merely to justify the irrational ones we have already made. We need to appreciate what a brand can and, more importantly, what it cannot do. This is, after all, the essence of what sets it apart and makes it unique from any of its potential competitors. Yet Apple currently offers nothing more than a vague allusion to ‘detail-orientation’, ‘creativity’ and ‘simplicity’ (which, incidentally, it buries it in the recruitment section of its global website). Maybe it thinks a formal declaration of principles would feel countercultural or unfashionably restrictive? Or maybe the universally-appealing spirit of Apple is so well understood it need not be articulated? My guess is that Apple has never really thought seriously about its brand strategy, let alone its status as a quasi world religion, because there appear to be some diverging theologies emerging, as attempts to define Apple’s core values seems leave experts floundering in contradiction. Some claim, for instance, that the essence of the Apple brand is “innovation”, others insist it is “usability”, some say it is about being “friendly and approachable” or “design-led”, still others suggest it is about being “the ultimate” even “indispensable”. No doubt some wag will claim that the essence of Apple is about being “Reassuring Expensive”, unfortunately that line has already been spent. While many of these perceptions may be correct, they cannot all be equally correct or we will be left with an vaguely-defined, amorphous catch-all – hardly the makings of a robust brand, let alone a lasting deity!
AW_q2But it was not always thus. There was a time when Apple boldly claimed to “Think Different” and its followers adored the vibrant, revolutionary, anti-establishment approach of the brand. Being an Apple-user (or, more particularly, a Mac-user) meant joining an alternative tribe of ‘enlightened’ geeks and designers, who cooed over the operating system, drooled over the aesthetics and would sooner have than swallowed their perspex mouse whole than regress back to ‘Windoze’. Their unwavering belief was based on a fundamental understanding of what Apple was about, and they understood it as intimately as its Californian creators. Today, though vastly out-numbered and out-spent by the majority of Apple-users, they remain the most committed and loyal followers. It is they who will still be there after a shinier new god has charmed away the newbies. Importantly, they know why they are there and, as long as Apple stays true to itself, they too will stay true.

But is Apple staying true to itself? If it were, you might think it would cherish and reward these committed, long-standing users and encourage them to evangelise the Apple brand (like a car owners’ club, a university alumni group or even a retail loyalty programme)? Unfortunately, Apple seems to have become so preoccupied with commercial expansion that it has forgotten the importance of maintaining brand values and customer advocacy. Despite its reticence in declaring what its brand actually stands for, it seems to have had no problem declaring who its brand should be targeting commercially, it is what it calls the ‘post-PC generation’. In other words, Apple now intends to focus on creating accessible devices for the masses, many of whom have never used a computer, and perhaps never will. There are, after all, considerably fewer geeks and designers than potential Apple-struck consumers in the world and fewer still willing to bear the fulsome price-tags and ever-shorter replacement cycles needed to keep the brand’s share price rolling heavenward. Even so, it is tantamount to announcing that anyone who owns a high-spec Mac is Apple history. Would it be so difficult to maintain a foothold in its former heartland while continuing its mission to domination global handheld devices? It seems that Apple’s inability to focus on more than a couple of tasks at once is becoming a major handicap (perhaps it needs a few more female leaders in Cupertino?).

It would be ironic to see the cracks of disappointment appearing first among the enlightened and dedicated few who can actually see beyond Apple’s glossy modern facade. Regrettable? Yes. Unavoidable? Hardly. Could it be that Apple has become so hell-bent on chasing dollars that it has forgotten its spiritual values? Maybe its slogan “Think Different” (which, incidentally, it has not used for over ten years) should now be “Think Dollars”?

Still, the world’s richest company, led by the world best-paid directors, must surely know what it’s doing? Well you would think so, wouldn’t you? The trouble is, power can be intoxicating and before you know it you can start to believe that you really can make up your own rules and walk on water… the illusion of infallibility usually ends in tears though, as Sony, Palm, Nokia, Blackberry, et al. will bear witness.

In conclusion, few would argue that Apple has skilfully produced raft after raft of glorious products. Its brand has, consequently, been propelled to heady peaks that transcend anything that Apple might have planned. For all its product development skills, though, Apple seems to have little grip on the neo-religious zeal that has grown-up around its brand nor on the potential liability that it represents.AW_q3

With due respect to Prof. Dawkins, as long as Apple enjoys its current cult status, there seems little point in proclaiming that there is probably no God. And, with due respect to Apple, the day it actually believes it is God is the day its sense of reality has flown and its ignominious fall from grace begins.

Chocolate Bars and Law Firms

“We are proud of our professional reputation,
but we’re a law firm not a chocolate bar, we don’t have a brand”

ImageDoes this line of defence sound familiar? Such sentiments have often been used by lawyers against so-called ‘branding experts’. To be honest, it is entirely understandable given that lawyers are trained to distrust things that seem to be emotional, superficial and unquantifiable. Which is what brands are isn’t it?

Well, that really depends on who is defining them. In essence, a brand is simply ‘a promise of what to expect’. In most respects, we process them intellectually much as we do personalities (which is why, when a brand is personified, such as in the Apple versus PC commercials or with real life characters like Richard Branson or Paul Smith, they snap into focus much more easily). The way they present themselves to the world, via their appearance, their verbal communications and behavioural characteristics, promises certain expectations. When people pay little or no attention to the impressions they make on those around them they risk being misunderstood, overlooked, disliked or avoided. So it is with a brand whose impressions on its audiences are not being adequately managed.

ImageImagine, if you dare, the senior partner turning-up for a client meeting in the same suit he wore shortly after he became a partner in 1998 (the last time he thought seriously about his image), he fails to spot the client cringing at the frayed cuffs on his stripy shirt or his worn-out shoes or wincing at his bushy sideburns and bouffant 90’s hairstyle. His speech is peppered with hackneyed industry clichés and legalese, occasionally interspersed with contemporary comments, self-consciously delivered in an affected manner. Worse still, he has, unwittingly, developed a distracting tick which has become so familiar to those around him that only new acquaintances really notice it any more.

Ridiculous maybe, but how will you know whether your brand, or ‘corporate personality’ was creating a similarly out-of-touch impression if you are not managing it carefully? When was the last time you systematically reviewed your firm’s corporate personality, considered how well your firm communicates with its audiences, assessed how it is positioned in clients’ minds or evaluated the relevance of its tone of voice? Does it say ‘new’ things just for effect or do they sound natural and genuine? Has your brand developed some annoyed little habits? (mailings, events, perhaps even vernacular?) Is it possible that your brand might be lodged in a fading 1998 time warp? Remember, also, that your corporate personality lives, not in your business development department, but in the minds of your audiences.

ImageThe legal profession is characterised by a high level of personal interaction and every individual in the firm has a part to play in living the firm’s values and reinforcing the ‘promise of what to expect’.

Just as brands are like people, so people are like brands; their reputation goes before them, setting expectations which will, ideally, be born-out by first impressions and fulfilled as relationships grow.

Most successful lawyers tend to be conspicuously good at managing their own ‘personal’ brand, playing to their strengths to build client relationships. But, however conscious they are of their own personal values and characteristics, they tend to leave their firm’s values to evolve passively with little serious consideration. These values, good or bad, become embodied into the firm’s culture and, so, shape its de facto brand personality. For example, if you were told that, in the next room were three IP lawyers all offering predominantly similar services, one from Slaughter and May, one from Farrers and one from Olswang, how many seconds do you think it might take you to correctly identify who was from which firm? You might also hazard a guess as to which was likely to be the most and least expensive, the fastest turnaround, the nicest people to work with? The point being that each of these three firms has a distinctive corporate personality, or brand, which lives in the mind and defines our expectations of it and, by association, those who represent it.

ImageRecalling that imaginary partner for a moment, few would deny that his demeanour would compromise the reputation of just about any firm, even without any specific, quantifiable measures to prove it. Most would agree that he would fall short of the threshold for acceptable professional behaviour and still further short of the standards expected from a ‘prestigious and trusted law firm. It is an instinctive response to human behaviour, it just feels ‘wrong’. But what if the roles were reversed and the brand was the guilty party, compromising the professional reputation of the individuals representing it? Moreover, what if the discrepancy were less marked and needed to be studied more carefully to be appreciated?

Unfortunately, however compelling the case may be, the legal sector has been one of the least receptive to the notion of brand management (unless, of course, it relates to the IP of a client organisation – whose chocolate bar brand, for example, requires legal protection). Perhaps it is because law firms have become used to working in a conservative, risk-averse, personality-led world that so many law firms still remain sceptical. And yet, it could be argued that there has never been a time when law firms have been in such acute need of clear branding to signify a clear, differentiated promise in the mind of a potential client. The legal marketplace has become uncomfortably competitive, winning business has become tougher and it is harder than ever to stand-out from other, similarly-eligible (and equally-hungry), firms jostling for attention. Mergers and acquisitions are accelerating and clients are increasingly calling the shots. How do they choose from the dizzying array of seemingly-identical offerings? Increasingly, by reputation, corporate personality, or, for want of a better word, brand. And the case for developing a more sophisticated approach to brand management is growing ever stronger. First, because quick, easy access to knowledge and legal databases are commoditising some legal services, making it easier for certain routine legal tasks to be simplified, eroding the competitive advantage traditionally held by the more reputable firms; this leaves price and brand as the key differentiators. Second, and more importantly, the introduction of the Legal Services Act has set the stage for non-legal brands to leverage their well-managed reputations and goodwill to offer legal services in direct competition with traditional law firms. Now, a client who currently uses, say, UBS, HSBC or Goldman Sachs, could, theoretically, buy legal and financial services from the same trusted brand. Similarly, brands like McKinsey, Coutts, Sotheby’s, Savills, and a host of other well-known brands acting in adjacent sectors, could start to steal the attention of future clients who might be tempted to trust their promises more those of a traditional law firm.

ImageHow to compete? Develop a great brand for your firm. Great brands depend on three factors: distinctiveness, relevance and consistency.

  1. If your brand is not distinctive it will not stand-out and be heard above the noise in an increasingly crowded marketplace. This is not easy in an environment where your intellectual product is relatively similar to your competitors’. It is the strength of the promise that you offer and the credibility with you you say it that will enable you to stand out (for want of a better cliché: ‘it’s not what you do, but the way that you do it, that gets results’. Just as Virgin and BA will both fly you from London to New York, in Boeing 747 aircraft, at similar times and in similar comfort, for similar amounts of money, each has a distinctive appeal which engages with a different type of customer)
  2. It goes without saying that if your brand is not genuinely relevant to the needs of your market it will fade into oblivion. Remember that being relevant means reflecting the changing needs of clients, what seems relevant today may not be tomorrow. For example, are you expected to be in tune with the latest technology (VoIP conferencing, cloud-based file sharing, presentations on tablets, etc.), do clients expect a more global perspective? (affiliates in global locations, familiarity with international legal practices) are you offering the right remuneration options? (fixed project fees, success-related contracts, or traditional hourly rates, etc.).
  3. Consistency is vital. Could you trust someone who kept contradicting themselves or regularly behaved out of character in certain environments? How then can a client be expected to remain loyal and committed if your firm’s communications speak with a different voice in different places? Might it not seem a little disconcerting if the look and feel of your website was at odds with your annual report and practice brochures, your receptionist sounded like she belonged with neither and the impression gained when arriving for a meeting at your offices was different again; meanwhile, your staff remain oblivious to any of it?

A great brand stands for something compelling and memorable and offers clear, differentiated reasons for choosing your firm. It generates loyalty, raises expectations and adds goodwill and intangible asset value to your firm.

Image

However weak or strong, distinctive or diffused, every law firm, like every chocolate bar, has a brand. The question is not whether it exists, but what are you doing to manage it? And if you are not managing it who is? Could your competitors by stealing your place in the client’s mind?


Finally, remember that brand reputations are relative; market leaders of today can look anachronistic when the rules change (remember how insuperable the Sony Walkman looked before the arrival of the iPod?). The rules for the legal market have changed.
The stage is set. May the best brands win.