I’ve just come off of a fantastic brand-building project with a supply chain services company. We adhered to marketing guru Seth Godin’s brand formula: [Prediction of what to expect] times [emotional power of that expectation]. It’s [the cluetrain manifesto] plus [Guy Kawasaki's The Art of the Start] times [Seth Godin’s small is the new big and etc.] plus [Martin Lindstrom’s BRAND sense] -- on steroids.
Aristotle wrote, “Beauty depends on size as well as symmetry.” This brand formula is a beautiful thing. It offers definitive structure to an esoteric process, which is huge. And the variables of the formula are equal in their importance (symmetrical). It's not enough to be able to say clearly and compellingly what it is the company does and what that means so you're able to set expectations -- and most can't even do this -- just as importantly there's got to be an emotional connection, which is where sensory branding comes in. And for sure sensory branding is not Standard Marketing Procedure for supply-chain associated companies. Should be!
If the executive managers who used the formula to guide their brand-building effort stick to the formula as they bring the brand to life, soon they will be building long-lasting bonds with customers based on enjoyment and appreciation (can you imagine a supply chain services company that's enjoyed and appreciated?) –- and soon you will hear about this brand. It's very exciting to me that this company has the potential to be the first true brand associated with the supply chain and that I might be chosen as the brand foreman. I, for one, am sick of the same old messages that continue to stand in for brands in this space. You?
It will take courage for these executive managers to look, act, talk, market and sell differently. If they have the courage to stick to the formula, they will create not only a brand with value but one with a truly competitive advantage. I believe not doing so would be a big loss for them, their customers and the entire market. It would be a huge loss for me personally. It seems like I’m virtually the only one who wants to do something remarkable in this space. No longer am I interested in business as usual.
It's hard work to get to the point of being able to communicate what the brand means and what it does for those of us facilitating brand building and those engaging in it. And according to the formula, this is only the first half of what a brand requires. It seems counter-intuitive, but people have an exceptionally hard time verbalizing just simply what it is their company does. Being able to say clearly, compellingly and memorably what you do would go a long way towards setting expectations and building the most predictable experience you can.
[Prediction of what to expect] equates to knowing and being able to say why the founders started the organization, why customers should patronize it and why good people should work there. Having honesty and clarity of purpose will distinguish you from competitors, and you’ll be able to relate the heart and soul of the organization to engage prospects, turn them into customers and turn customers into brand loyalists.
How you do this is by teasing out your answers to about 10 questions: Who are you? What do you do? What is the name for what you do? Who do you do it for (what types of companies)? Who do you want to talk to about it (at these types of companies)? What is the meaning (vision) behind what you’re doing? What is your mission? What is your ambition? What is your business model (your business plan distilled to 10 words or less)?
At this point your half-a-brand might convince people they need to buy from you because if you've gotten this far you're more persuasive than the others simply because people will get what you do. But that's not nearly good enough if you're serious about accruing some staying power. The real challenge is convincing people that they want to buy from you. People don't buy what they need, they buy what they want -- and in your case the people you're marketing to happen to have a corporation to pay for what they buy (this is the only difference between b-to-c and b-to-b). Very few brands get rejected or selected based on performance or price -- decision-making is based on that extra something else.
That extra something else is encapsulated in the second variable of the brand formula, the [emotional power of that expectation]. Sensory branding, which is establishing the tactile, sound, taste, aroma and visual expressions of your brand, is one of the few ways you can secure a truly competitive advantage. These expressions help you layer the most emotional experience you can on top of the foundation, or expectation, you've set. Sensory branding encourages customer loyalty and ultimately ensures profitable growth. If you're in doubt, just ask Singapore Airlines, Cadillac, Apple, Mercedes-Benz, Nokia, McDonald's, Louis Vuitton, Nestle, and Disney how adopting a sensory approach has helped their brands perform. It will work for supply chain companies just as well because, remember, people buy what they want, not what they need, regardless of who's paying for it.
How many supply chain services or technology companies even get halfway there by setting expectations? Do you know anybody who can tell you without using jargon what their company does and what it means, and in a way that would get you excited about it, compelling you to learn more? Do you personally identify with any of these companies? Do you associate any of them with a pleasing image…flavor…smell…taste… texture which helps you remember them? Do you really care about any of them? I'm guessing you've answered no to all of these questions. To be the first brand in the space would be remarkable. People would literally remark on your brand, many would strongly identify with it and begin to care about it, and most would be able to memorize it. And that would be bad why? What are supply chain companies so afraid of?
Recent Comments