More and more Indians are brand conscious today. More precisely, they are more conscious of brands than ever before. More Indians have greater disposable personal incomes now. Can they spend! But that’s not enough as an explanation. We now see more and more international brands (global brands may be a different thing) competing for attention and wallets, in India. We are aware because we are buying these brands.
Business notices such developments. One offshoot of the growing fascination with brands is that many companies have started talking about building brands. Surely, this is welcome. But we hesitate. Talking about is one thing. Going about it is a completely different matter. There is confusion here.
The basic confusion is that most people think they have created a brand the moment they have chosen a symbol, mark or even a name. Creating a separate and distinguishing identity may be the first step towards building brands, but is certainly not the brand itself. Many companies pay attention to developing corporate identity. Again a welcome development; but it is not a brand.
The fairly well-known but oft-forgotten point is that while firms have legal ownership of registered brands, consumers effectively own them. You would agree that Hush Puppies are a brand today. Without getting into a debate on its taxonomy, we can certainly say that this is one shoe brand that a lot of consumers have a preference for. Wasn’t always the case. Malcolm Gladwell starts his “The Tipping Point” with a discussion on how Hush Puppies suddenly became a craze among certain groups of consumers, transforming a sleepy product into a vibrant and pulsating brand.
It would be churlish to deny the obvious need for a separate identity. The only caveat: Do not imagine that you have created a brand. For instance, a company in the business of providing services to a range of global telecom equipment manufacturers and service providers recently changed its logo, spending considerable time and efforts. They had serious and sincere discussions on what does the new logo mean together with the chosen colours. The problem was that they felt they have created a new brand. Unfortunately, the company has had serious perception problems and was not quite clear about its business. The change in logo is a new logo. Period. There is no new brand. At least, not now. If the new logo is to be the foundation for a new or redefinition of the brand, you have to work towards it. But, all that you have today is a new logo.
No logo (or symbol) is in itself powerful. It becomes powerful if it makes the right and strong connections with the people at whom it is directed. Years ago, when Thums Up was launched with that by now famous thumb, there were skeptics. The company promoter was sold on the visual, but the advertising agency considered it negative. The promoter stuck to his conviction and we know he turned out right. It made its connection! Thums Up is a strong brand even now, as Coca Cola, its new owner discovered much to its surprise.
Although there is an entire body of work on the meaning behind various gestures, it is not perfect. And more important, gestures find their meaning within a world of shared metaphors and images. Many of Javed Akhtar’s (Script-writer of Zanjeer, Deewar, Trishul, Sholay, among many others) textual metaphors would perhaps be lost on an audience beyond Mumbai. Few script and screenplay writers have understood and captured Mumbai the way he has. But you have to know Mumbai to relate to them.
There is a lesson here. When you debate the merits of a logo and its colours, look at it from the point of view of the people you are trying to influence. Simple and necessary though this seems, you will be surprised at the number of discussions where this doesn’t figure at all. Instead, what you have insular and meaningless debates over the underlying images. This is absurd. A leading refinery went through a logo change together with a change in colour. Shades rather. How many of its current and potential customers would have grasped the deep sense of imagery that the company ‘saw’ is anybody’s guess.
Why is that the Mercedes logo is perhaps the world’s most recognizable symbol? Because, it is Mercedes. It has earned its place in the pantheon of logos and brands. By imitating someone’s logo, as many have done, you will not be able to recreate the magic of that brand. The upper part of F in Ferrari is stretched, an immensely recognizable visual image. There is an Indian auto dealer who has a similar ‘stretching’ of the F in their name. Will it have the same effect as the stretched F in the magical Ferrari?
Mercedes and Ferrari are classic examples of brands built on the strength of products. Often people talk of brands as if the underlying product is of no consequence. If you could afford a Merc and Ferrari, you would love to have them. They are simply damn good cars. Or BMW for that matter. Companies who talk vacuously of brands should study how these great companies keep building new products. In all these cases, it is really amazing that the brand has only grown in stature even with all the variations that the changing dynamics of the auto business demands. You don’t lose respect for Mercedes just because you sit a Merc cab while you travel abroad. Why? That’s the strength of the Mercedes brand, a compelling story. When Lexus challenged the might of Mercedes (and BMW) in the 80s, they had to fight back. That shows character. You have only to see how Rolex lost out in the luxury business when it took itself for granted. How many of us today would automatically think of Rolex when we dream of luxury watches? It is fighting back though. But think of men’s shirts, and you think of Polo. Which is why we admire Ralph Lauren. The man created a great brand out of a simple shirt.
The toughest job in the world is to be a brand manager. Because you are dealing with too many unknowns. A consumer is not a simple one-dimensional being. He/she is susceptible to so many influences that a brand manager has to sift through a lot to see what will affect his brand and how. And then decide what’s the best way to preserve and enhance the brand.
Software programmers often dismiss dimensions like brands as of no consequence. Ask yourself: are companies like IBM, SAP, Sun, Oracle, TCS, Infosys, Wipro, Accenture, to mention a few, just companies or are they also strong brands? In what sense would you think of them as brands? It will be nice to know what you think about these issues.
USP Age magazine 2004
