THE FUTURE OF BRAND CONTROL WE DISCUSS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BRANDS AND THEIR CONSUMERS, DISCOVER WHO HAS HAD CONTROL IN THE PAST AND SEE HOW THESE RELATIONSHIPS MAY BLOSSOM IN THE FUTURE. BY SOPHIE KELL
“CORPORATIONS DON’T OWN BRANDS, PEOPLE OWN BRANDS.” GOBE, 2001 .
BRAND CONTROL
The relationship of control between brands and consumers has been widely studied. Undoubtedly, brands affect consumer behaviour. Why else would people buy Coca-Cola when Pepsi has the preferred taste? But it isn’t just down to excellent branding; it’s a mutual relationship. If a product is well branded; people buy it and spread the word and the brand becomes better known as a result. So, do people dictate brand success, or do brands control their consumers? And who controls the brand itself? Those who created it or those using it? Brand success is reliant on consumer satisfaction, but people are influenced by brands which build connections with them personally. Can brands really control people’s behaviour? And does the individual have any power when it comes to big brands?
We don’t like to feel ‘out of control’, nor do we like being a ‘control freak’. Yet the feeling of control is basic to human functioning. Some believe that control and power are the same, (Dowding, 2011). Some say that the belief of having control may be even more important than exercising it (Langer, 1983). Control is an important aspect of life. The same is true in branding. For corporations, control over their brand enables them to create successes and rectify mistakes. The success of brands today; where the consumer has increased power, is controlled by both companies
6
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
and their consumers. It is easy to see how important control is in our daily lives, but companies also need to control their brand and consumers’ response to it. If a brand becomes entirely consumer driven the only way to control it is to control people’s experiences. Although it may still be recognisable by its corporate name and logo the essence of the brand is in the hands of its consumers. For some brands, this can be extremely damaging. For others, the people supporting a brand add to its value. If ‘followers’ of a brand share its culture and represent it to others it’s free marketing. Balance of control between brand and consumer is important.
“It is impossible to be in complete control of your brand.” (Design Council, 2014) People are highly influenced by brands but brands are also subject to people’s opinions. The people creating the brands cannot know how people will use them,
“EVERYWHERE IT SEEMS THE CONSUMER IS TRIUMPHANT. AND YET, THE CONSUMER IS ALSO SEEN AS A WEAK AND MALLEABLE CREATURE.” LANG AND GABRIEL, (2006)
(Olins, 2003) and this unpredictability makes controlling a brand difficult. Nevertheless, there are some who believe that brands control our actions. Bouchet et al, 2013, explain that for many, brands are seen to have the power to be responsible for economic, health, environmental and social turmoil.
Is control shifting to the consumer? ‘A powerful global conversation has begun.” (Levine et al, 2000) This statement from almost fifteen years ago described a new phase of consumer control. The Internet brought people a way to share and discover knowledge and, stated by Chernatony and McDonald, 2003, allowed consumers to become ‘coproducers of (brand) value’. Brands have been opened to increasing scrutiny as people gain access to more information via the Internet, (Ind, 2003). Levine et al, 2000, predicted that this increasing consumer power would be the future of business. In 2003, Ind stated that ‘corporate brand managers are losing their ability to control what is said about their brand and where. Brands need to be authentic, genuine and responsible’. This can only be a good thing. Brand managers can protect their brand by creating good consumer experiences. Gobe believes that this is what ‘everyone in the business was looking for all along’; a way to communicate and build real conversations with people. People’s choices put some brands above others and with greater choice,
“THIS CORPORATE OBSESSION WITH BRAND IDENTITY IS WAGING A WAR ON PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUAL SPACE”. KLEIN, (2005) comes greater control, (Langer, 1983). With the possibility to choose between so many different brands, the consumer can be more selective. However, the corporate identity of the brand still influences these choices.
There are people who believe that brands are responsible for social turmoil. The ‘AdBusters’ group and Klein’s book ‘No Logo’ are just two examples of opposition to corporate brands. ‘A counter-culture is forming around the idea that the branding efforts of global companies have spawned a societally destructive culture’, (Holt, 2002). Lang and Gabriel, 2006, state that consumers are ‘pawns’. In an interview with Geof Rayner, a Professor in Public Health and contributor to BBC’s ‘Secrets of the Superbrands’, it was discussed how companies use ‘triggers of familiarity’ and ‘behavioural responses’ to encourage people to buy the same brand repeatedly.
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
7
BRAND CONTROL
‘Marketing is about selling stuff to people that they don’t need…by catering to people’s vulnerability’ (Rayner, 2014). The BBC series ‘Secrets of the Superbrands’, 2011, discovered how brands can provoke the same feelings that we have towards our friends and family. They tap into emotions which are central to our lives and become a part of our world. People want a sense of belonging and in part a brand can provide this, (Kent, 2013). If brands understand these feelings and connections, they could potentially exploit them to ‘control’ people’s behaviour.
Let’s look at two brands in ‘control’: Coca-Cola and Apple. In the case of Coca-Cola the brand itself has become more significant than the product. A Coca-Cola executive once said ‘If Coca-Cola were to lose all of its production related assets in a disaster, the company would survive. By contrast, if all consumers were to have a sudden lapse of memory and forget everything related to Coca-Cola, the company would go out of business’, (Design Council, 2014). It would seem that consumers have the control, so how is Coca-Cola so successful? The results of the famous PepsiCola challenge are proof of the effect that branding can have, (BBC, 2011). In a blind test more than half of the recipients said that they preferred Pepsi. However, when the test was re-conducted with participants knowing which drink was which, 75% preferred Coca-Cola. This is a result of people’s emotional responses to the Coca-Cola brand, (Lindstrom, 2009).
8
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
Olins, 2003, explains that ‘Coca-Cola uses powerful emotions to target a worldwide audience’. Clearly this works. Although people may prefer a different product, they will return to Coca-Cola because of their affiliation with it. Apple is another powerful brand, which has been described by many people as a ‘cult’ brand. It has thousands of ‘followers’, its store openings are bustling events and its products are ‘must-haves’. Its loyal consumer base makes up a huge part of what Apple is. It has been found that some fans looking at Apple products respond to them in the same way religious people respond to images of deities (BBC, 2011). The brand inspires emotions in people that others just can’t match. This faith and belief in the brand could allow Apple to influence consumer behaviour. Although these brands have created connections with their consumers which may influence their buying habits, it is still too strong to suggest that brands truly control their consumers. If people decided to stop buying a branded product, that brand would not survive. It is a matter of consumer choice and even powerful brands such as Coca-Cola and Apple cannot become reliant on consumer patterns for success.
“Love and madness - any marketer’s dream and nightmare.” (Wells, 2003) Two cases come to mind; the HarleyDavidson ‘dream’ and the Burberry ‘nightmare’. Harley-Davidson is less of a brand
and more of a lifestyle choice, (Kattan, 2012). The brand image is controlled by members of the Harley Owners Group, some of whom are so loyal that they tattoo the logo on their bodies. This unique connection with customers has been the envy of marketers. As stated by the Corporate Design Foundation, 2014, ‘No other product can draw thousands of enthusiasts to weekend rallies…or evoke such pride and identification’. The brand is less about motorcycles and more about the people who live the ‘Harley lifestyle’. Many would think this is a dream situation, with consumers being so involved in the brand that they take it over and market it themselves. Harley doesn’t need to advertise; its customers do it for them. However, the brand is so ‘owned’ by its customers, that it doesn’t easily transcend generations. ‘Its very success in enabling its core customers to own it might mean that they’ll take it with them to their graves’, (Baskin, 2013). This suggests that the brand is controlled by its consumers. The connection between Harley and its ‘Baby Boomer’ customers, to the extent that they have become the brand, means that the brand itself is worth less on its own. In the future it is likely that we will see a change in Harley’s brand and marketing strategies. In 2013, HarleyDavidson put ‘greater emphasis on growing its appeal across demographics’, (Interbrand, 2014). Maybe Harley should encourage its existing customers to take on the responsibility of passing on their love for Harley to a new generation. We shall see in time if this is a strategy which they adopt.
“THE MEDIA RIDICULED ACTRESS DANIELLA WESTBROOK WHEN SHE AND HER DAUGHTER WERE PICTURED WEARING BURBERRY CHECK FROM HEAD TO TOE.” KILBY, (2007)
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
9
BRAND CONTROL
Although Burberry has now regained their elite reputation, in 2000 its distinctive check pattern had become the uniform of ‘CHAV’, (The Economist, 2011). This takeover by a group whom the brand did not wish to be associated with presented the dangers of losing control to ‘the wrong’ consumers. ‘Bringing the brand back from the brink was a hard, expensive slog’, (Neate, 2013). As stated by Olins, 2003, ‘In the case of people wearing fashion brands, the brand is not really controlled by the marketers…the brand is controlled by the consumers’. People owning branded products become ‘ambassadors’ for that brand. Consumer control presents risks and benefits. It is impossible to take control out of consumers’ hands as, stated by Lang and Gabriel (2006), ‘brands become parts of an extended self’. Whilst allowing consumer control of a brand can be successful, it is vital that brand control does not fall into the hands of people who do not represent its values, as ‘people associate any experience with brand identity’, (Ind, 2003). ‘Fanaticism can be dangerous. The most loyal fans can hijack a brand and make serious trouble for a company’, (Wells, 2001). These cases demonstrate how groups of people can affect brands. However, an individual is unlikely to affect a big brand’s image. If only one ‘CHAV’ had adopted Burberry the impact to the brand would have been minimal. As in many situations, size matters, and it takes a group of people to make any real impact on a brand.
10
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
‘With such an uncertain future, brands now have to show greater purpose and moral imperative’. (Hill, 2013) There are some owners who are stubbornly trying to keep control of their brand, and seem to be ignoring the growing pressure from social media and the Internet. Baer, 2014, reports that ‘70% of companies ignore customer complaints on Twitter’ and this is just one of many similar statistics. It is the brand’s choice whether to engage with consumers, but it seems foolish to ignore them when their feedback could add value. Some describe consumer control as ‘a myth’. Joel, 2012, explains that consumers cannot control a brand simply by being able to publish their feelings online. Whilst organisations such as Lego; who say ‘we own the logo, but our consumer’s own the brand’, may allow people to believe that they have ‘power’ over the brands actions, really it is the owners who call the shots. However, Joel does go on to say that ‘consumers can influence the brand message’. This is so vital to what the brand is that if consumers influence this, they can actually have a great impact. Companies have always been keen to know what makes people tick. By understanding needs and desires they can market to people in a more personal way. In future, this knowledge may be enhanced through ‘Neuromarketing’; a research tool which involves brain scanning to understand people’s responses to consumer products, brands and adverts.
Lindstrom, 2009, documented discoveries from his neuromarketing study, describing how brain scanning has ‘revealed how our truest selves react to stimuli at a level far deeper than our conscious thought and how our subconscious minds control our behaviour.’ ‘Companies of all types are more interested than ever in probing emotions. As companies continue to learn about how our brains work, they will try to stimulate areas involved in preferences, purchasing decisions, even aspirations’, (Wells, 2003). Neuromarketing will give companies the opportunity to delve deep into
people’s psyches. Some believe that companies could abuse the method to ‘induce product cravings’, (Lindstrom, 2009). However, Lindstrom believes that neuromarketing is a beneficial tool, giving companies the opportunity to create meaningful products which meet subconscious needs, and helping consumers understand why they ‘fall prey to the tricks and trades of advertisers’. The potential abuse of neuromarketing is a worrying prospect. How many people truly want big corporations to understand how they think when they look at their brands or
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
11
BRAND CONTROL
products? If marketers know exactly what drives consumers, this information could be easily exploited. Neuromarketing gives companies information that people don’t even understand about themselves and it will remain to be seen whether this information is used responsibly.
There is a common belief that access to information via the Internet has given the consumer increased control over brands. ‘A digital world brings a…immediately connected world, where traditional models of brand control…are no longer possible’, (Clifton et al, 2009). Before the internet, disappointment with brands was mostly kept private but now disgruntled customers can turn to the Internet and damage any brand’s reputation. ‘The third age of branding has put the human firmly front and centre in determining a brand’s real-time equity’, (Hill, 2013). Feelings towards brands are no longer kept secret, now people tell brands what they think of them. The consumer has become involved in the brand instead of being a ‘passive
‘THE INTERNET IS SWINGING THE BALANCE INTO THE HANDS OF THE CONSUMER. CONSUMERS ARE BECOMING MORE EMPOWERED’. CHERNATONY, (2003) 12
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
spectator’, (Adweek, 2013). Reputation is a huge part of brand success. As Olins, 2003, explains, ‘a brand dominated business depends for its survival on its customers’ goodwill’. The reason why many big brands thrive is that people love and publicise them to others. Reputation is valuable and hard to rebuild. Consumers’ influence on reputation gives them great control over brand success or failure.
In the future companies could benefit from looser control over their brands. With greater access to information, there is no way of controlling what people will find when they search for a brand and thus it is impossible to have complete control over a brand’s image, (De Ros, 2014). In future we may see more brands embracing increased consumer input, becoming involved in discussion with them and listening to feedback which could ‘make brands stronger and better’, (De Ros, 2014). It is time to stop trying to control consumers with brand messages and instead listen to what people want. Consumers shouldn’t be controlled by brands; they should be able to choose which brands to support. Companies will benefit from being more transparent and creating stronger bonds with their customers, (Ind, 2003). There is some evidence of this new approach in action. Harris, 2014, explains that ‘brands are slowly giving up control… and have strategically become more open about their tactics’. This increased sense
of control on the consumer’s part is not a bad thing. Brands need to embrace this opportunity to communicate more freely with their customers. This new era of consumer control should be seen as the positive that it can be. Hopefully the future will see a more mutual relationship between brands and their consumers. Real people’s words are much more believable than any advertising slogan. If brands listen more to their consumers, they can create truly valuable experiences.
So, who has control, and is it really all important? This whole argument is reliant on what people believe to be ‘the brand’. ‘Brand’ has so many different definitions; a logo, a name, a slogan, a message. If branding is the task of making these things, then the company who owns the brand is in control. However, looking at brands at a deeper level; the feelings they represent, the emotions they evoke, the reputation they have, this is controlled by consumers. Brands and consumers continue to influence each other and this will continue into the future. Both have to decide how much influence is acceptable. Consumers can’t be controlled, nor can they be in control of a brand. ‘Neither party totally controls the brand. The relationship is collaborative; the custody joint; the power shared’, (Brandstroke, 2014). Companies and consumers both have ownership and control over the brand. Maybe in the future, the relationship will be less about control, and more about communication
and collaboration for mutual benefits. People’s relationships with brands undeniably have an effect on brand success. Brands can only become as big as they do with consumer support. However, when it comes down to it, the brands make their own decisions. Whether they choose to take customer’s insights and feelings into account is up to them, although wisely they should aim to please, they can decide to discount people’s opinions altogether. True consumer control would mean a lot more than ‘customer service replies delivered via Twitter or the use of a Blog to crowd source new and innovative ideas’, (Joel, 2012). It is consumers who create emotions surrounding a brand and people could stop themselves buying into brands if they tried. Brands are about choice. Brand owners therefore have to ‘search out what makes them special to so many people’, (Clifton et al, 2009). Without the consumer giving a brand a deeper meaning, the brand cannot have an effect. Ultimately without the consumer buying into the brand, it would fail. It seems that consumers are willing to support brands and Olins’ statement, in 2003, that ‘We have to reward the good ones with our loyalty and punish the bad ones by avoiding them’ is an important message for consumers, and brand owners, everywhere.
SOPHIE KELL
“WE HAVE THE POWER TO SHAPE BRANDS TO BE WHAT WE WANT.” OLINS, (2003) FEBRUARY 2014
13
REFERENCES Adweek, 2013. JWT CEO Bob Jeffrey Says the Consumer Is Still in Control. Available at: http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/jwt-ceo-bob-jeffrey-says-consumer-stillcontrol-153724 (Accessed 2 February 2014). Baer, J., 2014.70% of Companies Ignore Customer Complaints on Twitter. Available at: http:// www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-monitoring/70-of-companies-ignore-customercomplaints-on-twitter/ (Accessed 4 February 2014). Baskin, J., 2013. Harley Davidson will be a case history in social branding. Available at: http:// www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/07/12/harley-davidson-will-be-a-casehistory-in-social-branding/ (Accessed 2 February 2014). Bouchet, P., Hillairet, D. and Bodet, G., 2013. Sports Brands. Abingdon: Routledge. Brandstroke, 2013. Who controls brands? Managers or consumers? Available at: http:// www.brandstoke.com/2013/04/08/who-controls-brands-managers-consumers/ (Accessed 2 February 2014). Clifton, R. et al., 2009. Brands and Branding, 2nd edition. New York: Bloomberg Press. Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M., 2003. Creating Powerful Brands, 3rd edition. Oxford: Elsevier Press. Corporate Design Foundation, 2014. Harley-Davidson: Marketing an American Icon Available at: http://www.cdf.org/issue_journal/harley-davidson_marketing_an_american_icon.html (Accessed 2 February 2014). De Ros, M., 2014. The fear of losing power over your brand: control has shifted from creators to consumers. Available at: http://www.selligent.com/en/blogs/social-media-marketing/enfear-losing-power-over-your-brand-control-has-shifted-creators-consu/ (Accessed 2 February 2014). Design Council, 2014. The Power of Branding: A Practical Guide. Available at: http://www. designcouncil.org.uk/resources-and-events/business-and-public-sector/guides/the-power-ofbranding/ (Accessed 26 January 2014).
Kalb, I., 2012. ‘Apple’s Success Wasn’t Just About Platform Control, Design Or Management’, Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/pundits-give-the-wrongreasons-for-apples-success-2012-6 (Accessed 28 January 2014). Kattan, O., 2012. The Harley Davidson story. Available at: http://www.brandstories. net/2012/06/08/the-harley-davidson-story-how-brand-achieves-cult-status/ (Accessed 20 January 2014). Kent, C., 2013. Will Brands Replace Religion in the Search For Meaning? Avaialble at: http:// www.brandingmagazine.com/2013/07/18/will-brands-replace-religion-in-the-search-formeaning/ (Accessed 2 February 2014). Kilby, N., 2007. Chequered Times for Burberry. Available at: http://www.marketingweek. co.uk/chequered-times-for-burberry/2054638.article (Accessed 3 February 2014). Klein, N., 2005. No Logo. London: Harper Perennial Lang, T. and Gabriel, Y., 2006. The Unmanageable Consumer. London: Sage Publications. Langer, E.J., 1983. The Psychology of Control. California: Sage Publications. Lindstrom, M., 2009. Buyology: How everything we believe about why we buy is wrong. London: Random House Business Books. Levine, R., Locke, C., Searles, D. and Weinberger, D., 2000. The Cluetrain Manifesto. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.
Dowding, K., 2011. Encyclopaedia of power. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Gobe, 2001. Emotional Branding. New York: Allworth Press.
Olins, W., 2003. On Brand. London: Thames and Hudson.
Harris, D., 2014. The brand and audience that make together, stay together. Available at: http://www.designweek.co.uk/industry-voice/the-brand-and-audience-that-make-togetherstay-together/3037762.article (Accessed 1 February 2014).
Rayner, Geof. Professor in Public Health. (Telephone interview, 30 January 2014).
Holt, D., 2002. ‘Why Do Brands Cause Trouble?’ Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.29, pg. 7090. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/339922 (Accessed 30 January 2014). Ind, N., 2003. Beyond Branding. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
SOPHIE KELL
Joel, M., 2012. ‘Consumers Control the Brand (And Other New Media Myths)’, Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mitch-joel/consumer-brandmarketing_b_1287789.html?just_reloaded=1 (Accessed 1 February 2014).
Neate, R., 2013. ‘How an American woman rescued Burberry, a classic British label’. The Guardian, 16 June [online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/16/ angela-ahrendts-burberry-chav-image (Accessed 3 February 2014).
Hill, T., 2013. Third Age of Branding. Available at: http://www.brandingmagazine. com/2013/05/23/third-age-of-branding/ (Accessed 2 February 2014).
14
Interbrand, 2014. Best Global Brands 2013. Available at: http://www.interbrand.com/en/bestglobal-brands/2013/Harley-Davidson (Accessed 2 February 2014).
FEBRUARY 2014
Rooney, J., 2011. ‘Brand Power To The People: J&J Takes Lead In Forbes Ranking’. Avaialble at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferrooney/2011/10/05/brand-power-to-the-people-jjtakes-lead-in-forbes-ranking/ (Accessed 30 January 2014). Schlanger, D. and Bhasin, K., 2012.16 Brands that Have Fanatical Cult Followings. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-brands-2012-6?op=1 (Accessed 30 January 2014). Schmitt, B., 2011. ‘The consumer psychology of brands’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22, Pg. 7 – 17. Available at: http://www.183degrees.com/JCS%20Jan12.pdf (Accessed 20 January 2014).
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
15
REFERENCES Secrets of the Superbrands, 2011. BBC 3 Television, 17 May 2011. The Cult Branding Company. 21 Brands that have Fanatics and Cult Followings. Available at: http://www.cultbranding.com/retail-marketing/cult-branding-examples/ (Accessed 6 January 2014). The Economist, 2011. Burberry and Globalisation: A Checkered Story. Available at: http:// www.economist.com/node/17963363 (Accessed 3 February 2014). Wells, M., 2001. Cult Brands. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0416/198. html (accessed 20 January 2014). Wells, M., 2003. In Search Of the Buy Button. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/ forbes/2003/0901/062.html (Accessed 1 February 2014).
IMAGES 1. Front cover, pg.1. http://dsreps.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FA1212_Covercopy.jpg 2. Harley-Davidson Ad, pg.2-3. http://bp1.blogger.com/_KYXmcfChca4/RzlU0RzhV7I/ AAAAAAAABa4/ZmSNjtYe2PQ/s1600-h/harley_CARMICHAELLYNCH.jpg 3. Apple logo, pg. 4-5. http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/ay111845358apple-incceo-t.jp 4. Coca-Cola bottle, pg. 6. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eXOP2gDxLqs/TfGXHym5ZoI/ AAAAAAAAArU/AvCCds-Va3c/s1600/Coca_Cola_by_cbizzle570.jpg 5. Daniella Westbrook in Burberry Check, pg.9. http://leblow.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/03/Daniella-Westbrook-head-to-toe-Burberry.jpg 6. Neuromarketing study, pg.11. http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/02/Neuromarketing.jpg 7. Global network, pg. 12. http://www.netpremacy.com/media/107185/network_coverage.jpg 8. Apple iPhone Ad, pg.17. http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/17/first-magazineadvertisement-for-iphone-5s-appears-highlights-touch-id-sensor/ 9. Burberry Ad (Back cover), pg.18. http://www.marieclaire.com/cm/marieclaire/images/ Burberry_Autumn_Winter_2009_Advertising_105.jpg 16
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014
SOPHIE KELL
FEBRUARY 2014