Brand on beta by Anton Drachuk

BRAND ON DESIGN-DRIVEN FLEXIBLE BRANDING

Agnes TÃ¥hlin Lundin | Anton Drachuk | Chuan Gao | Henni Nguyen

KMD666 Design, Branding and Marketing Master of Science in Business & Design University of Gothenburg

19.03.2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem

1.2. Motivation

1.3. Methodology

2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Movements in Marketing & Branding 2.1.1. Mindshare Marketing

9 9 9

2.1.2. Cultural Strategy

2.1.3. Flexible Branding

2.2. Design Thinking

3. Empirical Research

3.1. Mindset shift of Conventional Branding

3.2 BarlindBeer

3.3. Stability-based branding mindset

4. Results

4.1. Brand on Beta â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Continuity-Based Branding Mindset

4.2. BoB Spiral

4.3. BoB Loop

4.4. BoB Loop for BarlindBeer

5. Conclusion

6. Limitations and Further Research

Sources 42

LIST OF FIGURES

List of Figures Fig. 1a: Brainstorming key characteristics of design and branding - design (Photograph) Fig. 1b: Brainstorming key characteristics of design and branding - branding (Photograph) Fig. 1c: Finding connections between design and branding (Photograph) Fig. 2a: Visiting BarlindBeer brewery - outside the brewery with Jonas Barlind (Photograph) Fig. 2b: Visiting BarlindBeer brewery - inside the brewery with Jonas Barlind (Photograph) Fig. 3: Mindshare Strategy theoretical model (Holt and Cameron 2010) (Illustration) Fig. 4: Cultural Innovation theoretical model (Holt and Cameron 2010) (Illustration) Fig. 5: Double Diamond process. (Illustration) Fig. 6: Original BarlindBeer bottles (Photograph) Fig. 7: “Brand in a Bottle” Brand positioning model (Heineken’s Global Commerce University, 2016) Fig. 8: BarlindBeer’s Brand in a Bottle (Illustration) Fig. 9: Constructing the BarlindBeer “Brand in a Bottle” (Photograph) Fig. 10a: Research phase snapshot (Photograph) Fig. 10b: Research phase snapshot (Photograph) Fig. 11a: Brainstorming snapshot (Photograph) Fig. 11b: Brainstorming snapshot (Photograph) Fig. 12: A metaphor - a brand as a fried egg Fig. 13: Stability-based branding mindset (Illustration) Fig. 14: The BoB Spiral (Illustration) Fig. 15: Different brand identities of Xiaomi Fig. 16: The BoB Loop (Illustration) Fig. 16a: BoB loop closeup - Inspiration phase (Illustration) Fig. 16b: BoB loop closeup - Formulation phase (Illustration) Fig. 16c: BoB loop closeup - Interaction phase (Illustration) Fig. 16d: BoB loop closeup - Reflection phase (Illustration)

INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem Design, branding and marketing are fields often interwoven and they offer instruments for companies to communicate their benefit and value(s) to the consumers. Branding can include many different elements and play different roles, often in the boundaries of marketing, using design as a tool. The brand can be interpreted as a managerial tool, a corporate catalyst, a sign or a medium, among others. Yet companies may often struggle to meet consumers’ perception of the brand and what they envision for it. During the course “Design, Branding & Marketing” we had the task to create a new branding strategy for Jonas Barlind, the owner of the BarlindBeer microbrewery in Gothenburg. The varying experiences of the members of our group, composed of people with backgrounds in marketing, advertising, design and business, brought out various interesting discussions. Each member had previously worked with branding on different scales, therefore having unique approaches to the task. There was no apparent branding definition that would have provided a direction in branding from a merge of marketing and design perspectives. Therefore, establishing a new concept for branding became our main objective of this project.

1.2. Motivation We decided to take on a critical approach to branding theories and bring in new perspectives by applying the perspectives developed during the course of the Business & Design program and our professional experiences. The binding link of design-driven approaches and methodologies became a starting point for our exploratory practice of how design is connected to marketing and branding. We chose to

PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF “CONVENTIONAL” BRANDING AND TRIGGER A CHANGE OF MINDSET.

investigate in developing a new model that would enable a different approach to branding from the currently dominant ones, or at least open a discussion concerning the possible connections between branding and design. Firstly, we use what we perceive as a marketing approach to branding to formulate the goals and deliverables for BarlindBeer. During this process we apply some methods from design thinking for research and ideation. In this phase, the design thinking methods are only to be seen as a support to marketing methodologies, such as the “Brand in a Bottle” model, which will be further investigated later in this report. After that, we attempt to use a “design-driven logic” in order to challenge and complement the “marketing logic”. We later engage in literature research and chose branding theories most in line with our combined design and marketing branding perspective.

INTRODUCTION

1.3. Methodology The diverse experiences and perceptions of our group evoked the need of framing what branding stands for in this particular case. However, it soon became apparent that it would not feel enough to just set some boundaries, proceed with an over-generalised perception of branding and focus on solely delivering a branding package to BarlindBeer. Moreover, each one of us had various concerns and preconceptions connected to branding that we wanted to explore. Thus, our main objective of this project was to break out from our previous ways of doing branding. To enable a broader understanding of navigating a mindset shift, we

Fig 1a: Brainstorming key characteristics of design and branding - design

had to concern a broader framework but at the same time include well-established theories. Hence, we touch upon the discussion of marketing, design and design thinking as influencing factors in branding. These marketing and design thinking tools are used for the branding proposal to BarlindBeer. In the main part of our report, we present our newly created concept of branding — Brand on Beta (BoB). The aim of this agile model is to push the boundaries of “conventional” branding and to trigger a change of mindset. In the following part, we want to give Jonas Barlind an example for the practical implementation of this strategy. Thus,

Fig 1b: Brainstorming key characteristics of design and branding - branding

we connect our developed “BoB Loop” model with BarlindBeer. The final branding approach is achieved through continuous iterations and is meant to be a direction for further research and discussion.

Fig 1c: Finding connections between design and branding

INTRODUCTION

Fig. 2a: Visiting BarlindBeer brewery - outside the brewery with Jonas Barlind

Fig. 2b: Visiting BarlindBeer brewery - inside the brewery with Jonas Barlind

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Movements in Marketing & Branding

BRANDING IS THE PRACTICE

Historically, marketing as a discipline has gone through several para-

IN WHICH THE IDENTITY

digm shifts. Marketing, as it is known today, has developed after the world wars, when technology evolved to a point where production methods allowed supply to exceed demand, thus increasing market competition (Fill & Baines, 2014, p. 9). Since then, it has been strongly influenced by different fields of science such as sociology, economics, psychology and anthropology. It started out as a management practice within companies but has gained status as an academic subject during the second half of the 20th century (Sheth, Gardner & Garrett, 1988, p. 13). For the purpose of this essay, we focus on marketing

AND BENEFIT OF CHOOSING THE FOCAL BRAND OVER ANOTHER IS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE POTENTIAL CUSTOMER.

as a practice in companies. Branding is the practice in which the identity and benefit of choosing the focal brand over another is to be communicated to the potential customer. It is an established field, with a well developed language, where terms such as ‘brand essence’, ‘brand promise’, ‘brand positioning’, ‘brand associations’ and ‘brand equity’ are commonly known among practitioners (Dennie, 2003, p. 461). However, one of the difficulties of conventional branding has been a short-sightedness in terms of what the identity of the brand can and should be. In the following paragraphs, we will describe Mindshare Marketing, Cultural Strategy and Flexible Branding, and reflect on their validity in today’s environment.

2.1.1. Mindshare Marketing According to Holt and Cameron (2010, p. 8) mindshare marketing focuses either on functional or emotional benefits, or on mix-andmatch offerings. These approaches will imply associations between the brand and the valued benefits in consumer’s mind. Thus, the benefit becomes the brand. However, novel functionalities are hard to come by and are easily copied by competitors, once new technologies are introduced to the market. By following the emotional benefit, brand managers will land in even more bereft spaces. Take for example Coca-Cola; the company becomes the champion of “happiness”, Pepsi is associated with “joy”, and Fanta with “play”. Emotional benefits encourage companies to pursue generic emotional promises that any brand in any category can claim. It is because of these reasons that mindshare marketers inject the brand with trends, celebrities and attributes etc. in an effort to make it relevant (Holt & Cameron, 2010, p. 11). The result is a model that is shown in figure 3.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Fig. 3: Mindshare Strategy Theoretical Model (Holt and Cameron 2010)

This “better mousetrap” logic can be useful in the short-run when a product or service has a substantial and durable advantage over competitors (Holt & Cameron, 2010, p. 11). However, Parment (2015, p. 18) argues that creating “better” products is no longer enough to survive the competitive commoditized world of today. He claims that it is impossible to hold a breakthrough brand position when the positioning exists at the level of superficial and cognitive product benefits. Since these benefits are probably not much differentiated from the competition, the brand position cannot be much differentiated either and, hence, an innovative branding opportunity is lost. In order to exploit new market opportunities, pursue innovation and create brand loyalty, Holt and Cameron suggest companies to follow the cultural innovation strategy which will be discussed in the next chapter.

2.1.2. Cultural Strategy The concept of cultural strategy guides brand practitioners to develop a new socio-cultural model for market innovation. Instead of only focusing on the mere benefits of a brand, this approach pays additional attention to historical changes and the cultural context of consumer’s lives. According to Holt and Cameron, brands break through once they become cultural expressions that tap into deep subconscious desires of consumers (Holt & Cameron, 2010, p. 12). Cultural expressions bear the right ideology, which is dramatised through the right myth and expressed with the right cultural codes. It is, hence, a set of ideas held by certain societal groups that allow

BRANDS BREAK THROUGH ONCE THEY BECOME CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS THAT TAP INTO DEEP SUBCONSCIOUS DESIRES OF CONSUMERS

them to perceive and understand the world in a consistent way.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

One company that succeeded in such cultural innovation is Nike. After early failures with the mindshare marketing approach, Nike found its way to a resonant ideological position - the “combative solo willpower”. This ideology, represented by the tagline “Just Do It”, captured the counter-hegemonic movement of the late 1990s. Nike managed to provide Americans the inspirational coaching they required to overcome societal discrimination through sport. Many

Fig. 4: Cultural Innovation Theoretical Model (Holt and Cameron 2010)

consumers found value in this cultural expression and, as a result, readily came to believe that Nike would help them perform better (Holt & Cameron, 2010, p. 179). This story illustrates the authors’ notion that Nike won over mass-market consumers with cultural expressions that resonated with their own personal ideology. In theory, the cultural strategy demands companies to analyze competitors’ dominant cultural expressions, locate a specific historical opportunity and respond to this opportunity by applying new cultural content to their brand. These steps, illustrated in figure 4, should help to discover an innovative ideological cultural expression

CULTURAL STRATEGY IS ABOUT INNOVATION APPLIED TO THE BRAND.

(Holt & Cameron, 2010, p. 190). However, these wins are largely due to trial and error and the lucky coincidence of circumstances. Cultural strategy implants a brand into the consumer’s cultural reality and invites other consumers to be part of it. At its core, cultural strategy is about innovation applied to the brand. In the next part, we will tap into an emerging idea of “flexible” brands, and discuss its challenges and opportunities in a fast-moving world.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1.3. Flexible Branding As Holt & Cameron (2010) as well as Fournier & Avery (2011) argue, cultural resonance has become the ultimate criteria for strong brands (p. 304 resp. p. 205). However, Fournier & Avery (2011) also state that society is in constant change, and what is culturally resonant today may be considered obsolete tomorrow. Especially due to recent technological developments, trends and fads can spread quickly to many different consumers. The advent of the internet, social media and the constant connection to other consumers via smartphones has changed the way consumers choose which brands to consume. For example, communicating quality through the brand has become less important as consumers tend to rely more on easily available reviews from other consumers online (Simonsen & Rosen, 2014). Another point stressed by Rust, Zeithami & Lemon (2004) is that

WHAT IS CULTURALLY RESONANT TODAY MAY BE CONSIDERED OBSOLETE TOMORROW.

marketing teams tend to focus their brand strategy on the identity of the company rather than the identity of the customers. In their opinion, firms would highly benefit from a more customer-centered approach, focusing more on “customer equity” (the sum of the lifetime values of all the firms customers, across all the company’s brands) than on “brand equity”. One possible way of handling this new environment is through “flexible branding”. It is a term used to describe the notion of moving away from a consistent brand, to a more fluid response to the external environment. This has become relevant because, as Simonson & Rosen (2014) argue, “in a world with good, low-cost information, the customer can easily start from scratch each time.” Since the customer has endless opportunities to choose products from, the brand must be up-to-date in each moment, instead of relying on previous brand loyalty. McCracken (2012) claims that this shift from secure, static brands to conversational, respiratory brands represents a massive shift of paradigms within the marketing industry. He further claims that “the new brand has to take on risk and the marketer must surrender control. This looks terrifying until one realizes that there is no place of safety. Sticking with the old branding is the path to irrelevance and tedium…and the effective death of the brand.” (McCracken, 2012). One way of remaining relevant and keeping the brand fluid and connected to society is by allowing the consumers themselves to participate in creating the brand (McCracken, 2012). For example, Smirnoff was originally targeted towards young women, but they increased their relevance to young men as consumers used the brand to create a viral drinking game. “Official” rules of the game

SHIFT FROM SECURE, STATIC BRANDS TO CONVERSATIONAL, RESPIRATORY BRANDS REPRESENTS A MASSIVE SHIFT OF PARADIGMS WITHIN THE MARKETING INDUSTRY.

spread quickly on websites without connection to Smirnoff themselves, but rapidly increased the popularity of the drink among young men (Fournier & Avery, 2011, p. 205). Harley Davidson had a similar experience in 2006. Up until the successful skateboarder Heath Kirchart published a tour video of his team riding Harley Davidson motorcycles online, the company was struggling to reach a younger audience (Ibid., p. 196).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Another example of quick maneuvering and “open-to-interpretation” brands was when the “mentos-to-diet coke” experiment first went viral. The owners of Mentos were quick to join into the trend and sponsored the creators of the first video, as well as featuring the video on their own website. Coca-cola, on the other hand, thought the experiment was ill-matched to their brand. They surrendered when the movement reached mainstream media, finally choosing to show the videos on their own home page months later(Fournier & Avery, 2011, p. 197). Companies’ ways of interacting with the market has, as seen above, evolved continuously during the past decades, and will most likely continue to do so. Another trend that has emerged during recent years is the ability of consumers to truly influence brands and brand stories through active involvement with the brand. The emergence of Web 2.0 and social media has contributed to make this possible. Through extensive consumer networks, enabling consumers to share their own stories about a brand, consumers have become pivotal actors in a brand’s evolution. (Gensler, Völckner, Liu-Thompkins, & Wiertz, 2013, p. 243) Furthermore, social media networks were made for people and their conversations, not for conventional advertising. Therefore, early tries by companies to use conventional advertising methods online failed, as users mainly perceived them as disturbing (Fournier & Avery, 2011, p. 193). Firm-generated brand stories are a powerful tool in building a brand image, and are a big part of the success of companies such as Dove and Ben&Jerrys. However, consumer-generated brand stories have increased in importance. Fournier & Avery (2011) argue that Web 2.0 taught consumers to leverage brands for their own benefit. Thus, Brand practitioners no longer control the reach of their messages, but instead consumers do (Fournier & Avery, 2011, p. 194). The benefit for the consumers is that they can use it as a medium of communication, connecting to certain individuals as well as choosing to disconnect from other individuals. The value of a brand often appeals to a very basic human need: to fit in and belong. Brands can be used as an outlet for this need, functioning as a cultural glue between

OPEN-SOURCE BRANDING “TAKES PLACE WHEN A BRAND IS EMBEDDED IN A CULTURAL CONVERSATION SUCH THAT CONSUMERS GAIN AN EQUAL, IF NOT GREATER, SAY THAN

individuals belonging to the same social movement (Ibid., p. 195).

MARKETERS IN WHAT THE

Several researchers argue that marketers would do well to encourage

BRAND LOOKS LIKE AND

and invite involvement from consumers through so-called “opensource” branding (Fournier & Avery, 2015; Muniz & Schau, 2011; Nobel,

HOW IT BEHAVES”.

2014). According to Fournier & Avery (2011) open-source branding “takes place when a brand is embedded in a cultural conversation such that consumers gain an equal, if not greater, say than marketers in what the brand looks like and how it behaves” and further, that “open source branding implicates participatory, collaborative, and socially-linked behaviors whereby consumers serve as creators and disseminators of branded content” (2011, p. 194). Letting consumers take part in open-source branding can help a company to keep the brand connected to cultural shifts in society. An example can be found by the movement around the “Twilight”-

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

books and movies. On forums and websites across the world, fans discussed the plot of the books in connection to political movements such as feminism and immigration policies. Fans also helped spread the brand, for example by creating spin-off stories in the form of fan-fictions (Muñiz & Schau, 2011, p. 213). Naturally, this power shift has resulted in challenges for traditional brand managers. They have to learn relinquish control of the brand, trust that it will grow in the hands of the consumers, and that this then will give synergy effects (Nobel, 2014). However, brand practitioners are generally ill-fitted to handle the risk of letting consumers participate in the brand creation as it may not always be in line with the company’s vision and strategy for the future (Fournier & Avery, 2011, p. 204). One such example is Porsche, who released an SUV-model, spurring protests in their social media channels as their current target group felt threatened by the image of “soccermoms” appropriating the brand (Ibid., p. 197). Furthermore, Burmann, Piehler & Löwe (2015) stress that in order to actively work with flexible brands, companies need to determine to what extent consumers can change the brand identity, and which components of the brand are open to change, without damaging the whole business. Another barrier of implementing consumer-created content into the brand is the doubt within the company that consumers are not adept to understand strategic implications of certain choices (Muñiz & Schau, 2011, p. 211). However, empirical results have shown that when acting as a collective, consumers are fully able to make decisions that will benefit the company strategically (ibid.). There are many examples of companies trying to involve consumers for certain campaigns or decisions: “Websites like Lego Mindstorms, MyStarbucksIdea.com, and MySearsCommunity.com solicit and capture consumer feedback to inform product pipelines and advertising promotions. Chiquita used crowdsourcing to identify brand messages for its oval product label. At Frito-Lay, the Lays brand regularly solicits consumer input on flavor extensions, and Doritos has three times run consumer-generated Super Bowl ads” (Fournier & Avery, 2011, p. 196). However, these examples are in a temporary setting, in a form thoroughly controlled by the company itself (Muñiz & Schau, 2011, p. 210). In the next part, we will discuss how companies can tackle the challenges of fluid branding and reinvent value in a dialogue with their customers by combining the mindset of Strategic Branding with Design Thinking.

2.2. Design Thinking There are two main discourses in literature on the topic of what “design thinking” means: the designerly and the management discourses of design thinking. “Designerly Thinking” refers to the construction of the professional designer’s practice and theoretical reflections around how to interpret and characterize the tacit knowledge of the designers. It links theory and practice from a design perspective, and is accordingly rooted in the academic field of design (JohanssonSköldberg et al., 2013, p. 123). “Design Thinking”, on the other hand,

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

is the discourse where design practice and competence are used beyond the design context, for and with people without a scholarly background in design. It becomes a simplified version of “designerly thinking” or a way of describing a designer’s methods that is integrated into an academic or practical management discourse (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013, p. 123).

USING DESIGNER’S

In this paper, we focus on the predominant definition of the term

SENSIBILITY AND METHODS

“design thinking” as part of the management discourse. IDEO is ranked among the ten most innovative companies in the world and their way of working with innovation was brought to a broader public in form of books and other resources (Kelley, 2001; Kelley, 2005). The readings provided “lessons in creativity” based on IDEO’s “design practice” perspective using their “secret formula” of a blend of methodologies, work culture and infrastructure (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). The CEO, Tim Brown, labelled the concept as ‘design thinking’, formulating steps in the process and providing help for everyone to

TO MATCH PEOPLE’S NEEDS WITH WHAT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE AND WHAT A VIABLE BUSINESS STRATEGY CAN CONVERT INTO CUS-

use IDEO’s methods (Brown & Wyatt, 2007).

TOMER VALUE AND MARKET

This predominantly recognised definition of “design thinking” is

OPPORTUNITY.

mostly applied as a managerial practice, therefore already related to marketing and management. Design thinking is a set of principles that focuses on human-centricity, fast prototyping, co-creation with customers and consumers, and “navigating the uncertainty” inspired by art. Those aspects may often seem hard to implement in fluid branding. As such, exploration and interpretation of what design thinking has to offer to branding seems appropriate.

Fig. 5: Double Diamond Process

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Tim Brown defines design thinking as “a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.” (Brown, 2008, p. 86) With the increased dynamism of the global business environment, companies must constantly problem-solve in an ad hoc and innovative, rather than a straightforward and predictable fashion (Schreyögg & Sydow, 2010, p. 1251). However, finding these flexible, yet efficient responses to problems is especially challenging in rapidly changing environments. Design thinking presents an alternative of problem-solving in organizations, as it has the power to “capture unexpected insights and produce innovation that more precisely reflect what consumers want.” (Brown, 2008, p. 8). In order to “cut through accumulated labels, schemas, and stereotypes, and to move back toward original, natural, coherent wholes (Weick, 2004, p. 46), design thinking engages bodily senses, emotions and intuition to understand a problem from both an aesthetic and functional perspective. However, arts-based approaches are always at the edge of chaos. The nature of design thinking embraces ambiguity and navigates this creative process. The “Double Diamond” model, illustrated in figure 5, maps out the divergent and convergent stages of the design thinking process. By using rapid iterative development cycles, interdisciplinary teams move from generating insights about end customers, to idea generation and testing, to implementation. Empathy is highlighted as the primary quality to be used throughout this process.

EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL OF PARTICIPATION – THE SHIFT FROM A PASSIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSUMER AND PRODUCER TO THE ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF EVERYONE IN EXPERIENCES THAT ARE MEANINGFUL, PRODUCTIVE AND PROFITABLE. As described above, design thinking starts with human needs, but then quickly moves on to ‘‘learning by making,’’ mainly through rapid prototyping (Brown, 2009, p. 87). ‘‘Instead of thinking about what to build,’’ prototyping is about ‘‘building in order to think’’ (ibid.) These “unfinished” prototypes can be used for communication, alignment, and living requirement, specifications to provide clarity and transparency during the production of a solution (Holloway, 2009). They do not need to be complex or even highly robust, let alone functional. But they must be concrete and emotional enough to allow the team to express and validate their ideas with the end-users and project stakeholders. The team is challenged to risk failure by pushing the limits of their own capacities as well as the capabilities and boundaries of the technology and the organization.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Furthermore, as Brown (2009) observes, instead of seeing its primary goal as promoting consumption, design thinking ”is beginning to explore the potential of participation – the shift from a passive relationship between the consumer and producer to the active engagement of everyone in experiences that are meaningful, productive and profitable.’’ According to Leavy (2012) companies have to ensure that their policies: • Promote ‘‘Dialogue’’ so people can share and communicate and also ‘‘make sense of the context through conversation.’’ • Provide sufficient ‘‘Access’’ so that participants can not only to use the content and also modify and extend it. • Foster ‘‘Reflexivity’’ or reflective learning, so that the inputs of participants and their interactions can be used to both improve the content and the experience of the users themselves. • Encourage ‘‘Transparency,’’ to gain trust and establish authenticity. However, it becomes clear that, for design thinking to work, an entire organization needs to embrace design as a core competence (Kolko, 2015, p. 71). According to Kolko this complex shift faces several hurdles. Firstly, it is difficult if not impossible to estimate how much value will be delivered through design. Secondly, transformative innovation is inherently risky. It involves inferences and leaps of faith. Organizations need to create a culture that allows their employees to take chances and move forward without a complete and logical understanding of a problem. Lastly, design works extremely well for imagining the future. But it is not the right set of tools for optimizing, streamlining, or operating as a stable business (Ibid.). The following chapter discusses a mindset shift in conventional branding inspired by design thinking, and presents a new concept - Brands on Beta to be applied in organizations.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

3. Empirical Research

3.1. Mindset shift of Conventional Branding As stated above, the ongoing technological revolution and changes in society give marketers several challenges to deal with. Earlier research examples have shown that companies often benefit from implementing a more flexible brand strategy, preferably with input from consumers themselves. Also, companies who match their brand to a social disruption of their time, using ideological opportunities connected to these, are among the most successful brands of the previous decades. However, we find a potential weakness in the Cultural Strategy model presented by Holt and Cameron; the model gives the company a passive role. It places companies on the sidelines of society, waiting for an appropriate social disruption to come along for the company to capitalize on. Apart from making the company dependant on a certain amount of good luck, we also argue that a reactive approach to ideological opportunities means that the company is more susceptible to imitation from others. Instead, we believe that companies should combine awareness of social disruptions and ideological opportunities with openness to flexibility in branding, inviting consumers to co-create the brand on a strategic level. It may be difficult for companies to know how to understand and involve the consumers. User-involvement is a key part of design thinking methodology, and borrowing from this knowledge can potentially guide marketers. Co-creating the brand together with

COMPANIES SHOULD COMBINE AWARENESS OF SOCIAL DISRUPTIONS AND IDEOLOGICAL OPPORTUNITIES WITH OPENNESS TO FLEXIBILITY IN BRANDING, INVITING CONSUMERS TO CO-CREATE THE BRAND ON A STRATEGIC LEVEL.

consumers could be a way for the company to gain power in terms of having an actual effect on an emerging ideology. A company on its own is not strong enough to influence an emerging social ideology, but in collaboration with the consumers involved, the company has the opportunity to play an active part. We propose that the challenges experienced by marketers in connection to implementing a fluid, open-source approach to branding, could be handled by applying or borrowing key characteristics from design thinking and design methodology. One of the main barriers is the perceived risk and fear of failure, making brand managers reluctant to relinquish control of the brand. By drawing inspiration from the Design Thinking methodology, where rapid prototyping with fast failures are a natural part of the development process, this “risk” is perceived differently. We think that the main benefit of using a design thinking approach in branding is the idea of not trying to design for perfection but designing for the majority of use, to deploy prototypes into the market and getting customers’ interactions. The challenge concerning customers decisions taking the brand in another direction than the one set by the company may not be a challenge at all, if viewed from a consumer-centered perspective. In the example with Porsche mentioned above, was it the consumers

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

who were wrong? Or was it the company who misjudged the value perceived by the customers, leading them to make a faulty strategic decision in the first place? In a truly customer-oriented organisation, the latter view on the situation can be argued to be more correct. Consumers choosing to leverage the brand in a certain way can itself be proof that a market for that brand identity exists. Therefore, the risk of consumer decision going the “wrong” way is fake.

3.2 BarlindBeer Although our main objective of this project was to rethink and reframe traditional ways of branding, we investigated and started our research with the initial task, the development of a new branding strategy for BarlindBeer. By doing so, we set up the foundation of our theoretical discussion by experiencing and reflecting on the process and the result of a practical case study. The brand strategy we developed for BarlindBeer is initially based on “Brand in a Bottle”, a well-established branding model used by major multinational beer companies like Heineken or Tiger Beer. In other categories and companies, dozens of different branding models are employed; for example the “Brand Key” by Unilever, the

Fig. 6: Original BarlindBeer bottles

“Brand Essence” by Nestlé, the “Brand Pyramid” or “Brand Ladder”, etc. Although these models look and are named differently, they are constituted with similar elements. Therefore, we believe that the “Brand in a Bottle” model can represent its counterparts well in our research.

Fig. 7: “Brand in a Bottle” Brand Positioning Model (Heineken’s Global Commerce University, 2016

Illustrated in figure 7, the “Brand in a Bottle” model comprises of two major sections. The consumer section, including “Target Consumer” and “Consumer Insight”, lays on the left side of the outer circle; while on the right side, the “Benefits” and “Reasons to Believe (RTBs)” represent a company’s offering. The “Brand Role” connects the consumer

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Fig. 8: BarlindBeerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Brand in a Bottle

Target Consumer

24-50 years old, self-conscious middle class Gothenburger

Consumer Insight

Connects to local experience, but also loves adventures.

Functional Benefits

Functional benefit: Ren Smak (Distinct, Clean), Fresh

Emotional Benefits

Home pride, Authentic, Credible

Reasons to Believe

Passionate chemist, Award winning beer, Made in archipelago, Really small scale brewery

Brand Role

Enable the people of Gothenburg to discover their home harbor.

Brand Personality

Humble, Dedicated, Refined

Brand Essence

A Taste of Exploring the Familiar

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

section with the company’s offering and the “Brand Personality” defines the look-and-feel of the brand. At its center, all six elements on the outer ring shall be formulated as one “Brand Essence”, the core benefit that enables value exchange. After interviewing Jonas Barlind, talking with bartenders and consumers, conducting field studies by visiting the brewery, bars, supermarkets and Systembolaget, analyzing competitors and doing secondary research via the internet, we defined BarlindBeer’s “Brand in a Bottle” as the following: Under this brand strategy, we further ideated several proposals for brand implementations covering from the physical logo/label designs to advertising campaigns, online content, offline events and service designs. One example, the “Hidden Treasures in the Archipelago” is an integrated idea that can bring the brand strategy to life. This idea will map out a collection of less-known natural sceneries, bars, recreational places, etc. in the archipelago that communicates the feeling of “Ren Smak”. Each of these places will be matched with a type of BarlindBeer according to their consensual experience. The main element of the beer bottle labels will be the hand-drawn maps of these places, which will also become the key visuals of the advertisements on different media channels. Besides, this idea includes a social content idea of Jonas Barlind exploring these places and sharing his personal feelings towards them; an offline event idea of pop-up beer festivals; an interaction idea that invites consumers to share their own “Archipelago Hidden Treasures”, etc. As we decided to focus more on the theoretical research than developing a comprehensive branding strategy for BarlindBeer, we stopped the experimentation at this point and did not further polish these initial ideas into executions. In the next phase of our research, we evaluated the flexibility of brand strategies and tried to modify them into more fluid constructions. On a practical level, we initiated another round of ideation with a special focus on fluid and inclusive implementation ideas. As an example, one idea we particularly liked is the establishment of a “Beer academy”. In short, this idea enables consumers to learn to create their own beer. On one hand, Jonas Barlind with his background in chemistry is specialized to create “clean” beer, but may lack some artistic inspirations. On the other hand, the local explorers are a goldmine of inspiration. A fisherman may want to taste a beer like the breeze of the sea, a local musician may expect a beer representing the melody of the city of Gothenburg, a bartender may have some thoughts of what a beer should taste like but never had an opportunity to try it out. The “Beer academy” is a platform to collaborate between BarlindBeer and consumers, enabling any local explorer to experiment and realize their beer wishes. Moreover, it would also give BarlindBeer the capability of co-creation, the adaptability to change and the ability to create social conversations.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Fig. 9: Constructing the BarlindBeer “Brand in a Bottle”

Fig. 10a: Research phase snapshot

Fig. 10b: Research phase snapshot

Fig. 11a: Brainstorming snapshot

Fig. 11b: Brainstorming snapshot

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

As we moved on to create a more flexible and agile brand model, we found this task very challenging. We started by using two different approaches: one was to optimize the elements of the “Brand in a Bottle” model, for example, replacing the “Target Consumer” with “Personas”. By using a more human-centered approach, we hoped to bring more vivacity into a brand strategy. However, no matter by which approach, once we defined the elements of the model, they became static - they immediately excluded the possibilities that are out of the scope and killed potentials to change. The second approach we tried, is to undefine the elements or to broaden them. This approach was also very problematic. Firstly, we could not agree on which elements should be defined and which ones should be open. Secondly, a broad brand strategy is not necessarily flexible and agile, instead, it becomes vague and “fluffy”. Thirdly, if a brand strategy is very broad, it loses the instructional functions for brand practitioners. Without the navigation power, it is rather regarded as a conceptual demonstration than a practical model.

3.3. Stability-based branding mindset Should the brand strategy be flexible? Or should only the implementation of the brand strategy be flexible? One interesting metaphor is to think of a brand as a fried egg, which is illustrated in figure 12. In a “Fried Egg Brand”, the egg white represents the implementations of a brand. As it highly intervenes with the environment, it should be fluid and flexible. Whereas the yolk, which represents the brand strategy, is the core of the brand – no matter if it is the brand’s key benefit in a mindshare marketing strategy or it is the brand’s ideology in the cultural strategy – it should maintain a certain level of stability to guarantee the brand’s consistency and identifiability in a fast-evolving environment. We call this type of branding “Stabilitybased Branding”. To maintain the stability and the shape of the yolk, a membrane protects it to clearly distinguish it from the egg white.

Fig. 12: A metaphor - a brand as a fried egg

Similarly, we argue that a mindset wall is built by brand managers around a brand strategy to protect the stability of the core of the brand. We call it the “Big Decision Wall”. In the stability-based branding mindset (figure 13), developing a brand strategy is an extremely careful process. It involves an enormous amount of research, countless revisions and back-and-forth discussions. Also, determining the brand strategy is considered a vital decision. The decision-maker takes a heavy responsibility because once the brand strategy is settled, it will be placed in the shrine of the company, protected by the “big decision wall” and remain unchanged for a considerable amount of time. For the sake of stability, small internal and external changes cannot break through the “Big Decision Wall”. The reactions to these small changes only happen on the implementation level. Only big changes can break the “Big Decision Wall” and lead to a new round of brand strategy making. Once the new brand strategy is decided, it will be put behind the wall again.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Fig. 13: Stability-based branding mindset

The definition of “big” and “small” changes are subjective decisions to each company. In general, “big changes” can be considered to be crises or the emerging signals of a crisis, harming the long-term development of a company. Examples could be a consistent decline in sales, losing the consumer base, strategic changes from competitors, digitization trends, etc. In other cases, when big opportunities are identified, companies may also revise their brand strategy accordingly. Nevertheless, companies are very cautious to make any changes to the core of a brand strategy if everything works fine. A stability-based branding mindset has two issues that we want to bring up for discussion:

A MINDSET WALL IS BUILT BY BRAND MANAGERS AROUND A BRAND STRATEGY TO PROTECT THE STABILITY OF THE CORE OF THE BRAND. WE CALL IT THE “BIG DECISION WALL”

Issue 1: The disconnection between a stable brand strategy and fluid implementations. On one hand, companies want the brand strategy to be stable across time, areas, touchpoints and events; on the other hand, to implement the brand strategy, companies expect their creative partners to come up with novel and special ideas that are localized in different areas, adapted on different touch points and varied for different events every year. To achieve this challenging task, creative partners have to be flexible when applying the brand strategy. In some cases, they only select the elements from the strategy that can endorse their creative ideas, and deliberately ignore the others. In some cases, they stretch the brand strategy away from its original meaning and

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

intentionally interpret it in a way that fits with their own ideas. In other cases, they simply have to give up on their favourite ideas, and end up with the ones that, although mediocre, are better aligned with the brand strategy. Even some brand managers understand the absurdity of this disconnection, thus they are very flexible and tolerant towards creative partners’ off-the-record interpretations and modifications to the brand strategy. Several examples of this were mentioned in the theoretical background. In the case of BarlindBeer, our first implementation idea (“Hidden Treasures in the Archipelago”) realized the brand essence (“A Taste of Exploring the Familiar”) in its full dimension. However, when we were developing our second implementation idea (“Beer Academy”), we had to consider more factors like co-creation with consumers. The idea, although still closely connected to the brand strategy, begun to depart from the authentic meaning of the brand strategy. Even in such a “simple” academic experiment, maintaining the original meaning of the brand strategy on an implementation level became difficult, not to mention in a much more complex and dynamic reality. There, the behind-the wall brand strategy becomes more and more outdated and disconnected to the brand’s environment over the time, and even gets distorted that nothing is left except the logo and the slogan.

Issue 2: A conservative tendency towards unexpected changes. Nowadays, a brand is co-owned by the company and consumers. Active consumers take more control of the brand and constantly create new meanings for it (Arvidsson, 2006; Fisher & Smith, 2011). However, not all these meanings are align with the brand strategy. Earlier examples have shown that companies struggle to keep an open mind, once there is a disagreement between the “correct” brand strategy that the company believes in and unexpected interpretations of the brand from consumers. As they hold on to the stability-based branding mindset, they tend to be critical towards consumer-created brand meanings, treating them not as valuable co-creative partners, but rather as threats to the orthodoxy of the brand. Thus, brand management becomes risk management and brand implementation becomes brand resistance, for its task is to ignore, deny, strangle, or fix all these disharmonious voices from consumers. We argue that, only if companies puts off the stability-based branding mindset, they can make an objective judgement based on a comprehensive analysis of the environment. Only then, a company can begin to plan the brand not according to what the brand should be like, but rather what it could be like.

RESULTS

4. Results

4.1. Brand on Beta — Continuity-Based Branding Mindset We want to propose a mindset shift in branding. We aim to pull down the “Big Decision Wall” so that a brand can dynamically immerse itself into the environment, embrace its changes at heart and co-create the future with its consumers. Without the wall, indeed, the stability of the brand cannot be protected. Already small changes will initiate a review of the brand strategy, which may then lead to a revision of it. In this sense, the brand strategy is never final and always on a “beta” stage. Brand authors should keep an open mind to changes and iterate it continuously. If a brand strategy can be altered so easily, how do companies maintain the consistency and identifiability of their brand? Considering the fast-changing environment, we think that companies should keep their brand strategy continuous rather than stable. Hence, we want to add a time dimension to the brand strategy. At any moment, the model of “Brand Architecture”, “Brand Key”, “Brand in a Bottle”, etc. is still valid. But it is not the full view of the brand strategy anymore, rather a snapshot of it. The overall brand strategy is an iterative

PLAN THE BRAND NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT THE BRAND SHOULD BE LIKE, BUT RATHER WHAT IT COULD BE LIKE.

continuum of the brand model. We term this way of understanding brand strategy as a “continuity-based branding mindset”.

4.2. BoB Spiral According to this mindset, the branding process is significantly different to the conventional process demonstrated in fig. 13. Without the “Big Decision Wall”, brand strategic decisions are no longer a one-time deal. It becomes a continuous process that keeps getting changed and influenced by the branding operations and the environment. Therefore, the distinction between the brand strategy and its implementation gets blurred. Moreover, since brands can react quickly to the dynamic reality, small changes cannot accumulate into a big unexpected change. To demonstrate the new process, we borrowed the idea of rapid prototyping in design thinking and created a new concept: The BoB spiral (see fig. 14). In this framework, both brand strategic decisions and its implementations are continuously interacting with internal and external changes, hence forming a series of beta brands. Like prototypes, beta brands are not finished constructs. Instead, they are built in order to change. Moreover, as with the natural process of co-creation, beta brands invite consumers to participate in the conversations to stimulate the momentum of a brand going to the next iteration. A good example of a BoB Spiral is Xiaomi (www.mi.com/en), an electronics company in China. In a fast-developing society and an innovation-driven industry, Xiaomi has kept flexibility of its brand strategy in response to the changing realities. Xiaomi was born out of an open-

RESULTS

Fig. 14: The BoB Spiral

source community and launched its first phone in 2011, targeting mainly tech geeks. Similar to brands like Linux and Mozilla, Xiaomi’s brand was associated with cheap, open-source and DIY spirit on its early stage. The phone was made out of plastic and priced much lower than its competitors. However, customers perceived the product as a high performance engine with a powerful processor and system open for modification. In its communication, Xiaomi claimed itself “Just for fans”, relating to the real enthusiasts that have both the skills and passion to DIY their phone. In fact, Xiaomi claimed that over 500,000 developers on Xiaomi’s community had participated in the optimization of the system. (Xiaomi, 2011) And these people then became the “fans” advocating Xiaomi. Because of the low price, Xiaomi has appealed to consumers beyond tech geeks and became popular among young people in general. The company has expanded the product line to cover a range of products, from power banks, laptops, headphones and wrist bands to television, drone, air purifiers and even rice cookers. In the process, prices became more competitive but remained low. In addition, Xiaomi’s products only kept the most basic functions. By doing so,

THE OVERALL BRAND STRATEGY IS AN ITERATIVE CONTINUUM OF THE BRAND MODEL

on one hand, Xiaomi could control the R&D and production costs and on the other hand, the products were very easy to use for any consumer. Thus, Xiaomi can be seen as the IKEA of the technology industry: having a broad spectrum of offerings, being approachable, simple and easy-to-use. In November 2016, Xiaomi launched a new phone called MIX (www. mi.com/en/mix), which was designed by Philippe Starck. Xiaomi marketed the product as “a conceptual phone that you can actually buy”. Despite the fact that the phone is almost impossible to buy, due to limited production capacities, Xiaomi is heavily promoting

RESULTS

it. The reason behind it is to establish a new brand image, similar to Apple, as “the frontier of technology” (Xiaomi, 2016). Xiaomi is trying to position themselves as an innovator who connects art, human and technology. What is the core brand strategy of Xiaomi? The geek version, the approachable version or the innovative version (fig. 15)? As an outside observer, one may find it difficult to draw the connections between these three iterations of the Xiaomi brand. However, for inside consumers, all three versions are cohesively co-existing within Xiaomi. Judging from a stability based mindset, it seems impossible to change a brand strategy so dramatically in just five years. However, judging from the continuity based branding mindset, the iterations of Xiaomi’s brand are highly engaged with its consumers and society. Therefore, when consumers engage with Xiaomi, they experience a threefold brand value. Xiaomi’s brand strategy is a BoB spiral. Any attempt to understand it in a static way will lose the full dynamic of it.

4.3. BoB Loop The BoB spiral provides an outlook of an alternative framework for the branding process. We would like to support that theoretical framework with a model for practical implication — the BoB loop. It is not to show a fixed plan or a model for framing only (like the Brand in the Bottle), but rather to metaphorically illustrate the system through which a brand could move forward and develop. This model is closer to the process illustrations used in design thinking rather than the ones used in mainstream marketing and branding, and not coincidentally. Design thinking models in different ways reflect navigation, opening, framing, researching, iterating and more. Our model is designed to illustrate some of the more and less similar concepts that allow branding to be flexible, go beyond static models and become more human-centric, consistently on beta. The BoB loop (Fig. 16) has a shape suggesting iteration, similarly to the design thinking model (Fig. 5), but also progresses through the spiral rather than a loop. There are other similarities as well, however it is the unique combination for flexible branding that will be further described as an approach inspired by not only design or design thinking, but by marketing as well. We believe that a brand can be constructed in a process of continuous iterations, each consisting of phases for brand creation. Divided

Fig. 15: Different brand identities of Xiaomi

into four distinct phases – Inspiration, Formulation, Interaction and Reflection – the BoB loop is a simple representation of a flexible branding iteration (Fig. 16).

RESULTS

Fig. 16: The BoB Loop

• Phase 1: “Inspiration” is for gathering insights from internal and external sources. • Phase 2: “Formulation” is for framing brand concept or concepts coming from ideation and synthesis of possible direction(s). • Phase 3: “Interaction” is for implementing and testing the brand in the market, possibly in several versions. • Phase 4: “Reflection” is for gathering feedback and aligning the brand from several betas in coherence with the consumers’ brand perception. The phases are to be continuously repeated as the brand progresses with time. Each individual loop and the spaces in between could take different time spans, as per the user’s choice. As the model is designed to be practical and was developed along a real-life branding project, we will now discuss it in more detail and in application to our Business & Design course context.

RESULTS

4.4. BoB Loop for BarlindBeer Every brand needs a distinct approach and way of working, thus we would like to expand on the model’s parts for the practical example of BarlindBeer’s branding. Including the authors of this paper, four groups have created branding propositions for BarlindBeer. Our model includes such a scenario into the equation. This way, after the projects’ presentations Jonas Barlind does not have to necessarily choose just one fixed branding solution.

Phase 1: Inspiration The “inspiration” phase includes researching and gathering insights from the “cultural orthodoxy”, “social trends” and “brand assets”, by such gaining inspiration from those categories. For our group it meant doing desk and qualitative research mainly involving the beer industry and its local context, from written to spoken opinions. • “Cultural orthodoxy” is taking a look at the industry and beyond with their established standards, locally and globally. It considers the current situation surrounding the brand and it’s competitors, both in the eyes of the industries and the consumers. • “Social trends” is the exploration of the social aspects of the brand’s consumption highly involving social research, trend research and field research. The exploration focuses on gaining the people’s perceptions of the brand.

Fig. 16a: BoB loop closeup - Inspiration phase

• “Brand assets” is a look at the brand’s internal resources and possibilities. It’s about gaining deep understanding of the company’s assets, motivations and scope. All of the four groups have passed through this phase, perhaps without labelling it the way we do. They may have called it a “research phase” or something else, but one way or another we all gathered data from the categories the “inspiration” phase includes. All groups used some combination of marketing approaches and models, as well as design and/or design thinking processes and methodologies, in this phase and the following one. The “inspiration” phase, similarly to the double diamond model (Fig. 5), helps “discover” the case, so that there is a possibility to move on to define areas of focus and come to developing ideas and possible solutions.

RESULTS

Phase 2: Formulation This phase comes when there’s time to make some choices and formulate directions. Our group has used various design thinking methodologies to ideate, we have conducted an internal workshop on marketing using among others “Brand in the Bottle” to synthesise our insights and frame the brand essence. We have decided on communication media, arriving at our primary focus through a series of iterations and reframing the problem and our proposition for it. We have conducted an internal typography workshop for using it as a tool for communicating the values of BarlindBeer in its new logo. There was an initial intention of creating a branding guide or a handbook for Jonas Barlind, but as stated earlier, we have decided to go beyond that by developing the discussed framework and model. However, our proposition of the branding package itself (new logo and typography) is standing alongside the proposals of other groups.

Fig. 16b: BoB loop closeup - Formulation phase

We label all four proposals “beta”. Just as a beta website, those concepts are to be presented to the public and tested for comparison and improvement. Some projects propose extended branding packages, with various amounts of changes to the brand, and what we propose is to take some or all of them and test in the market. This could be something like A/B testing in UX design (Green), but does not at all have to, as its purpose is not to quickly test all and pick one, but rather let several betas exist at once in various ways.

Phase 3: Interaction When the company (in this case Jonas) choses the concepts to try as “beta”, it comes to implementation and interaction with the market. Different branding concepts vary by amount and difficulty of changes. They could be on different levels, from strategic to incremental visual changes. As any branding proposition has a specific purpose and context, those should be considered while implementing. There could be a primary concept chosen due to individual criteria of the company, for example low expenses and search of small changes. Or there could be a more visually appealing concept, however demanding some changes in production. There could be a concept that seems very risky, and that one could be tested just as well. At this point it is possible to exist as a brand in, say three beta versions. The primary one could be used on a large market scale and even

Fig. 16c: BoB loop closeup - Interaction phase

become a replacement for the existing one. Another “beta” could be implemented through a small percentage of production and aimed at only specific categories (for example channels of distribution or personas / target audiences). The most difficult “beta” could even be solely tested in a very small amount and scope, and possibly only within a specific group of people (like Key Opinion Leaders, peers or competitors). These proportions in which different brands do not have to be equal and should be measured individually. It is then the users or consumers who would begin co-creating the brand in as many versions as it has, by providing input of their perception to the company’s vision(s).

RESULTS

Such input could be gathered in diverse ways, from establishing and measuring KPIs to data from research. It is important to begin the process of collecting insights from consumers and other stakeholders for later analysis and application to the following phase. It is beneficial to have contact with people interacting with the brand via different channels: live interaction, social media, statistics and feedback of other sorts.

Phase 4: Reflection When the beta(s) has existed for a while providing the company with various reactions and data, it should be possible to get a view of success and failures. Failures are not necessarily losses, but grounds for improvement and brand development. When there is enough data to reflect upon, the company can chose a new combination for their brand, either including various betas, choosing one or combining several betas into one. If only one of the betas prove to be significantly successful, it could be reviewed and improved. Combining several betas could mean taking the logo from one beta, applying it to another branding package and bonding them by a strategy or framework from a separate beta. Such combinations should be coherent and adapted to the context. If several combinations appear, all of them could be prototyped and tested before being implemented on a larger scale as a result of the reflection phase.

Fig. 16d: BoB loop closeup - Reflection phase

This phase should allow choices to be made for a coherent brand among its consumers and the company’s vision. Feedback interpreted and realised in the new brand beta(s) would be another iteration of the brand, becoming a meeting point of the previous betas existence from both the company’s and consumers’ perspectives. When implemented, it is not an end point, but another starting point. The various ways to track and gather interaction with the new beta should be used for the branding’s further progression through the BoB spiral. These four phases, although logically sequential, might happen simultaneously in practice. We recommend companies to “leak out” ideas for interacting with consumers during the formulation phase. The collected reflections should also motivate optimizations of the brand betas in every moment of the interaction phase. As we stressed in this paper, a fluid brand strategy means that decisions and implementation are intervening with reality during the whole time.

CONCLUSION

5. Conclusion

We are witnessing a demand for change in marketing and branding as technological and societal revolution give marketers several challenges to deal with, and some of them respond with propositions of a more flexible customer-inclusive brand strategy. We see that companies who match their brand to a social disruption of their time, while utilising ideological opportunities, are among the most successful brands. However, historically and in the cultural strategy model, brands tend to be separated from the consumers. Companies have often taken an authoritarian position or appropriated authenticity, while only sporadically allowing their consumers to contribute with their own perceptions and interpretations of the brand. If they do, it is rarely systematic or intended, therefore not making efficient use of co-creation and customer-inclusion on a strategic level. We propose some ways that companies could combine awareness of social disruptions and ideological opportunities with openness to flexibility in branding and iterative co-creation with continuous reimagining of the brand. The Brand on Beta (BoB) spiral and loop are intended to help navigate through a mindset shift in branding towards more fluidity and its practical implementation. Both are inspired by design thinking models, while allowing the usage of various existing methods and models from marketing, design and possibly subjects beyond these. We encourage application of design thinking and marketing methodologies in terms of the proposed framework, without disregarding existing concepts in branding. The BoB spiral framework is aimed to enable brands to continuously iterate and create themselves in tune with the customers and changes in the surrounding environments. Without the wall, the stability of the brand cannot be protected. This way, brand strategy is never final and is always on a “beta” stage. Brand authors should keep an open mind to changes and iterate the brand continuously. The BoB loop provides a system of phases through which a brand can move forward and develop through the BoB spiral of flexible branding. The BoB constructs are “beta” in themselves, being in an early prototyping stage that leaves room for criticism, reflection and further research.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

5. Limitations and Further Research

As this project was carried out during a restricted time frame and with restricted resources, there are limitations in the model that need to be addressed, and the model should be further developed through trial in additional case studies. In the scope of this work, we have not provided guidelines for comparing beta brands with each other. Neither have we provided detailed insight as to how consumers should interact with and co-create a brand. If given more time and resources, providing a framework for this and suggesting which aspects should be taken into consideration would strengthen the model. Also, practical considerations of the application of the model has not been treated within the scope of this paper. We departed from a point, where the brand is valued for its external communication. However, one large benefit of a clear brand is the tools for internal communications it provides, for example routines for internal decision-making. In large corporations, a strong and coherent brand serves as a guide for the everyday decision making of employees, and a fluid, continuous branding mindset could considerably alter the internal decision making process. Investigating this topic further is crucial for additional development of the BoB model presented in this paper. Departing from this, it would additionally be interesting to see how a change towards a fluid mindset could affect the organisational structure of very hierarchical versus flat organisations. Another organisational implication of applying this model are the consequences for risk management. The case study, BarlindBeer, presents challenges of a different nature compared to those of for example multinational corporations. A large corporation has many employees to support, and risk management therefore becomes crucial, often at the cost of innovation. Given time and resources, we would have liked to further investigate how a model such as the BoB Loop can be adapted to accommodate risk management and thus allow large-scale companies to be more agile. The examples used to argue for and validate our model are mainly part of fast paced industries or dependent on digital media for co-creation and communication with their consumers. In industries that are inherently slower in change, could the model still be used as a

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

framework for brand development? And is digitalisation a necessary phenomenon for marketing to evolve in a direction such as this? It would be interesting to analyse these two questions to see in what circumstances the BoB Loop can be successfully implemented, and where potential limitations lie. We have suggested that co-creating a brand together with consumers would give a company the power to actively immerse themselves in the social movements of their time, and deliberately affect the direction of these movements. Should the company succeed in this, it would give them substantial power, and we have not discussed the potential moral implications of this. Given this power, ethics and moral guidelines within the company become even more important than before. How far does the responsibility for this stretch beyond the companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundaries? Is it the company who has the responsibility to decide on moral values, or to provoke an ethical discussion among its consumers and co-creators? Finally, applying the brand development mindset proposed in this paper requires a change in the mindset regarding brand evaluation. We have argued that the value and purpose of a brand is to communicate something about its owner to the surrounding environment. Loyalty is built upon trust and coherency. What, then, happens if the brand is under constant change and the potential owner cannot know what the brand will communicate in a given amount of time?

SOURCES

6. Sources Articles • Arvidsson, A. (2006). Brands (1st ed.). London [u.a.]: Routledge. • Brown, T. (2008). “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review, June: 84–92. • Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins. • Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review , pp. 31–5. • Burmann, C., Piehler, R., & Antje, L. (2015). Strategy changes, flexibility and brand management: A case study approach of identity-based branding. In Management of Permanent Change (pp. 217-240). Springer Science Business Media. • Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The Challenges of Using Design Thinking in Industry - Experiences from Five Large Firms: The Challenges of Using DT in Industry Creativity and Innovation Management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12176 • Dennie, K. (2003). The Brand Management Checklist: Proven Tools and Techniques for Creating Winning Brands. Journal of Brand Management,10(6), 460-462. • Fisher, D. & Smith, S. (2011). Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 325-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408179 • Fournier, S. & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193-207. • Gensler, Völckner, Liu-Thompkins, & Wiertz. (2013). Managing Brands in the Social Media Environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4), 242-256. • Graham, J., Mudambi, S., Morrin, M., Ruth, J., & Venkatraman, V. (2016).Consumer Corruption of Brand Meaning: A Multi-method Exploration of Brand Appropriation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. • Holloway, M. (2009) ”How tangible is your strategy? How design thinking can turn your strategy into reality”. Journal of Business Strategy 30, num 2/3: 50–56. • Huang, W. (2010). Brand Story and Perceived Brand Image: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(3), 307-317. • Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146. • Kelley, T. with Littman, J. (2001) The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm . Crown Business. • Kelley, T. with Littmann, J. (2005) The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO’s Strategies for Defeating the Devil’s Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. Doubleday. • Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306. • Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking Comes of Age. Harvard Business Review, (September), 66–71. • Leavy, B. (2012),”Collaborative innovation as the new imperative – design thinking, value co-creation and the power of “pull””, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 40 Iss 2 pp. 25-34. • Lei, J. (2011). MIUI Phone Official Announcement of MI-ONE. Presentation, Beijing.

SOURCES

• McCracken, G. (2012) The Logic Breathing Life into Oreo’s New branding. Available online: https://hbr. org/2012/08/the-logic-breathing-life-into-oreos-new-branding (Accessed March 13, 2017). • Muñiz, A.M & Schau, H.J, (2011). How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-generated content. Business Horizons, 54(3), 209-217. • Nobel, C. (2014). A Brand Manager’s Guide to Losing Control. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ hbsworkingknowledge/2014/03/19/a-brand-managers-guide-to-losing-control/#6fc6390b2e56 (Accessed March 13, 2017). • Nussbaum, B. (2011). “Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment: So What’s Next?” Fast Company blog. Available online: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/beyond-design-thinking (Accessed March 13, 2017). • Rust, R. T., Zeithami, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2004). Customer-centered brand management. (Tool Kit). Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 110) • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Crossroads: Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21, 1251-1262. • Simonson, I. & Rosen, E. (2014). Three Long-Held Concepts Every Marketer Should Rethink. Available online: https://hbr.org/2014/01/three-long-held-concepts-every-marketer-should-rethink (Accessed March 13, 2017). • Weick, K. E. (2004). Rethinking organizational design. In R. J. Boland Jr. & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36-53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. • Willmott & Hugh. (2010). “Creating ‘value’ beyond the point of production: Branding, financialization and market capitalization”. Organization, 17(5), 517-542.

Printed material • Baines, P., & Fill, Chris. (2014). Marketing. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. • Holt, D., & Cameron, D. (2010). Cultural strategy: Using innovative ideologies to build breakthrough brands. Oxford University Press. • Sheth, Jagdish N., Gardner, David M. & Garrett, Dennis E. (1988). Marketing Theory - Evolution & Evaluation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Websites • Skibsted, Jens Martin, and Hansen, Rasmus Bech. “Brands Aren’T Dead, But Traditional Branding Tools Are Dying”. Harvard Business Review. N.p., 2014. Web. 19 Mar. 2017. • Carrillo, Lorena. “Fixed Or Fluid Brand Management. Which Is Right For You? Avenue B2B Marketing Strategy & Activation”. Avenue-inc.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 19 Mar. 2017. • Green, James. “An Introduction To A/B Testing”. Usabilitygeek.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2017. • Global Commerce University. (2017). https://gcu.heiway.com. Retrieved from https://gcu.heiway.com • Xiaomi Phone with MIUI OS: a $310 Android with 1.5GHz dual-core SoC and other surprises. (2017). Engadget. Retrieved from https://www.engadget.com/2011/08/16/ xiaomi-m1-with-miui-os-a-310-phone-with-1-5ghz-dual-core-soc-a/ • Mi MIX - Mi Global Home. (2017). Mi.com. Retrieved from http://www.mi.com/en/mix/