I have had a pet theory for a number of years: that a good way to think about brands is as stories, and that what we do in the communications industry is story telling. Not the whole thing, War & Peace style, obviously. But the bit relevant to the brand at that time - maybe the latest chapter in an unfolding story; maybe retelling a classic foundational tale.
Why brands as stories? Because, like a good story, potent brands are rich, complex, multi-layered and multi-dimensional; they are constantly evolving along a narrative path we can't necessarily comprehend (unless we are the 'author'), but which always makes sense when you look back at it.
When you think about it, our desire to keep brands simple and static is terribly misguided, given the narrative complexity we are surrounded by today. It is like being stuck with just those good old-fashioned, simplistic/superficial children's books & TV shows for company (ahh, how we pine for the good-old-days). In the world in which we now live though, the old ways can't possibly hold the attention of the kids they were developed for, let alone adults. And it's the same for brands and comms.
The problem I have though, is that whenever I talk about this stuff with people, more often than not their eyes glaze over like I'm talking so much planning blah (doesn't happen with other planning blah I might spout...some of which really is blah...so it must be the subject!). Now maybe it's because this is all nonsense. But I don't think it is: conceptually I'm sure it's right...if a little overly conceptual.
Nonetheless, and the reason for this post, I was given further pause for thought recently by something written over at Noisy Decent Graphics. It laid down a challenge to the thought that 'great brands are like novels you can't put down'. The point? That in terms of the relationship people have with 'things', we don't 'love' brands (no matter what we might say about creating 'fans' and building 'love marks' and becoming 'indispensible') in the way we can become un-put-down-ably addicted to books; but at the same time, the relationship we have with even the most addictive books is transitory (once it's finished our relationship tends to be over), whilst we keep coming back to brands we maybe don't even like, let alone love. So the comparison is a bad one.
All of which I think I agree with. I love brands, and I think our job is to build potent ones which forge strong links with their users. But I do think we sometimes overstate the nature of these relationships in the language we use - 'love' is too strong. I love my wife and son: if we have an argument, or if they've gone somewhere without me, I don't go to the 'wife and son' shelf and pick up an alternative that will do me just as well. Nor do I feel the need to take someone else's son to the park to play football because I 'just fancy a change'. But that's what we do with even the brands we claim to 'love'. So, no, love is probably too strong a word, except for maybe a small number of brands which, for highly personal reasons, people do find it hard to put down.
But what brands can be is interesting, engaging, rewarding etc. Which brings us back to stories. And gets us where precisely? In terms of the 'great brands are like novels you can't put down' question, I think it comes down to the difference between similes and metaphors (to get all technical), and what you are comparing yourself to.
To say a brand is like a book you can't put down (a simile), suggests that a brand has the physical properties of an un-put-down-able book (which I think we've agreed it doesn't). To say a brand is a story (a metaphor), says that...well...a brand IS a story in the way it behaves and develops. Which I do very much believe.
Still can't get others biting though. Any tips welcomed.
Recent Comments