These are great thoughts.

I recently heard John Seely Brown declare the death of equilibrium as an economic concept, and if he’s right it will be a very important thing for organizations to not only to buttress themselves against paradox, but to create structures that can flex and adapt to the push and pull of contradictions, like earthquake architecture for organizations. Can resilient brands become vehicles for this important new organizational virtue?

I wanted to explore your unifying brand idea. Because, though I think you are right that certain kinds of ideas, like brands, need a particular integrity, I also think there are examples of “brands” that are strong enough envelopes to contain not only paradox, but even contradiction.

Think of the word democracy as a test case. I think that this “brand” of political ideal/system is sufficiently plastic that is has contained paradox and contradictions, both historical and conceptual, and yet retained a strong and resilient identity over time. I grant that it may prove an exception, but maybe there’s something interesting we can learn from the exception?

How about Canada as a brand? Quebec? I wonder if it may not be important in these cases to engineer a tolerance for tensions, political/cultural/linguistic, into their brand ideas.

I guess I am wondering whether a brand can be both a unifying idea and pluralistic at the same time?

So if nuanced thinking that can accommodate apparent contradictions is for grown-ups, all those pop business books promising simple truths for success are written for… ?

My proposition is pretty much where you’re coming from……brand experience has greater impact on brand equity – and so on corporate profitability – than brand image. Marketing functions, focused as they usually are on marcomms, have little impact or influence on brand experience. So how can they be guardians of the brand?

To me, it all seems so a-b-c. I cannot believe (I’m resisting the caps lock button here!) because to me it seems so blindingly obvious! Brand experience is, of course, a cumulation of many things, many customer touchpoints. But these are weighted and the direct customer/company interface – sales rep, telesales caller, checkout girl, delivery van that cuts you up at the traffic lights, whatever – weigh in far heavier. (I just emailed Richard Branson because I’ve been trying to get Virgin Holidays to give me a quote, via web or phone, and they are working their butts off to avoid me! No-one ever calculates the dents in brand value)…….

All the blue chips continue to focus on the marketing, aided and abetted by their marcomms suppliers, most of whom don’t get HR at all. It’s the boiling frog syndrome. They just don’t know it’s over. Marketing was a 20th century invention for an industrial age and for manufacturing-based economies. The classic marketing tools and the classic marketing departments (i.e. most of them) are less and less effective for more and more cash. Your average marketing department now has influence/control over a < 1% of brand experience. Some of the current top global brands were built with little or no marketing (google, starbucks), So what the hell do they really know about their brands?! How many opportunities are corporations missing by working this old, dated paradigm?

Meantime, HR is a function looking for a cause. It knows that its role is becoming increasingly commercially imperative, but for all the ‘strategic HR, business partner’ (don’t’ get me on that one, I hate that phrase!!) HR is a long way from establishing its core value in a business, mainly because the level of commercial consciousness in HR folk is close to zero. They love a good law to wrangle with, a good process to enforce – but are they passionate and knowledgeable about their businesses and their customers? Rarely.

The answer, I think, is to re-define both. Keeping a finger on the consumer pulse is obviously critical. That’s marketing (with a bit of HR, possibly…. I always wonder why the checkout clerk isn’t trained to ask me 5 key questions while he’s scanning my groceries!). HR’s job is to guard the value set. Values will be the defining measure of the 21st century. Values will be the brand.

For many months I’ve been googling to try and find anything that really enhances my thinking. There’s a bit about how marketing and HR should be new best friends; lots about how either function needs to establish their respective seats at the top table. Whenever I talk about HR being new guardian of the brand, I get endless employer branding stuff back in my face. Marketers just want to talk about their brand digitally – for that, read online advertising. Misses the point altogether. Seems my passion has little voice – yours was the first to articulate it at all. How come you’re there?!

Great post. Just wondering if you shpuld design the total organisatio towards the brand identity. If I can use a metaphore..

Somebody whiches to have the body of a Body builder. Designs how the body should look and imposes it on the company. The body will resist maybe even damaged.

I rather like the idea that a feeling of purpose or meaning travels through organisations like a virus adapting it the company to fulfill it’s purpose. Feels like more organic and more inside out..

I agree with Brian and hope you post more..

Bytheway

In my experience, a company will typically approach customers the same way that it approaches its own employees. Sadly, many “brand problems” are really organizational problems projected on to the customer. This can be avoided by implementing a program of value-based brands, which can organically align companies and customers, and by locating brands (and the brand team) at the core of business.

Hopefully you’ll be posting more frequently in the future. Brand practice needs more perceptions like yours. Your previous post on HR and brands was also right on target. I would have commented when it appeared, but I just discovered your blog this week.