What problems emerge when we discuss the new Brand Identity of a brand?
Discussions about a brand’s new identity point to a larger problem in the industry: We’re judging by personal reason, by “common sense” and “logic”.
Sounds reasonable.
But the assessment based on logic, reasoning, experience, common sense shows that: The market is still looking at Marketing – Branding as ART (Art), not SCIENCE (Science).
Without Science, the argument that the Earth is flat – flat also sounds very reasonable, logical, true common sense. If there is Science, that is, there is evidence/data to prove it, but still don’t believe in Science but believe in logic/common sense, then there is the Flat Earth Society.
Science does not guarantee enlightenment. But it ensures this truth is well-founded, has data to prove, is objectively tested and repeats the same results after different experiments.
Marketing Science and Evidence-based Marketing is not a completely new science, but it is not too ancient, dating back to the 1970s. Most of the marketing science research is not known and applied by Marketers Practitioners in the field of marketing. practical, because of its poor applicability and because it is too academic.
However, at the present time, in 2023, Marketing Science has been well received and spread globally, especially in developed countries. Even now, they have reached the 3rd Wave – “The Third Age of Effectiveness” , as WARC has just named the Effectiveness event at the Cannes Lions Advertising industry festival 2023.
Back to the story of people evaluating the identity of the new brand, the problem is not in the praise – criticism but in the compliment – criticism approach. According to what theory of Marketing Science do we judge?
Every evaluation should start with the most basic question: “How Brands Grow?”
Let me be clear in advance, if you are expecting a positive and negative conclusion from me, you will be disappointed. Because I only cite the scientific background and leave room for you to make your own judgment. Here are the two most popular schools today:
School 1: Distinctiveness by Byron Sharp, Ehrenberg-Bass . Institute
“Be distinctive, not different” .
“Rather strives for meaningful, perceived, marketers should seek meaningful distinctiveness”
Mr. Byron Sharp challenged the importance of Differentiation. With the data backing up, he concludes that consumers really don’t see brands as being too different. Finally, the most important role of Brand – Communication is Brand Salience (roughly translated: Brand prominence), that is, how to make your brand stand out in the moment of demand. consumer mind.
Therefore, in Byron Sharp’s view, Distinctiveness is the end goal, not Differentiation .
Differentiation Distinctiveness Differentiation. Because Distinctiveness doesn’t need meaning, it’s unique, distinguishable assets, including: logos, colors, taglines, icons, advertising style, packaging, representation, or even advertising style.
Read the full article in Brands Vietnam.
