Branding backlash

Branding is the corporate equivalent of sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll --a shortcut to all that seems good. Companies look at the rewards from branding sneakers, fizzy sugar water and coffee and say, "me too!" Advertising and PR agencies no longer promote or increase visibility --they "brand."

Yet a backlash against branding is growing. In small ways, this can be seen in the "anti-brand" books being published: "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, "Luxury Fever" by Robert Frank and "The World is Not for Sale" by Francois Dufour and Jose Bove. In larger ways, it can be seen in the anti-globalization demonstrations in Seattle, Sweden, and Genoa that even led to several deaths. Anti-American demonstrators don't protest against the Statue of Liberty; they attack the brands that symbolize U.S. culture. The French even made a national hero out of the farmer who drove his tractor into a McDonald's.

The arguments against branding are encapsulated in "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" by Naomi Klein. Published in seven languages, the book has become the bible of the anti-globalization movement. Klein has even been named as one of the world's most influential people under 35 by European publications.

The seductively well-written book argues that brands have become divorced from the products they represent. Phil Knight helped pioneer this trend, moving Nike from a sneaker manufacturer to a brand that represented a lifestyle characterized by the"essence of athleticism." Such branding had three unfortunate implications, according to Klein.

First, companies abandoned production. Nike and other brands shed their U.S. factories, outsourcing production and other areas to Asia and Latin America. Tommy Hilfiger, for example, outsourced everything so he could potentially run his empire from his bedroom. This has produced the dark side of globalization -- U.S. workers laboring in temp positions while Asian manufacturers exploit underpaid women in sweat shops.

Disconnecting product attributes from the "brand" also forced manufacturers to create an "image," usually by ubiquitous advertising. Nothing was sacred -- not bathroom stalls, classrooms or urban landmarks. Eventually, such universal presence lost its impact, forcing companies to continuously ratchet up marketing efforts. Klein quotes Jonathan Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum in their book, "Under the Radar--Talking to Today's Cynical Consumer:" "Consumers are like roaches. We spray them with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance".

Finally, the importance of a brand caused companies to defend their "image" vigorously, even to the point of censorship. Wal-Mart will remove a publisher from its shelves --permanently -- if a magazine or album cover offends it. McDonald's marshaled its enormous legal resources against a two-person Web site in U.K. that criticized its anti-environmental practices. And here, south of Atlanta, a student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi shirt on his high school's "Coke Day".

Anti-globalization forces are, unfortunately, gathering strength. It's going to be increasingly harder to reach consumers, especially with the "Four P's" and other dated strategies of the mass economy. Nearly half of all U.S. college students have taken marketing courses. For them, "shooting down advertising has become a kind of sport," says Bond and Kirshenbaum. Even seniors, who are typically the most loyal, are turning into brand butterflies. A study by the ad agency DDB found that the percentage of those aged 60-69 who were loyal to well-known brands fell from 86% to 59% between 1975 and 2000.

Companies interested in growing their brands in the face of these trends need to take three steps:

Abandon "awareness" as a benchmark: Remember "eyeballs" as an Internet economy benchmark? Laughable now, isn't it? Yet companies still measure branding efforts on "awareness," which is nothing but the mass-economy equivalent of "eyeballs." This only contributes to the marketing intrusion that produces backlash and little measurable value.

Do good works: In their otherwise ho-hum book, "Driving Customer Equity," the trio of authors point out that ethics is one of the drivers of brand equity: "In considering whether to do business with a firm on a long-term, basis, customers will examine the extent to which the values of the brand or of the firm are consistent with their values." Brands must represent good corporate citizens who support their communities, live by their ethics and promote environmentalism. Remember that the Hershey, Cadbury and Kellogg's brands started with the way the firms treated employees and their communities.

Side with localization: Global brands (and all brands are global in the customer economy) face the timeless Manichean struggle between centralized and localized brand control. While the anti-globalization trend is ascendant, the wisest course today is to follow the leads of Nestle, Diageo and others, and stress localization.

Disney chairman Michael Eisner calls the term "brand" -- "overused, sterile and unimaginative." That's an overstatement, but in the age of globalization it's helpful to remember that the mindless pursuit of a brand may have unwanted repercussions -- just like sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll.

This is one of a fortnightly series of continuing excerpts from the book, "FUSIONBRANDING: Strategic Branding Models for the Customer Economy...And Beyond."

PLEASE pass it on to anyone interested in branding, marketing and the operational excellence that builds customer equity. Nick Wreden has more than 20 years experience in branding, working with top technology and other firms. He has an MS in technology management and an MA in journalism. He can be reached at 770-582-6791. To subscribe: email netbrand@bellsouth.net !