Despite what many believe, good ideas might not come from flashes of insight or moments of brilliance. Here is a good video that discusses further.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
One cynic's view: Morality makes terrible brands
A strong brand creates an emotional bond with consumers and establishes a degree of trust. This bond and established trust attracts brand advocates who allow a brand to make some missteps along the way and these brand advocates are a little more understanding and forgiving when these setbacks occur.
Unfortunately, I fear that our society does not behave the same way toward brands that are connected in any way with a squeaky clean image or those built upon any degree of morality as a driver of brand equity, however much or little that morality is implied or explicitly defined. It seems to me that brands that are widely perceived as being moral or clean or uplifting become huge targets upon which many people will turn as soon as there is even the slightest hint of misstep, lapse in judgement or setback. Often before the facts are even in.
Perhaps it is the natural tendency for humans, who by definition cannot possibly be 100% moral, to tear down and try to destroy something perceived as morally superior at even the slightest hint of a failing because it makes us somehow feel better about ourselves. Perhaps we resent any air of morality associated with a brand because we know it is impossible to be 100% moral 100% of the time. Perhaps brand managers who foster any sense of morality are simply setting their brands up for catastrophic failure when an inevitable lapse occurs.
Why do we allow a lesser degree of forgiveness or understanding for brands that are built upon any degree of moral value? Why do people seek to completely destroy these brands when an inevitable misstep happens?
It seems to me that we ought to allow these brand more leeway but quite the opposite occurs.
Brand managers beware.
Unfortunately, I fear that our society does not behave the same way toward brands that are connected in any way with a squeaky clean image or those built upon any degree of morality as a driver of brand equity, however much or little that morality is implied or explicitly defined. It seems to me that brands that are widely perceived as being moral or clean or uplifting become huge targets upon which many people will turn as soon as there is even the slightest hint of misstep, lapse in judgement or setback. Often before the facts are even in.
Perhaps it is the natural tendency for humans, who by definition cannot possibly be 100% moral, to tear down and try to destroy something perceived as morally superior at even the slightest hint of a failing because it makes us somehow feel better about ourselves. Perhaps we resent any air of morality associated with a brand because we know it is impossible to be 100% moral 100% of the time. Perhaps brand managers who foster any sense of morality are simply setting their brands up for catastrophic failure when an inevitable lapse occurs.
Why do we allow a lesser degree of forgiveness or understanding for brands that are built upon any degree of moral value? Why do people seek to completely destroy these brands when an inevitable misstep happens?
It seems to me that we ought to allow these brand more leeway but quite the opposite occurs.
Brand managers beware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)