As always, the new post on adliterate - about coherence being more important for brands than consistency - is a great one. The argument, very briefly, goes something likes this: as audiences and channels diverge, consistency across channels becomes less and less important (and possible). Instead coherence, based on a (big) brand idea, arises as the new solution.
I very much agree, but still have some trouble with the concept of this big brand idea. What is it? To me it seems that, in order to make this work properly, we to find something at very core of the company: An idea, concept, belief, whatever, that pulls the whole organisation together. Only then, can this ideas live, be communicated, be experienced, and so on throughout. I believe Coca Cola has somehow (re)discovered a core of their onion. The coke side of life campaign works nicely in various media with a great range of international and local adaptations. Arguably, much praised Dove fails at being in touch with their real inner self. As much as I do like the campaign and the idea behind it, I agree that it is hard believing that Unilever actually cares. Which again leads to a possibly interesting discussion of big vs. smaller companies and branding.
So how do brands connect? Does it necessarily need an idea to connect to? It rather confuses me. Somehow this Muppet-manah-manah-clip makes a good point. I suppose Statler's comment is a rather typical reaction to much communication. Still, it works for me. This is, by no means, meant to be a defence for more sponsored jokes. But I suspect a lot of things works for a lot of people, and in many cases only intuition or chance can help pick the right one. Just do it.
Comments