I agree it's not just about branding for interactive media (is there such a thing - a brand in a vacuum?) but how to manage across platforms, channels, cultures, etc. whether its content, creative or context.

I don't think there are many who have got to grips with it: either traditional brand agencies who often appear almost luddite in their refusal to accept that things have changed, or new-media agencies and dotcoms who have been naive (or greedy) in thinking that they can just crack-off another brand in the time it takes them to produce a website.

A little more knowledge and realism on both sides would be helpful:

The brand gurus might appreciate that if they can deal less in control and more in direction, what they have in interactive media is the answer to their wildest dreams: platforms and channels that can come close to reducing audience waste, wrap the brand message precisely in context and provide interactivity at the source - in other words: targeted brand involvement and experiences to add to the awareness that money can buy. Plus of course, realistic measurement and analysis to prove success or otherwise (ever wonder why ad agencies are wary of new media agencies??).

The new-media whizz-kids have to recognise that building brands is about more than a logo, eyeballs, click-throughs and brand awareness and start to appreciate that assumptions and gut-feel is inferior to knowledge, decent research, experience and sensible time-frames. Many could begin by distinguishing between brand and identity...

Create your offering: prepare and think long and hard about your values, objectives and your identity... spend a few years building: awareness and comprehension, adding customers and creating conviction and desire...exceed expectations, manage perceptions and build customer interaction...if you've done well then you might be able to start talking about trust and loyalty and even evangelism...then, and only then can you realistically start to refer to your 'brand'.

Try someone who really has thought about brands and where they're going - Saatchi CEO Kevin Roberts at the excellent Love Marks (http://www.lovemarks.com/index.htm )

On 16:09:22 4 July 2001 campus77 wrote:
>Just a few questions about branding.
>A definition of brand could be experience, usage. Brand
>has been normally divorced with the product or service (so
>wich one was first - again?). But now, with the massive
>introduction of Internet in every company, the channel for
>delivering information has changed dramatically. Now, more
>than before the multichannel experience is here and
>because of this, brands went more than one dimension.
>When we interact with a web site, the experience we get
>from this site itÕs shaping the brand itself. And we
>get a experience mainly because we interact with it, and
>this interaction itÕs non linear. So how do we
>design for the interactive experience? Any framework or
>strategy?.
>At the same time, because we get in contact with brand in
>several places and at different moments, the image we get
>should be consistent. ItÕs like having a
>birdÕs view of the whole picture and implant it. All
>the parts involved should work together. Disconnected
>cross-messaging is really damaging the brand. So how do we
>maintain continuity?. If every media creates an
>experience, how do we make all of them only one coherent
>message?. How do you coordinate all the different parts
>and agencies involved?. Could be content is part of the
>answer.

You make some interesting points here but I might be able to clarify a few things form a marketers perspective. Much of what you talk about is similar to ideas that some marketers (including myself) believe is the future but they are all linked by one thought - the fact that brands are just a set of values (and they can, but don't have to be, divorced form product).

Three points to bear in mind when thinking about brands and new media:

1) Brands are a set of beliefs that consumer buy into (like a religion) and anything you deliver from a brand MUST be true to its 'DNA' and based in a fundamental consumer insight.

2) Marketing will continue to move toward '3-D' experience where consumers can live and breathe the brand as they would a 'religion'

3) All marketing communications should always be integrated. Every time a consumer interacts with your brand they MUST live the same brand ideals and beliefs every time.

A - Experiences are the key to future marketing success

The move to an experience economy means that successful brands will be those that allow consumer to live and breath the brand everyday. The traditional view is that brands are derived from good products or services - product comes first and then the brand. This was the basis for what people now call the 'service' economy.

However, many futurologists now predict a move to something they call the 'experience economy'. This has been driven by many macro consumer trends (e.g. cash rich, time poor etc) and the fact that our generation have lived in a world completely different from our parents' - the move from the baby boomers (where economy was all and people knew of wars, mass unemployment etc) to generation x (where we've never really known hardship).

A move to the experience based economy means that consumers will want brands to deliver much more than products with functional benefits. They want ‘religions’ they can buy into every day. Brands are already moving toward this – witness the move that Persil has made from ‘washes your white even whiter’ to ‘understands your home life and makes it easier and better’. The new brand DNA is effectively we are the perfect home assistant and the consumer insight is that many consumers believe the breakdown in family structures is bad. Hence, the Persil website should strive to provide the perfect home assistant on the web (answering your questions on spillages etc) and do this in a way that says ‘family’ in a big way (the tone of the content, the pictures you use etc).

B - Think of brands as like a religion (and NOT as a product with a logo)

The thinking now is that brands come first and all they are is a set of tightly defined beliefs. They are much like a religion that provides a belief system that consumers will buy into. And like a religion, brands exist to fulfil the three fundamental aspects of being a human being:

1) The social - what does this brand say about you to others;
2) The personal - how does this brand make you feel;
3) The functional - what does this brand help you do.

Virgin is a good example of a 'modern' brand - it has no specific product to offer. Instead it offers a belief to consumers that they are 'taking on the big, nasty corporations'. This is the 'essence' or ‘DNA’ of the brand and is base on a fundamental consumer insight - consumers believe that big corporations are stitching them. Because consumer BELIEVE in the Virgin brand any product that stays true to this brand essence will succeed. For example, people thought BA was taking the piss with some of its fares - hence Virgin Air was a good brand to believe in. This was still the case when they took on big bad record companies. However, no one fundamentally thought Coke was nasty and so Virgin cola was a failure, as it did not base itself in the brand belief system. Similarly, the bridal and vodka businesses did not understand the amazing ‘religion’ they were attached to. So you can see that the brand comes first and then a product that must live the brand (and by default be good as this is a given- hence why Virgin rail is a failure).

C - ‘3 D religious experiences’ are they way forward for websites

So for new media agencies, which may have to educate their clients, as many brand owners still believe that product is king, the opportunities are amazing. New media offers the perfect channel by which to allow consumers to live and breath a brand. You can interact at any time of the day and you can do this in groups or on your own. The key then, is to understand the brand as well as you can – what is its DNA? What is the fundamental consumer insight that is driving consumers to buy into this specific ‘brand religion’?

A good example for me is a site developed by BMW. This is a superb piece of marketing communications using the web. Web address is www.bmwfilms.com and set out below the reasons I think it is good. It can be bettered but is certainly more in tune with the future than trying to sell you washing powder over the net!

I've often wondered what other products would look like if BMW made them (for example Guinness counts, cigarette lighters etc) and this really does live up to my expectations. I have a fast internet connection so the site works really well - I suspect it won't work as well via Diageo's internet access which is notoriously slow! The site is a stand alone website with:

- 6 films made by highly regarded directors (Guy Ritchie, Ang Lee) of around 6-7 mins each

- each film features a different BMW vehicle and through some great storylines demonstrates the benefits of a BMW over its rivals (control, balance, well made etc)

- so each film sells the benefits without the consumer really knowing it as they are engrossed in some great action films with some great storylines

- the films are all linked by one character, played by the really cool Clive Owen from Croupier, who is really a proxy for the personality of BMW (suave, enigmatic etc)

- lots of ways of watching the films (all speeds and systems catered for) BUT even better a unique BMW player you can download for yourself that allows punters to get extra dimension to each film (like a DVD player)

- the BMW player is superb and looks and functions just as you'd expect its cars to

- each director also provides a version of his film with a voice over explaining how he tool specific shots, why he chose certain locations etc and espousing how good the cars were to work with !!

- each film really demonstrate to me that you can communicate brand values through a 'cultural artefact' - a piece of art the brand creates with the help of a specialist

- each film also takes a pop at key competitor cars (one demonstrates the lack of balance of a Merc for instance)!

On 16:09:22 4 July 2001 campus77 wrote:
>Just a few questions about branding.
>A definition of brand could be experience, usage. Brand
>has been normally divorced with the product or service (so
>wich one was first - again?). But now, with the massive
>introduction of Internet in every company, the channel for
>delivering information has changed dramatically. Now, more
>than before the multichannel experience is here and
>because of this, brands went more than one dimension.
>When we interact with a web site, the experience we get
>from this site it’s shaping the brand itself. And we
>get a experience mainly because we interact with it, and
>this interaction it’s non linear. So how do we
>design for the interactive experience? Any framework or
>strategy?.
>At the same time, because we get in contact with brand in
>several places and at different moments, the image we get
>should be consistent. It’s like having a
>bird’s view of the whole picture and implant it. All
>the parts involved should work together. Disconnected
>cross-messaging is really damaging the brand. So how do we
>maintain continuity?. If every media creates an
>experience, how do we make all of them only one coherent
>message?. How do you coordinate all the different parts
>and agencies involved?. Could be content is part of the
>answer.

Paul, I think the points you have made are very wise and very constructive. The consumer research bit of the BMW site didn’t accost me when I visited and I think you are right to question the way it has been done - it sounds very clumsy and certainly is not in the same spirit as the rest of the site.

You are absolutely correct to point out that talking at consumers about your brand is not the way forward and yes some religions do this. When I spoke of 'experiential' marketing being the way forward, I was absolutely talking about a commitment to move marketing away from preaching and more to a day-to-day interaction. And certainly the consumer and not the brand should mostly initiate those interactions. When I worked in Ireland on Guinness, the big change we made was not in our copy or visuals etc but in our tone. We moved from being a big brand that acted like it was owed something by the consumers (I remember a very senior sales person saying to me that any young person who wasn’t into drinking Guinness wasn’t worth thinking about and that it was their loss!!) to being a brand that aimed to interact with consumers on their terms, in their language and offering something valuable and positive to add to their lives (and that wasn’t the drink!).

I've talked on the forum before about my firm belief that the way forward to communication on the Internet is through brand communities. Brands should aim to create a place consumers want to go, like their local church or their local pub. Somewhere they feel comfortable, feel like they belong and get something out of being there (be that information, fun, a laugh, or any other type of experience you can think of).

A final thought - I talked in the BMW piece about the idea of cultural artefacts. I've just been to the Tate Modern and was struck again by the strength of a piece of art to engage, challenge and communicate very specific messages. I want to believe that brands can do the same through a similar medium and the BMW site, albeit a very crude start, is a good start in moving from 'preaching' 48 sheet billboards and 30 second ads to something that has true meaning and value. What do you think?

On 15:28:56 8 July 2001 paul wrote:
>Great post Shilen and I agree with you most of the way,
>but <devils advocate> there seems to be a gap
>between theory and practice in many instances and I wonder
>whether this is related to clients and agencies
>understanding their brands but misunderstanding the
>internet?</devils advocate>
>
>Of course all marketing communications should be
>integrated but talking 'with' someone online is very
>different to talking 'at' someone in the 'dirt-world'. Too
>often it seems that 'thinking of your brand as a religion'
>results in work that preaches to customers rather than
>includes them, thereby missing the unique SP of the net...
>
>Take www.BMWfilm.com: no doubt BMW have done their
>research (and I would have thought the site should aim
>itself pretty close to me - in media, youngish, vaguely
>upward and mobile, a touch of soul.!? : ) but I'm
>immediately wary when I come to a site that hits me with a
> pop-up window stating:
>
>"Good News! You've been randomly selected to
>participate in a survey. We greatly value your opinions
>and, if you participate, you may download a BMW The Hire
>screensaver and enter a draw to win a free BMW desk clock.
>"
>
>("Good morning, my friend and I were in the area and
>wondered whether you'd like to buy a copy of The
>Watchtower")
>
>The fact that the site is stand-alone and not the main BMW
>site makes it more relevant, but to me it still smacks of
>talking at people rather than with them. Yes I can get a
>free screensaver or win a clock (clock??? what about a
>car!) but I'd rather we didn't start our new relationship
>with a 'butt-in' asking that I help you, shouldn't it be
>the other way round? And then you follow it up with a
>skip-intro!
>
>The irony is that the Internet makes gathering such
>information much easier without resorting to blatant
>means: I was randomly selected, why? Even the Jehovah's
>Witnesses must have some form of targeting?
>
>To use the Internet to your advantage concentrate on the
>customer - 'community precedes commerce'. BMW don't have
>the problem many others face i.e. "Just because I've
>bought your product for 10 years doesn't mean I want to
>hang around with you!" which gives it a head-start in
>creating community but you don't do that online by
>thinking of yourself first.
>
>I don't know who did the site, and maybe I'm
>clutching-at-straws but I think that a good interactive
>agency (with a knowledgeable user-testing regime) would
>have found a far better way of gathering the relevant
>customer information. They'd probably misunderstand the
>overall brand message! But they'd appreciate the integral
>part played by the medium.
>
>"Brothers and Sisters...by all means think of your
>brand as a religion but make that religion
>inclusive...Buddhist or Quaker rather than Jehovah's
>Witness...and ask worshippers to accept the central tenet:
>"Ask not what you can do for our brand but what our
>brand can do for you."
>Amen : )
>
>

Here's a good article from the BBC which is highly relevant to this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/newsid_1429000/1429911.stm

STRO

On 11:46:07 9 July 2001 Sam wrote:
>Another interesting site is Club Nokia
>(http://www.clubnokia.com) - also involving the
>user/customer in a deeper, more rewarding relationship
>with the brand/product.
>
>Sam
>
>
>On 13:51:34 7 July 2001 shilen wrote:
>>You make some interesting points here but I might be
>able
>>to clarify a few things form a marketers perspective.
>Much
>>of what you talk about is similar to ideas that some
>>marketers (including myself) believe is the future but
>>they are all linked by one thought - the fact that
>brands
>>are just a set of values (and they can, but don't have
>to
>>be, divorced form product).
>>
>>Three points to bear in mind when thinking about
>brands
>>and new media:
>>
>>1) Brands are a set of beliefs that consumer buy into
>>(like a religion) and anything you deliver from a
>brand
>>MUST be true to its 'DNA' and based in a fundamental
>>consumer insight.
>>
>>2) Marketing will continue to move toward '3-D'
>experience
>>where consumers can live and breathe the brand as they
>>would a 'religion'
>>
>>3) All marketing communications should always be
>>integrated. Every time a consumer interacts with your
>>brand they MUST live the same brand ideals and beliefs
>>every time.
>>
>>
>>A - Experiences are the key to future marketing
>success
>>
>>The move to an experience economy means that
>successful
>>brands will be those that allow consumer to live and
>>breath the brand everyday. The traditional view is
>that
>>brands are derived from good products or services -
>>product comes first and then the brand. This was the
>basis
>>for what people now call the 'service' economy.
>>
>>However, many futurologists now predict a move to
>>something they call the 'experience economy'. This has
>>been driven by many macro consumer trends (e.g. cash
>rich,
>>time poor etc) and the fact that our generation have
>lived
>>in a world completely different from our parents' -
>the
>>move from the baby boomers (where economy was all and
>>people knew of wars, mass unemployment etc) to
>generation
>>x (where we've never really known hardship).
>>
>>A move to the experience based economy means that
>>consumers will want brands to deliver much more than
>>products with functional benefits. They want
>>‘religions’ they can buy into every day.
>>Brands are already moving toward this – witness
>the
>>move that Persil has made from ‘washes your
>white
>>even whiter’ to ‘understands your home
>life
>>and makes it easier and better’. The new brand
>DNA
>>is effectively we are the perfect home assistant and
>the
>>consumer insight is that many consumers believe the
>>breakdown in family structures is bad. Hence, the
>Persil
>>website should strive to provide the perfect home
>>assistant on the web (answering your questions on
>>spillages etc) and do this in a way that says
>>‘family’ in a big way (the tone of the
>>content, the pictures you use etc).
>>
>>
>>B - Think of brands as like a religion (and NOT as a
>>product with a logo)
>>
>>The thinking now is that brands come first and all
>they
>>are is a set of tightly defined beliefs. They are much
>>like a religion that provides a belief system that
>>consumers will buy into. And like a religion, brands
>exist
>>to fulfil the three fundamental aspects of being a
>human
>>being:
>>
>>1) The social - what does this brand say about you to
>>others;
>>2) The personal - how does this brand make you feel;
>>3) The functional - what does this brand help you do.
>>
>>Virgin is a good example of a 'modern' brand - it has
>no
>>specific product to offer. Instead it offers a belief
>to
>>consumers that they are 'taking on the big, nasty
>>corporations'. This is the 'essence' or
>‘DNA’
>>of the brand and is base on a fundamental consumer
>insight
>>- consumers believe that big corporations are
>stitching
>>them. Because consumer BELIEVE in the Virgin brand any
>>product that stays true to this brand essence will
>>succeed. For example, people thought BA was taking the
>>piss with some of its fares - hence Virgin Air was a
>good
>>brand to believe in. This was still the case when they
>>took on big bad record companies. However, no one
>>fundamentally thought Coke was nasty and so Virgin
>cola
>>was a failure, as it did not base itself in the brand
>>belief system. Similarly, the bridal and vodka
>businesses
>>did not understand the amazing ‘religion’
>they
>>were attached to. So you can see that the brand comes
>>first and then a product that must live the brand (and
>by
>>default be good as this is a given- hence why Virgin
>rail
>>is a failure).
>>
>>
>>C - ‘3 D religious experiences’ are they
>way
>>forward for websites
>>
>>So for new media agencies, which may have to educate
>their
>>clients, as many brand owners still believe that
>product
>>is king, the opportunities are amazing. New media
>offers
>>the perfect channel by which to allow consumers to
>live
>>and breath a brand. You can interact at any time of
>the
>>day and you can do this in groups or on your own. The
>key
>>then, is to understand the brand as well as you can
>>– what is its DNA? What is the fundamental
>consumer
>>insight that is driving consumers to buy into this
>>specific ‘brand religion’?
>>
>>A good example for me is a site developed by BMW. This
>is
>>a superb piece of marketing communications using the
>web.
>>Web address is www.bmwfilms.com and set out below the
>>reasons I think it is good. It can be bettered but is
>>certainly more in tune with the future than trying to
>sell
>>you washing powder over the net!
>>
>>I've often wondered what other products would look
>like if
>>BMW made them (for example Guinness counts, cigarette
>>lighters etc) and this really does live up to my
>>expectations. I have a fast internet connection so the
>>site works really well - I suspect it won't work as
>well
>>via Diageo's internet access which is notoriously
>slow!
>>The site is a stand alone website with:
>>
>>- 6 films made by highly regarded directors (Guy
>Ritchie,
>>Ang Lee) of around 6-7 mins each
>>
>>- each film features a different BMW vehicle and
>through
>>some great storylines demonstrates the benefits of a
>BMW
>>over its rivals (control, balance, well made etc)
>>
>>- so each film sells the benefits without the consumer
>>really knowing it as they are engrossed in some great
>>action films with some great storylines
>>
>>- the films are all linked by one character, played by
>the
>>really cool Clive Owen from Croupier, who is really a
>>proxy for the personality of BMW (suave, enigmatic
>etc)
>>
>>- lots of ways of watching the films (all speeds and
>>systems catered for) BUT even better a unique BMW
>player
>>you can download for yourself that allows punters to
>get
>>extra dimension to each film (like a DVD player)
>>
>>- the BMW player is superb and looks and functions
>just as
>>you'd expect its cars to
>>
>>- each director also provides a version of his film
>with a
>>voice over explaining how he tool specific shots, why
>he
>>chose certain locations etc and espousing how good the
>>cars were to work with !!
>>
>>- each film really demonstrate to me that you can
>>communicate brand values through a 'cultural artefact'
>- a
>>piece of art the brand creates with the help of a
>>specialist
>>
>>- each film also takes a pop at key competitor cars
>(one
>>demonstrates the lack of balance of a Merc for
>instance)!
>>
>>On 16:09:22 4 July 2001 campus77 wrote:
>>>Just a few questions about branding.
>>>A definition of brand could be experience, usage.
>>Brand
>>>has been normally divorced with the product or
>service
>>(so
>>>wich one was first - again?). But now, with the
>>massive
>>>introduction of Internet in every company, the
>channel
>>for
>>>delivering information has changed dramatically.
>Now,
>>more
>>>than before the multichannel experience is here
>and
>>>because of this, brands went more than one
>dimension.
>>>When we interact with a web site, the experience
>we
>>get
>>>from this site it’s shaping the brand
>itself.
>>And we
>>>get a experience mainly because we interact with
>it,
>>and
>>>this interaction it’s non linear. So how do
>we
>>>design for the interactive experience? Any
>framework
>>or
>>>strategy?.
>>>At the same time, because we get in contact with
>brand
>>in
>>>several places and at different moments, the image
>we
>>get
>>>should be consistent. It’s like having a
>>>bird’s view of the whole picture and implant
>it.
>>All
>>>the parts involved should work together.
>Disconnected
>>>cross-messaging is really damaging the brand. So
>how
>>do we
>>>maintain continuity?. If every media creates an
>>>experience, how do we make all of them only one
>>coherent
>>>message?. How do you coordinate all the different
>>parts
>>>and agencies involved?. Could be content is part
>of
>>the
>>>answer.