Brand equity must drive communications
Share
In the past dacade, several big consumer brands - in particular Stella Artois, Cadbury and Guinness - lost sight of the priority of branding over communications. Put simply, the advertising tail began to wag the branding dog to the detriment of long-term brand equity.
I highlight Stella, Cadbury and Guinness because their loss of direction was particularly egregious and each is now also exhibiting a gratifying return to form with a renewed focus on brand-driven communications.
In the case of Stella Artois, we saw a huge deviation from the original premium authenticity of the brand and its “reassuringly expensive” tagline to an entirely irrelevant series of ads shot in the Riviera in the style of late 1960s French cinema. The ads might have been beautiful, but they had very little to do with the mighty Stella Artois and its branding pedigree.
This new approach coincided with the arrival of Mother in 2008. Clearly, the cool boys and girls at the ad agency felt that French was better than Belgian, 1960 was a sexier time than the 14th Century and retro-movie stars made for better TV ads than Flemish brewers. All perhaps true, but entirely unconnected to the Stella Artois brand.
So belated congratulations to Stella marketing director James Watson for his new campaign. The outdoor and print work, also created by Mother, is now bang on brand and will focus on the 600-year history of the beer and drive awareness of the brand’s signature icon, the Chalice. The taglines, including jewels such as ‘We were brewing beer in Belgium before Belgium was Belgian’, and ‘Master Brewers required. 600 years experience needed’ - are exactly what the brand has been missing.
It’s a similar situation at Guinness. The brand lost its way a decade ago because its marketers started to believe it was an advertising vehicle that also occasionally sold some stout. We had a series of ever more clever, ever more expensively mounted TV work for the brand from hot creative directors with a vision for their advertising but no focus on the brand.
A refocus on branding basics might be one of the few silver linings of the recession we are in
The nadir came in 2007 with the £10m Tipping Point commercial in which the population of a remote Argentinean village was shown toppling a variety of household objects in an elaborate game of super-sized dominos. The brand manager in charge at the time claimed it was an attempt to “show an entire village coming together to create an awe-inspiring spectacle of toppling objects”. One helpful marketing critic (me) pointed out that the whole campaign was “total madness”.
But all credit to Guinness. The cool film directors and pretentious South American locations have been replaced by communications strategies derived from the Guinness brand equity. In the next month, for example, Guinness will drive a global social media push around creating the biggest St Patrick’s Day celebration around the brand. That’s more like it.
And finally there is Cadbury, which lost its way partly as a result of the success of the Gorilla campaign from 2007. The ad was a sensation but one that then led Cadbury to put its communications wagon in front of the branding and product horses as the creative talent at Fallon ran amok with the brand.
Dancing eyebrows and airport trucks followed and then the even more tangential Spots v Stripes Olympic work.
But Cadbury is also turning the corner. Its new 10-year brand platform ‘Joyville’ is bang on the brand and, as marketing director Matthew Williams puts it, focuses on the “core truth of the product” - that eating chocolate brings joy.
It’s perhaps no coincidence that each of these brands lost their way in the heady days of 2007 when optimism was at its peak and money was no object. And it’s equally unsurprising that the austerity of the post-global financial crisis climate has seen these brands get their priorities back in perspective. A refocus on branding basics might be one of the few silver linings of the recession we are in.
Let’s hope this is a new era for branding, one that promotes heritage over high concept and which prioritises provenance over production values. It could also prove to be a period in which brand managers take back the control of their brands and eschew the wanton creativity of the concept obsessed agency.
Yes, creativity is important, but only when it is driven by a clear and unwavering origin from the brand itself. Left unchecked, as it was for a time at Stella, Cadbury and Guinness, it produces gloriously attractive irrelevance and generic communications.
The proof of that is in the pudding. Back in 2007, in an alternate universe, you could have easily run the Gorilla campaign for Guinness, the French Riviera campaign for Cadbury and the Argentinean hillside ad for Stella Artois. Now imagine Cadbury talking about Belgium or Stella sponsoring St Patrick’s Day.
See what I mean?
It’s time to go back to the brand and let that become the basis for our marketing inspiration.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (12)
Anonymous | Wed, 29 Feb 2012 3:40 pm
Whilst taking all of the above into the equation, it would be sad if these companies were to lose the quality of advertising that, whilst perhaps not directed properly in terms of the brand, did engage customers (the gorilla and the eyebrows ad have racked up around 15 mill youtube hits on their own). These adverts created talking points in which the brand does feature, and this movement is responsible for some of the most creative and inspiring adverts created thus far.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Keith Trivitt | Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:04 pm
Well said, Mark. Perhaps the short version of your overarching point could best be described as “stay true to your brand.” It’s strange that in the cases you cite (and likely many others), it has taken a global financial crisis and a tightening of the economic situations for consumers to get brands to revert back to their more fundamental, but equally compelling, brand communications strategies.
“Go[ing] back to the brand” and letting that be the basis for marketers’ inspiration will be a welcomed movement. But the question is, Will it last? Particularly as the tech and social media industries are becoming more extravagant in their marketing expenditures, is it feasible that marketers will keep this focus on brand basics once the financial crisis has abated and profits are back on the rise?
Let’s hope that is the case, though my money says it may not last for long.
Keith Trivitt
Associate Director
Public Relations Society of America
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alexei Domorev | Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:40 pm
Fascinating how advertising decided to live its own life of entertainment and actually forgot what it was supposed to do. Very often we remember very cool and funny ads but actually forget the brand that is being advertised.
No wonder, why advertisements during events like Super Bowl have become an event on its own. “This campaign won’t do diddly squat for our client, but it might win us an advertising award.” http://tomfishburne.com/2010/12/fad-men.html
It’s time to focus on joy caused by eating chocolate and friendship bridges built over lakes of beer. Back to the core truth of the product!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adam Joseph | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 2:36 am
Great article. What is it about beer brands in particular that makes marketers so susceptible to continual repositioning rather than brand revitalisation? Anyone have any theories?!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Al King | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 9:10 am
Word, brother. I loathe funding these aspirant film directors' portfolios. They work for me, not vice versa. Its all down to the brief. Get that tight, and totally driven by the brand and you get excellent work that's still relevant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hannah Burnell | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 9:44 am
Agreed, advertising has a purpose and has to work to achieve that purpose and support the brand. But are we saying that our audience hasn't moved beyond the basics to be able to connect concepts and brands without shouting the obvious from the proverbial rooftop? If they have moved into a situation where they appreciate these adverts (and don't forget, we are broadcasting into their homes during their free time, so we should provide a little of something that they want as well) shouldn't we, as marketers, move with them?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Ashby | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:53 am
Oh no...here we go again. Why can't we simply face up to the fact that what went before is over!
And realise the fact that preparing and sending a message does not mean communication has taken place!
Our minds are conditioned by the past not the future. So we want to keep on doing things the way we have always have done them, even when the results become ever more disappointing. This romantic view that advertising is powerful, it is supposed to persuade people to change what they feel, think or do. Otherwise why do companies spend millions on it? Yet in practice this isn't the case.
Literature sports no evidence on any lasting persuasive effects effects of advertising - at least not enough to justify a global spend of billions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Garreth Hayes | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 1:53 pm
Well said. Apart from 'The proof of that is in the pudding.' Sigh. No, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Meaning, you have to experience a thing to know whether it's any good. 'The proof is in the pudding' is the kind of thing that football managers say.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Hopkins | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 1:58 pm
Great piece Mark - I thoroughly agree that advertising (and ALL communications work) needs to integrate with a brand's heritage, ethos and core values.
Surely that should be obvious to anyone - but as we've seen, it's not.
Art and artifice so often win out over truth (which is why the advertising industry loves awards and is so damn insular).
I'm not sure about the TV spots for Joyville. I haven't seen one yet that makes me want to buy chocolate.
But we shall see. I'm probably not the target consumer anyway - however I would hope that Cadbury integrates everything into a joyous Joyville whole, rather than letting on/offline fragment into similar, but not linked, pieces.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Emad Nadim | Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:20 pm
Find it hard to agree entirely with you on this one, Mark.
While the new Stella work is certainly eye-catching, simple and great in tone, the simple fact is that a 'return to heritage' should be more than simply the location and year of birth. Those things are meaningless without more context, and certainly not ownable. Most notable beer brands have some form of history to bank on. Feels like the easy way out, and doesn't do enough for me to find an emotional connection with the brand and break away from some negative stereotypes some may still have associated with it.
Cadbury's an interesting one. One could easily argue that Gorilla and Eyebrows too captured the essence of that moment of joy you feel as that chocolate melts in your mouth. The new platform does stand out and is probably quite ownable - but is it as engaging, or too literal with its link to the chocolate factory..? We shall see.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment