I recently found myself rolling my eyes at yet another headline written in the same style by a B2B corporate brand I follow. I know why they’re doing it; the style fits with their global brand message and guidelines. But seeing it over and over wasn’t just boring, it turned a meaningful message into a hollow one. It made me wonder: can sticking to a rule designed to amplify your brand actually damage it?
In brand theory, consistency rules
Brand theory says be consistent. Define a clear brand message and style and stick to it every time you communicate. Do this because we humans like things simple. We respond well to repetition, and even if we don’t realise it, when a brand communication jars, we notice. Enduring company slogans show us how it’s done, from Nike’s ‘Just do it’ to ‘Red Bull gives you wings’, McDonald’s ‘I’m lovin’ it’ and KitKat’s ‘Have a break. Have a KitKat’ (which, by the way, apparently first launched in 1957, which certainly shows consistency).
In practice, consistency can become rigidity
Consistency is all very well in theory, but many large global companies turn to doorstop style guides to deliver it in practice. These weighty tomes set out the rules for applying the brand visuals, tone and message to different communications, often as principles, but also as hard and fast rules. External communication, from ad campaigns to personal blog posts, go through the brand police to keep what’s said (and designed) on-message.
The question is whether this rigidity works. Brand storyteller, Lidia Rumley, thinks flexibility is a better answer.
“Brand guidelines articulate how a brand presents itself to the world clearly, consistently and confidently. But brands are a living, breathing thing. They should flex and evolve in response to the world around them and be an active part of a bigger conversation. If a company treats its brand guidelines like a stick to beat its employees with when they veer off track, or like a cage to keep the brand ‘safe’, they’re missing out on that conversation and the opportunities it can bring to better engage with their audiences.”
Brand police or brand guardian?
It’s an interesting way of looking at it, especially in today’s social media age when every employee is potentially a brand communicator. Perhaps, suggests Lidia, one approach would be to rethink the role of brand guardians as more than brand police.
“Media training is commonplace in corporates, so why not brand training? Companies often outsource brand to external agencies, but in-house brand specialists could create so much more value by educating employees on the brand and training them to live it and adopt it into their own natural narratives.”
In-house marketers may wince at anything less than full control (while creative agencies do a Frank Sinatra side air foot-tap), but the reality could be really exciting. Yes, companies need to define a brand story that embodies what they stand for and differentiates them in their market. And they need to create the messages and style that tell their story consistently. But why not set these parameters and see where a less constrained approach could lead?
What brands do you think do this well? I’d love to hear about them.
other stories
An occasional celebration of words and writing worth reading. Or best avoided.
Word love: Ennui. The word of lockdown 3. Is anyone not feeling a bit of it?
Word love: Anythingarian. Every time I listen to Something Rhymes with Purple I come away with a nugget of word love that makes me happy.
An occasional celebration of words and writing worth reading. Or best avoided.
Word love: Lugubrious. I mean, what’s not to love? Rolls around the mouth, sounds decadent, dangerous
Being your own client can be a tough gig. I learnt that lesson rebranding my own business and launching a new website last year. Now I’m the other side,
