I can’t claim credit for that excellent paradox - I think Tim Ambler gets the credit – but it is the essence of why a brand is different from a product.
A recent conference on innovation made that point particularly clear. We typically think that brands are good things because of the loyalty and the margins provided. In the form of intangible benefits, brands are truly a company’s greatest financial asset. But an additional benefit is the scope a brand provides for innovation. Anna Lyndon, strategy officer of Clear made the point vividly. Nike doesn’t look just to improvements in shoe traction or design; it looks at ways in which everyone can be a sportsman (or woman). Starbucks doesn’t look at innovation in terms of coffee beans; it looks to see how Starbucks can provide a home from home experience. The bigger the brand (in emotional terms) the wider the scope for innovation. And the easier it is to tell if the fit is right.
The case history looked at possibilities in a sector not normally associated with positive emotional values, insurance: hated, distrusted and resented. Insurance companies are their own worst enemies. Not only weasel promises but cold, functional, price related competitive claims. Not surprising that the sector in total elicits such negative emotions. But taking all this on board, the research for new home insurance products was ingenious: a sample of couples swapped houses a la Wife Swap’ for a short period. The experience of living in someone else’s house makes what you value in your own house stark and provided rich pickings for developing the brand’s persona. A brand that goes to those lengths must be on your side. I feel more fondly disposed to Royal Sun Alliance already.
An experience the other night, though, made me think more about rust. Marc Bolland was speaking at a dinner about the power of the Marks and Spencer brand – knit into the DNA of Britain, trusted like few others. True, I thought to myself, nodding along with his enthusiasm. Yet, a shard of truth struck: the man next to me whispered, ‘yes, but why don’t I ever want to buy anything there? And I had to agree. Apart from the knickers and the food (but now only fractionally better than Waitrose), Marks will have to work harder. The clothes, particularly men’s clothes leave a lot to be desired. Certainly a big leap forward from pre-Stuart Rose days but the sea of baggy grey green, muddy blue, sludgy yellows that pass for men’s clothes really isn’t good enough. Why should Boden represent the default look for men when M&S on every high street should claim this look?
Yet, Marks does have trust. I would let them look after my children. You forgive brands you trust. And trust has a deeper and wider value that is much more precious than the products that come and go under their name.