Branding @ Sloan

[lucresiman]

Brands can be both bold and sensitive

Class 10 (5/2/24)

It wasn't too long ago that brands used advertisements depicting women solely as homemakers, targeted exclusively with cleaning, cooking, or household products, and even diminishing their abilities (see references below).

And it wasn't too long ago either, when brands started telling stories and developing creative approaches to empower women - professionally and at home (see references below).

The "Fair & Lovely vs. Dark is Beautiful" case highlights the significance of consumer insights in shaping brand strategies that are not only effective, but also socially conscious. Brands must dive deep into the cultural, psychological, and social contexts of their audiences to craft messages that resonate and foster connections with them.

However, achieving this is challenging for two main reasons:

Getting "into the heads of consumers" is hard: brands have to navigate a complex landscape of individual preferences, cultural nuances, and evolving societal norms. This process demands not only data, but a deep empathetic understanding of the priorities and motivations behind consumer behavior.

Some social issues are controversial and polarizing: making it difficult for brands to take a stand without alienating parts of their audience. Engaging about these topics requires a careful balance of sensitivity and boldness, as brands must address these issues in ways that resonate positively and constructively with diverse consumer bases.

I don't have an answer to these challenging issues - but I believe that joining these conversation is more effective than avoiding them, and the key is listening, sticking to values, and remaining authentic along the way. Even an ad of a woman in a suit was a subtle but powerful move in the 1980s (see Polo ad above) - but it resonated and it allowed the brand to join in on the conversation.

[lucresiman]

Luxury brands must constantly reinvent themselves

Class 9 (4/30/24)

From Times Square to Rome, counterfeit luxury bags can be found in markets across the globe. Brand reputation is key for luxury brands: they rely on customers perceiving them as exclusive, high-quality, and high-status. These attributes are fundamental to their allure and appeal. As an example, the Burberry case dives into strategic decisions that affected its brand image, including its affiliation with the Chavs.

On one hand - it's great to become so popular that "everyone wants to be you" (see reference to 'The Devil Wears Prada' below). On the other hand, this comes with risks: damaging brand perception and causing dilution. From counterfeits, to being too lax with licensing agreements - not being protective enough can damage a luxury brand in ways that are hard to repair.

Burberry has changed in such a way that it can maintain its brand values and timeless designs, while constantly coming up with more contemporary and refreshing products. No one can counterfeit creativity and constant reinvention.

As another example - the below timeline of "major" changes in Rolex watches shows that not much has changed since 1950... Although Rolex watches are considered great investments (given their scarcity, high resale price, and increase in long-term value), they haven't reinvented themselves as a brand in decades. Although Rolex watches may hold as good investments (when backed by a certificate of authenticity), quickly distinguishing between a real and a counterfeit one is not an easy task. If everyone can wear a Rolex (real or fake), brand dilution occurs, and the perceived value or reputation of the brand can be damaged. Like Burberry, Rolex could continue to reinvent itself with better designs/functionality, protecting itself from this issue while remaining a great investment for consumers.

Shout-out to my husband and classmate @jjdaboub, who is a watch guy and might disagree... but I insist: Rolex can do better! It can’t survive forever claiming "new designs" while releasing the same watch over and over again.

[lucresiman]

Branding Lab Ideas (Earth Day-themed!)

Class 7 (4/23/24)

As I was reflecting on Branding Lab project ideas, I was thinking about branding strategies for the startup I worked for during my summer internship. It is a series-B fashion/climate-tech company that returns textile waste into its raw materials, without compromising quality. This material is then used to create new clothing by apparel brands.

Branding is challenging for companies like this for two reasons:

Greenwashing: The apparel industry is notorious for greenwashing, making it hard to maintain genuine sustainability credentials. Staying honest and avoiding exaggerated claims is a must. Sharing the company's mission to attract end-consumers, while remaining transparent even if mistakes are ever made, is key. It is important to stick to facts, using Life-Cycle Assessments and other third-party audits.

B2B2B2C: The company's product passes through several hands: first to apparel manufacturers, then to retail brands, and finally to the end consumers. Trying to better understand the needs and wants of each one of the links in this chain makes branding even more complicated.

As the course progresses, I will continue to think through how each one of the topics covered in class applies to cases like this, especially when it comes to branding ethics and deconstructing the customer journey.

[lucresiman]

"Dark patterns": When companies make unsubscribing impossible

Class 6 (4/18/24)

There's nothing worse than getting a *million* unwanted marketing emails & notifications, and not being able to unsubscribe. Or... getting trapped in a free trial and forgetting to cancel your subscription before the first payment. As consumers, we know that there is lost trust when it feels like a company is trying to manipulate us. We have also experienced immense frustration when things like these happen (which does not result in a positive cognitive association or first impression for a new brand). I couldn't feel more identified with the turtle in the above GIF: I have been receiving tons of unwanted marketing emails from this random company I used ages ago, which requires me to log-in in order to unsubscribe. Once I've finally reset my password (because I of course do not remember it), it's almost impossible to find the right setting to unsubscribe.

"Frictionless" experiences should be applied to actions consumers will actually want; they shouldn't cause more "bad" friction (= pain points). Prof. Gosline shared an idea in class about branding ethics that clicked for me: the point of branding should not be changing the user’s objective, but to support them more efficiently and effectively achieving that objective that they already had. This same boundary should apply for frictionless experiences.

As Prof. Gosline mentions in her HBR article (Why AI Customer Journeys Need More Friction): "A confident, responsible brand should not have to engage in sleight of hand or manipulation to boost engagement." If a brand understands me enough to know that I will appreciate having ability to choose what I want, I will trust it even more. If they let me decide if I want to subscribe after a free trial, rather than "manipulating" me into doing it, I will respect them. Coercing consumers into staying engaged or buying a product/service never works in the long-run. Brands should strive to be good enough for people to engage with/buy from them willingly: from an excellent E2E customer experience, to a memorable brand, to a high-quality product. There are so many other ways to reach the same objective - in a sustainable manner.

@desirepep @professorgosline