Skip to main content

Good Brand, Bad Brand, Dead Brand


In psychoanalysis they call it “splitting.” And public figures suffer
terribly from it.

Instead of seeing people as complicated – marble-cake swirls of good
and bad – we insist that they either be heroes or the opposite.

This is visible in nearly every sphere of celebrity, from Hollywood to
Washington and in the plush hallways of Wall Street. You’re either a
“genius” or an “idiot,” with nothing in between.

Why do we do that?

The Freudians say it’s from a wound caused in infancy and early
childhood. When the baby, confronted with a mother who is sometimes
available and sometimes not, imagines that she is actually two people:
one an evil witch, and the other an all-giving heroine.

Healthy people know that it is the same mother who both gives and fails to give.

People who aren’t functioning as well can’t know that.

So they put her, and other people, in categories.

Not only that – they actually look for people to idolize, and then
look forward surreptitiously to the time that they will fall. This is
“repetition compulsion” – the desire to relive the original wound over
and over again, hoping that it will turn out differently.

Do we not see this dynamic happen every single day with the people we
call leaders? And celebrities?

It is almost as if the paparazzi look for new stars and actively build
them up – then watch and wait until they crash. No actually they
really do that.

Former child stars suffer from this especially badly. Former
Mouseketeer Britney Spears is a great example. So is “Parent Trap”
star Lindsay Lohan. Sad.

Some people refuse to put celebrities into a box. Michael Lear wrote
an amazing profile about Charlie Sheen that is running in the new
Vanity Fair. Sheen emerges as complex and interesting and human. No
false castles of glass being shattered here.

But – as they say – who cares?

This is not a diatribe about childcare.

Nor another post about how to prop a leader up or save them from themselves.

No – this time it’s about product and service brands themselves. I say
“them” because unfortunately for the companies that make them,
customers perceive these things almost exactly as if they were people.
Celebrities, more specifically.

So the same customers who so insistently “split” the leaders they
adore and hate - led to do so by a media that caters to this very
“repetition compulsion” – may spend a lot of money on a brand today,
only to be completely turned off by it tomorrow. And I mean

The same fervent wish to idolize someone that built the brand up, also
can bring it down.

And the crash can be caused by anything. The media, of course, fanning
the flames of a scandal, mini or micro. A disaster. A competitor. A
new emerging brand. And the social media whispers of the crowd – or no
whispers at all.

(Because more than anything else, people are influenced by what other
people in their social circles do.)

What that means for brand producers is very simple: “Get paranoid.”
(to paraphrase Intel’s Andy Grove)

You should always look at your brand as if it were in imminent danger.

Even more than that – you must actively kill the brand yourself.

Anticipate the cycle that is coming – they will love you and then hate
you and stone you to death – and immolate your brand on its own sword

Then come up with a new one.

That way you stay in control of what’s going on. (Theoretically – as
much as possible.)

It’s a tough brandscape out there these days, but the smartest
companies are undaunted.

Get out there, kick your OWN butt, and start over again.

Good luck!

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …