Great post, John.
I always like your viewpoints.
Ever since I got into blog monitoring and blogging myself, I've always thought of it not as a way for consumers to have more control, but to have more input and for companies to have a better mode of communication.
The only control consumers have over a brand is binary: acceptance, or rejection. Pure and simple.
Brands are crafted to engage and influence as many targeted individuals as possible. If campaign-A works with 9 out of 20, and slogan-B wins over 13 out of 20, then "B" will win out.
In this way, consumers can "control" the brand, the same way they choose bathroom reading material. They either read what's on the back of the can, or they don't. They won't truly be "in control" of the brand until the average reader takes bathroom stall graffitti as seriously as a hardbound book or a newspaper.
Thanks so much for this post. Companies can certainly enlist consumers to help refine or develop a brand, and as such consumer generated content can work well. But overall, you are right, companies control it, no matter how many net nerds want to make a living convincing people otherwise.
"The idea that companies have no control over their brands is just flat-out silly."
AMEN!
After reading Josh Hallet's post:
http://tinyurl.com/lecal I am relieved to see some common sense prevail.
I don't mean to "dis" Josh, but I think his post way oversimplifies the influence of consumers on a brand.
Mike
It's funny how things get turned around because we collectively want things to be one or the other, never both. In fact, things are rarely black and white. This confusion is just another example. Marketers spent hours in the exec suite explaining that the brand was not under the TOTAL control of the company. That a brand was a sum of what the company wanted/communicated and how the audiences perceived, loved, used the products. A company couldn't just decide its brand was all about X and down from the mountain, so it would be. You put it out there, "stuff" happened, and you worked with the stuff to build your brand.
How we've now gotten to the complete opposite of total control to NO control is amusing. Of course the audience influences the brand, always has. But the company makes the product, and still controls how it responds. Things haven't changed all that much.
The whole dynamic is just louder and more obvious.
Yes brands are driven by a number of interactions, not just consumer opinion.
Think about business decisions that organizations make as opposed to marketing/pr decisions that impact brand. For example a 'high-end' brand that starts offering their product in Wal-Mart. While it may be a bottom-line booster in the short term the original supporters may feel that being 'in Wal-Mart' lessens the brand.
As for Tag Heuer, I've owned a few of them over the past 20 years (wearing one now). Why? Because they are the official timekeeper of Formula 1 racing. I know many long-time owners though that feel their recent marketing push and over-saturation has lessened the unique appeal of the brand.
For example a 'high-end' brand that starts offering their product in Wal-Mart. While it may be a bottom-line booster in the short term the original supporters may feel that being 'in Wal-Mart' lessens the brand.
Exactly. But that decision is made internally, by the very people who should be brand stewards. While it impacts consumer sentiment, it's not consumer-driven.
I sense a sigh of relief and agreement, and by the presence of those here - it's justified.
Yet, I also see fear in the eyes of marketers/PR pros(?) that have given up control because of their fear.
They should be looking at what's happening as an opportunity, not a death threat.
John, good post. You might imagine that I agree with you by the name of my blog. And I do.
Plus, it's not a case of "Wagners" sticking together!
Thanks for enlarging the conversation!
John:
I spend a lot of time explaining that media relations is about influencing media, not controlling them.
Brand management allows for a lot more direct control by a company, but at some point, you're really just trying to influence what people think about the company/product. You don't control it any more than an actor controls an audience in a theatre. The actor certainly has the most influence, but in the end the audience members are the ones who experience the show.
I guess I'm just quibbling about the implications of the word "control." To me, it implies certainty. I prefer to talk about brand management, which implies planning, etc., but also reacting to what happens that out of your control.
Eric, you bring up a good point about the word "control."
I certainly don't think companies can "control" what people think about them, but I do believe they can control the actions that lead to certain responses.
Perhaps manage is a better word. Something to think about.
Commenting by HaloScan
