23 March 2023 · 3 min read

Living in the
marketing
bubble

Branding Corporate Identity

There is no one more exposed to brands than the people who work with them, whether they are marketing teams or agencies. This statement, which may seem obvious, is often lost on us.

As brand managers, when we go to the supermarket, we are much more predisposed to seeing and recognizing our brand on the shelves. We immediately notice the design changes we’ve made, the promotions we’ve approved, or the new references we’ve launched.

In the words of Romaniuk & Sharp, our mental availability is greater: we have a greater tendency to remember and think about our brand in purchasing situations than a typical consumer. Our daily impacts are more frequent, we participate in the changes, and we probably spend more time in front of the category shelf. Remember that the consumer only spends an average of 6 seconds in front of it, the blink of an eye.

In this sense, we are also more prone to overindulge in our own brands and sometimes feel tempted to make noticeable changes in their brand assets. With constant repetition, we can get tired of seeing the same colors in our social media feeds, reading the same claim for years, or having our jingle constantly stuck in our heads.

That’s why we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we are very biased and do not represent the average consumer. According to studies by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, 84% of ads are not remembered correctly or associated with the brand. Furthermore, consumers say that if 75% of brands were to disappear tomorrow, they wouldn’t care and would replace them quickly.

As marketers, part of our job is to ensure that consumers immediately recognize our brand, distinguish it, and differentiate it from the competition. And that doesn’t happen overnight. It requires frequency and consistency over time. Sometimes we may forget that leading brands have taken decades to strengthen their identity assets: the “Just do it” campaign dates back to 1988, and the famous apple logo was created in 1976.

Let’s analyze a failed case -Gap Inc.

Faced with a prolonged period of declining sales, Gap Inc. decided to change its logo in 2010. With a 97% brand recognition in the United States, it presented a radically different image from the previous one, which had become a classic in its own right. Criticism and mockery soon followed. Fans of the brand launched a social media protest campaign that, in just a few days, became a major business crisis to the point that the company was forced to revert to its iconic logo in less than a week.

In light of this, it is essential to get out of the marketing bubble to obtain a more real and less biased perception. We need to incorporate users, buyers, and even non-consumers in brand building processes. We must apply different techniques that allow us to realize that when we go to the supermarket, we are not buyer personas. In short, we need to understand that our potential consumers are not in love with our brand, their mind is elsewhere and often buy a product without analyzing it.

 

[1] Romaniuk, J. (2018). Building Distinctive Brand Assets. Oxford University Press.

[2] The Nielsen Company (2019). Getting more with less. Creating successful assortment optimization strategy.

[3] Sharp, B. (2010). Estudio de Ehrenberg-Bass Institute recogido en How Brands Grow. Oxford University Press.

[4] Havas Meaningful Brands Report (2021)

[5] Fisher, B. (10 de Julio de 2010, actualizado 6 de Diciembre de 2017). The Gap’s new logo.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-gaps-new-logo_b_754981