Genevieve

Being a fresh marketing graduate, theoretically, based on the textbooks from University, being consistent in a brand is the way to building a brand that will be remembered. However, I agree strongly with the 70/30 rule you came up with.

It is important to keep the company's core positioning and the values it stands up for. That is the consistency consumers recognize. You gave a wonderful example - McDonalds.

McDonalds kept the consistency of how best to serve the food, how long it should take, how long it must be cooked, etc. And when I travel around the world, McDonalds always have the same smell in the restaurants, serving food of similar standards. Consumers feel at home when they go to McDonalds in a different country.
I also love how they customize the menus according to local tastebuds. In my trip to China years back, I remember them having taro pie, custard pie, etc besides the original apple pie. In Singapore, they had a seaweed shake fries where you pour the seaweed powder onto the fries in the paper bag and shake it. It was delicious!

Side-tracked a little, my apologies.

In terms of an advertisement, if it is continuously changing its "feel" consumers might be confused on what it is offering. A global slimming centre, Marie France Bodyline, is pretty strong on its ATL advertisements. It always give the same feel to their ads (in Singapore). The endorsers might change over the years, the settings change, but it gives me the idea that there are alot of people inside the ad and all attention and focus is on the endorser even though in the ad, there's no one else but her. And it makes consumers want to slim down so that they can get that same attention. Basically, before the company's name comes out at the end of the ad, consumers already know which company is this ad about. And I think that it is quite a succesful branding strategy.

All the best to you! I look forward in seeing more intriguing entries from you!

Cheers,
Gen

Posted by Genevieve | September 20, 2007 1:25 PM

Grant Tissier

This is a cool topic. I see it as understanding and addressing cultural and business practice differences. With advancements in technology, communications and the Internet, we are truly becoming a global economy. Considering cultural differences when building a brand is more important than ever, particularly if your business has international reach. Words and phrases in one country (and sometimes) regions might not translate to the same meaning in another. What customers value and perceive as positive in one place may be perceived materially different elsewhere. It is very important that businesses ensure that their brands can bridge these cultural differences, if they are to have a greater geographical reach, penetration, and financial success.

Like Gen who responded above, I like the idea of the 70/30 rule and look forward to any more thinking on this topic.

Posted by Grant Tissier | September 22, 2007 7:18 PM

Sven Gruber, Brand Manager

I completed my MBA five years ago and still hear one of my professor's chant of "clarity, consistency, and constancy" regarding brand management. Partly because I am now managing a software brand that has service contracts tied to it. But more importantly, because I am increasingly challenged on the consistency part. My clients, like myself, are complex and unique and can not always be defined in marketing plan terms (target customers are people too!).

So I am regularly and enthusiastically reshaping our offer to be more relevant - maybe this is what my professor meant by "constancy".

Posted by Sven Gruber, Brand Manager | September 23, 2007 4:33 PM

Tessa G.

There seems to be a little conflict here between recognition gained through repetition or consistency and allowing flexibility in experience. It seems that we should not disrupt the basics like logo and colors but allow for customers experiencing the brand to customize according to their own wants and needs.

Posted by Tessa G. | September 24, 2007 12:45 PM

Gayle Kolko

we have to remember that consistency is directly related to reliability and critical to longer term brand success. some consumers like to depend on the same thing every time. you can lost customers if you are not reliable.

Posted by Gayle Kolko | September 25, 2007 10:58 AM

Yon Nuta

consistency is only important if it authentically delivers your corporate DNA to the customer. an effective corporate brand is a reflection of the companies, and most importantly, the employees DNA - their morals, values and beliefs -- mixed together to create great products and services.

Look at Apple - everything they do, from product development to marketing speaks the same DNA. In their case: Simplicity for the sake of functionality. Their brand, is just a reflection of their DNA - can you get more simpler then black and white?

Now contrast this with Microsoft Vista launch: "The wow starts now." Microsoft's DNA is about choice and passion (it's the company that brought you the tag line, "your potential or passion"). While, all the marketing campaing materials above-the-line and below-the-line where consistent in message and appearance, the campaign failed because it was a complete disconnect from Microsoft's corporate DNA.

At the end of the day, successful brands are honest reflections of their companies DNA. Companies that can develop a brand as such will be successful. The rest is gravy.

Posted by Yon Nuta | October 4, 2007 5:09 AM

Dale Bourneath

I agree with the last posted comment: brands should strive for simplicity then you never get into trouble with inconsistent messages. Its when brands try to hard that they fall apart.

Posted by Dale Bourneath | October 8, 2007 8:19 PM

PO'C

DNA is the perfect synthesis of core identity (brand) and adaptive response (evolution). Its every adaptation to change in the, well, marketplace is fresh and new but undeniably a replication of the essential brand. Seems like a pretty good model.

NYT science writer Natalie Angier in her book "The Canon" describes DNA as a "recipe." Meaning a pragmatic formulary for doing the right thing at the right moment -- with "rightness" being absolute brand consistency.

A bigger economic driver than globalization even is accelerating change. Changing industries, markets, marketplaces, cultures, communities and individuals. This is the lay of our land, meaning if the surface connections of brands cannot constantly adapt successfully in all the dynamic situations of this Blade Runner 3D chessboard in which we are caught up, Mr. Darwin has let us all know what happens to the little brands that couldn't and don't.

Problem is, this is a lot of moving parts, even just to keep an eye on. Seems like the industry needs a quantum leap in perspective, just to see correctly the brand singularity in its hyper-faceting contexts. It's speeding up, are we?

Or, er, something like that....

Posted by PO'C | October 8, 2007 10:26 PM

Susan Plunkett

I would contend that (under certain circumstances) variation in brand actually strengthens brand message and consistency.

Anyone care to debate?

Posted by Susan Plunkett | November 12, 2007 11:54 PM