I couldn't agree more. Apart from your argument that trust is vital for brands, I once described another reason for brands to be consistent, which has to do with their role. The quote comes from my book 'Identity as Strategy' and describes the difference between brands and identities. Just like you, I landed on the insight that brands need to refer to themselves ALWAYS: 'Brands are curiously enough of limited relevance to identities. If identity is about character, values and authenticity, brands are about recognisability, appeal and consistency. They have a different role to play. Identities grow in the same way a personality does: through confrontation, insight, setbacks, epiphanies and reflection; they grow themselves. Brands do not grow; their perception does. I believe that a strong brand is born of the fact that it does not explain itself. It should be the target group’s discovery of what the brand stands for — because then the brand gets a place in the brain. It gets attention. A brand is not a storyteller, but a provocateur of stories. Brands grow in ascribed meaning, in the minds of the target group, and the more mysterious they are, the more exciting they can become, the greater this growth will be. This is also why well-designed brands explain nothing; the public has to understand where this behaviour, shape and style come from — and while they are trying to do that, the brand already has a brain position that can then be reinforced by consistent branding: behaviour, product and service development, positions and presentation of the organisation behind the brand.'
Sorry for the long comment - I did not have time to write a short one (free after Mark Twain).
Thanks for the reply! Would love some comment on the book. And maybe you would like to subscribe to my blog here at Substack: https://identityasstrategy.substack.com.
Hi, Steven,
I couldn't agree more. Apart from your argument that trust is vital for brands, I once described another reason for brands to be consistent, which has to do with their role. The quote comes from my book 'Identity as Strategy' and describes the difference between brands and identities. Just like you, I landed on the insight that brands need to refer to themselves ALWAYS: 'Brands are curiously enough of limited relevance to identities. If identity is about character, values and authenticity, brands are about recognisability, appeal and consistency. They have a different role to play. Identities grow in the same way a personality does: through confrontation, insight, setbacks, epiphanies and reflection; they grow themselves. Brands do not grow; their perception does. I believe that a strong brand is born of the fact that it does not explain itself. It should be the target group’s discovery of what the brand stands for — because then the brand gets a place in the brain. It gets attention. A brand is not a storyteller, but a provocateur of stories. Brands grow in ascribed meaning, in the minds of the target group, and the more mysterious they are, the more exciting they can become, the greater this growth will be. This is also why well-designed brands explain nothing; the public has to understand where this behaviour, shape and style come from — and while they are trying to do that, the brand already has a brain position that can then be reinforced by consistent branding: behaviour, product and service development, positions and presentation of the organisation behind the brand.'
Sorry for the long comment - I did not have time to write a short one (free after Mark Twain).
Best, Stijn.
Provocateur of stories. I just love that.
And thanks for sharing your work. I’ll def check out your book.
Thanks for the reply! Would love some comment on the book. And maybe you would like to subscribe to my blog here at Substack: https://identityasstrategy.substack.com.
Best, Stijn.