When machine production started pumping out mass quantities of identical products, the world saw a marketing catastrophe. Companies who once marketed their goods based on the distinct benefit they provided now needed to find a way to differentiate themselves. The result was the creation of the brand. A brand is more than just a product, it tells a story, and the consumer helps to tell it. Brands are successful in making a single product stand out in a sea of identical products. The most successful brands are those considered cultural icons, and they have cultural branding to thank.
As Holt said in his book, the key behind successful cultural branding is performing identity myths. He defines identity myths as “a simple story that resolves cultural contradictions.” The identity myths of a nation change over time. What is unique about iconic brands is that they are fit to the times in which they become iconic. This is not to say iconic brands die when their myth dies. There are plenty of iconic brands present today that have gone through numerous pivots in their brand’s myth. Those are the best of the best, the most iconic. What it means is that what might have worked in one decade might not be iconic if it had started in the next decade.
The economic advantages behind cultural branding are obvious, they allow companies to make infinitely more money. If every company is selling identical products, there is no way to differentiate and gain larger market share. However, creating a brand around a product presents a new opportunity to appeal to consumers. Products are replicable, a strong brand is not. If you are buying into a brand rather than simply buying a product, there is much more at stake. You may be looking at two very similar t-shirts, but they both express different things about you when you wear them out in public. It is the leveraging of this expressionism that has allowed consumer goods companies to remain profitable.
One thing I really disagree with Holt on is his views on the importance of consistency. He titled on section header: “Iconic Brands Rely on Breakthrough Performances, Rather Than Consistent Communications.” I actually could not disagree more with this statement. While it is true that the famous Coke “Hilltop” advertisement will be remembered forever, this breakthrough performance was not responsible for building Coke into the iconic brand that it is today. With so many different types of media to reach consumers, it is more important than ever that brands have consistent messaging. Consistency not only in messaging but also in look, feel, voice, tone, and everything in between. This has become increasingly difficult as many companies outsource different campaigns and projects to different advertising agencies.
Red Bull is a great example of an iconic brand to study. I argue that Red Bull maintains its title as an icon due to the brand’s consistency (it certainly isn’t because their energy drink is that much better than every other drink on the market). Red Bull does not just sell their drink; they sell a lifestyle. Everyone knows the slogan “Red Bull give you wings,” and whether you see it in a print ad or on TV, their message remains consistent. They find fun and extreme ways to tell viewers that Red Bull gives you the energy to do your thing, whatever that is. But Red Bull does not stop there, they create an incredible amount of content surrounding extreme sports, that goes further to make it a lifestyle brand. They put on races, they have people jump from the edge of space, and they organize their famous Flugtag. They produce so much content that people don’t just “like” their Facebook page because they like the taste of their drink, they like it because of the lifestyle it represents and the lifestyle portrayed through their content.
In the presence of social media, consistency is even more important. Many brands elect to run their social media presence in-house, rather than paying their advertising partners to control it. This presents a problem with consistency, as both groups are not always on the same page, which results in an online presence that is not consistent with the image put out in advertising campaigns. A famous example of this becoming a problem is with Nestle, who only a few years ago faced a social media crisis. A Nestle employee responsible for running their Facebook page started engaging in petty arguments on public posts, even threatening to remove people’s comments, and block them from their page. Nestle is obviously in their right to run their page that way, however, it contrasted starkly with the image they were portraying through their other advertising. An example of the Facebook interactions can be seen in the photo below.
In her book, Klein presents a few concerns with this shift towards cultural branding and even branded content. As companies continue to sponsor events and content, as well as produce their own, she questions what will happen to the quality of this content. The reason for her concern is that the brands behind the money are likely most concerned about their image, and not the actual content. She fears this will result in the lower quality content, be it fitness advice or a concert. I understand her concerns but do not share them. I think that the larger shift towards branded content, while not a formal regulator, will be a large enough natural source of pressure to ensure that the content offered is of high quality.