Tools Don't Build Things. People Do.

Flickr // macropoulos

A while back on The Planning Lab, Leon posted a quick bit talking about the trouble with brands using brand values documents to set their brand strategy. Not surprising really. I know I've done my fair share of complaining about these things over the years as well. It's an easy thing to do.

The thing is, it's really not the tools that are the problem. That's like griping about a hammer for the way a house turned out. It's not the hammer's fault - it's the person using it - and more importantly, it took a lot more than the hammer to build the house.

The same is true for all of the various brand architecture/values tools. We may not like the version(s) a client prefers, but getting them to change them can be nearly impossible at times, and as Adrian noted, tools are still incredibly valuable to our profession. Rather than fight them on it, maybe we should just find better ways to work with them and make sure they're being used correctly.

How so? Well, here are a few thoughts...

From what I've seen in all the shapes, sizes and sorts of these documents, they're really the same at heart. They're meant to either help you look into the history and soul of the product/company/service to figure out just what it is you stand for, or to set the values/ideals/etc. for what you want to be known for moving forward. The problem is, these tools often don't get used as they were intended.

One of the miscues that happens is that the team using them doesn't seek the truth of what the brand actually stands for / could stand for, but instead, makes it about what they think people want it to be - probably based on a bit of research with the "desired target market." Or, in the absence of research, they make it out to be their ideal image of the brand, like describing their ideal man/woman as Leon said.

Either way, this is bound to fail. To use one of our favorite exercises, imagine the brand created as just described as a person. How attractive is someone who goes out and tries to be what they think the people they hope to be loved by want? Or, try to be what their parents tell them the ideal man/woman is? Even if they can pull this off at the beginning, we've all seen what happens eventually and it isn't pretty.

A second misuse of these documents is that they are just an exercise in looking smart by the team that creates them and then they never get looked at again. The documents get worked through until they are perfect and true. Then, everyone feels really good about the smart thinking they've got down on paper, files them away in a nice binder or maybe even puts them on some boards or posters, and puts them away for safe keeping.

Now that those are done, people can get to work creating the work - running in whatever direction the trend breezes and influencer currents are shifting, even if those run against everything that the brand architecture/values documents told them was right. After all, those were just some documents needed to appease the CMO/CEO/etc., right?

Wrong. Does a toolbox get put away, never to be used again once it gets filled with all of the appropriate tools? No. It gets put in the hands of a (hopefully) skilled professional who can build or fix something worthwhile with it. The same thing was intended for all of the brand architecture tools. They're not meant to be filled out and put away for good, but to be used again and again as a compass that keeps all the work going in the same general direction.

The third, and possibly most harmful thing that happens with these tools is the result of the rotations of a brand team and/or CMO. Especially at bigger companies. Every 18-months to three years, a new team or executive comes along and wants to redo the brand architecture. Sometimes this even happens if the marketing from the previous team is working. Seems they've got their own ideas of what the brand should be.

Imagine if the brand were actually a public building, to use the term literally towards the idea of "brand architecture." Someone just spent a year and a half to three years and a few hundred thousand to a few hundred million dollars building it. Next thing you know, the building gets knocked down and new construction begins. How are people supposed to feel like they know and can trust you when you just demolished everything?

What I believe the original intent of any of these tools is, is to help you uncover the core of what the brand really is and has always stood / will always stand for. It's about looking within and finding what's true. Odds are, the company probably didn't start out with the sole purpose of making money. There was something there that stood for more than the bottom line. That's what these things are supposed to help you find.

Are they perfect? Hardly. Can they be improved upon? Always. Should we dwell on it? No.

The next time you're confronted with using one of these brand tools, rather than complaining about how much they suck, use them as best as you can to dig deep into the the brand and challenge yourself to find what it was that started the whole company/product/service. Bring back that core idea that got lost somewhere along the way and make it work hard again.

Or, if you're starting out fresh, look at these tools as a framework for creating a growing, evolving architectural masterpiece rather than something you just have to do to appease the people funding the company/product/service. You have a choice in how you select and use the tools. You can choose wisely and build a strong, lasting structure or you can merely check the box with what's easiest and create a sand castle

Regardless of which scenario you're in, use the tools you're given to help you get to the core brand strategy and once you've found that, commit to it and share it with the outside world, brimming with confidence. Because really, that's what makes a brand, or person for that matter, attractive - complete, unshakable confidence in who they are and what they stand for.

Ultimately, it's not the tools used to visualize a brand strategy that make it succeed, but a real commitment to great thinking throughout the process of defining the brand and the courage to stay true to it over time that do.

The tools are just tools. It's the people using them and thinking that goes into them that really matter.

Comments

[Anitra]

Great post. I think your point about too much focus on the tools (as opposed to the thinking) also applies to agencies that cling to proprietary versions of brand values docs--using your analogy, it's kinda like saying only one brand of hammer can help you build a house. I had a job as an editor once where I was given a list of the organization's values on the first day to put up at my desk. Nothing fancy at all, just 5 or 6 bullet points, but looking at that plain little list every day and applying it to all my editing dilemmas really helped tune me in to the job, and I think ultimately made me a better editor in general.

[Leon]

Nicely put. You've given me something to think about (a good thing).

[John Drake]

Excellent perspective, Paul. A great way to approach brand value documents. Thanks for sharing the thoughts...

[Sam]

Such a pertinent post Paul, we're reviewing what tools we use as part of the strategic process at Geronimo and I'm super stoked to see your thoughts on the topic.

My very brief experience of advertising agencies has led me to observe the sometimes alarming insecurity that is displayed when talking about the vast array of proprietary methods that are used.

If we can agree (and I believe more and more agencies are) that our goals are broadly similar (i.e. to succeed as communicators we much provide/facilitate positive experiences for people in exchange for them parting with their hard-earned cash), then surely the roads we take are not separating factors, but they are the things that add variety and enrich the strategic community as a whole?

I love the analogies you've made, they'll be making an appearance in a number of Geronimo strategy sessions very soon!

Great post Paul, stay awesome!

[eskimon]

So true Paul – another symptom of an ADHD approach to strategy.

Successful brands are built over time; their success comes from dependability. But creating this dependability requires patience and focus – traits that we seem to have lost in our magpie-like quest for the latest shiny tools. Perhaps we've become too concerned with the means rather than the end.

As marketers, we work with our brands, propositions, visions, strategies and campaigns for much of our waking lives, and we tend to tire of them fairly quickly.

But our consumers and audiences only engage with them for a few seconds each day (if we're lucky), and they take far longer to tire of them than we think (more on that here: http://eskimon.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/same-same/ )

Changing what the brand stands for every few months will destroy the very dependability that makes a brand successful. There needs to be some consistency.

That doesn’t mean we must stick with exactly the same approach forever. But instead of continuous revolution, we might have more success with gentle but constant evolution (and more on that here: http://eskimon.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/one-more-time/ )

[Business Genome]

Great post. The the discussion of how to make progress while staying true the brand's values is really fascinating and very relevant in today's market. We at Business Genome are also interested in today's "tools" for marketing and survey research and what kind of business questions we should currently be asking. You can read more about it here: http://businessgenome.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/horses-that-do-they-really-count-how-to-ask-better-business-questions/
Thanks again for your insight!