In my day-job, I identify and engage with organizations which are creating new conceptual businesses or redefining the market segment that they operate in. The end goal of this is to create a new leader / ‘superbrand’ in every category by virtue of investments in advertising.
However, therein lies the conundrum – is advertising alone enough to build a superbrand?
But first, let us be clear what a ‘superbrand’ is. Is it simply the brand that sells the most or advertises the most, has maximum recall? Or is it the one that sells the most without much advertising effort? Perhaps it’s the one that identifies an entire product or service category or maybe it’s merely the one that has been there, in your face, for the last dozens of years… Whatever it is – it could one or all or a mix of the parameters mentioned here – one thing is for sure; a superbrand is one that evokes a strong passion. It is a product or service that people flock to purely to see it, feel it, revel in its company, enrich their lives with it, and most of all spend a moment of their lives living it.
We are talking of winner take all markets. And these may not typically be built on the basis of advertising alone. The reason being advertising or any other above-the-line activity is practically a one-way street. You really don’t create the network externalities that are required for either mass adoption or mass reverence. The problem with depending solely on advertising is that after a point it creates dissonance. Unless a clever creative breaks the clutter, advertising alone can rarely cultivate large scale & long-term loyalty.
But yes, when you are setting out to creating a brand (with the ultimate goal of getting to be a superbrand) advertising is definitely an effective tool to encourage trials, inform people, and many of the other attendant benefits that we have all learnt in school.
However, one aspect holds true – access to deep pockets to fund high frequency & high impact advertising does create competitive barriers. It also causes competition to step up on the ad pedal themselves. But if you are the entrant with the deep pockets, you need to first sort keep your supply side geared up for bursts of new trials, you need to prime your communication to keep evolving as and when newer entrants take to the battlefield and you need build a strong dream for your stakeholders to buy in – both consumers and investors.
So yes, while many branding gurus will debate till the cows come home about the virtues of advertising vis-à-vis going social, I would say just one thing – one does not come at the cost of the other. If you are already higher up in the “branding curve”, I would say, by all means try other cost effective and viral methods of staying relevant because the marginal utility of above-the-line advertising would be very low. However, if you are an ambitious organization still in the commodity or quasi-brand level, you should perhaps start with advertising and habituate people into communicating with you on a daily basis.
What’s your view?