This text is translated from an interview with Margot Bouwman, co-author of the book Marketing Communication Strategy (together with Floor & Van Raaij). In the interview, Ms Bouwman elaborates on “the new brand model”, also called the brand circle or the dominance-relevance brand model. It gives a good insight into the latest scientific insights around consumer behaviour.
“While writing the book, practice and science finally came together. That was a special moment in my career. I started to understand the science better from my experience and I started to understand practice better from theory.”
Is that why you present a new brand model in your book?
“When I wrote the book, I started delving more into science again, especially in the field of consumer behaviour and how people make decisions in the first place. I came to the conclusion that all the models I knew did not match how science says it should work.”
“The brand model is a very brief summary of all the scientific knowledge about consumer behaviour and how the brain works around brands.“
So what does science assume?
“Science states that you can fuel purchase behaviour by stimulating a certain need. As an example: the need for a fresh taste in your mouth. That is a need that Mentos is excellent at satisfying. So you would say: link that latent need to the brand name. In that direction. So from the need, to the brand name. No model does that. Usually, the brand essence is at the centre of a brand model. All associations and key brand components lead to that essence. But that’s not how the brain works at all. What you need to do is exactly the opposite: arrive at a brand from relevant associations and needs. So a person should not think of refreshment with Mentos, but they should think: I have a bad taste in my mouth: Mentos. All the brand models I see are actually inside out.”
Inside out?
“In none of the brand models the brand name is in the middle. Usually it is not in there at all. That’s heartbreaking, because science says that’s how you should encourage purchase behaviour. The single most important association for a brand is the product need. You have to load the connection between a product need and the brand name. In that direction: from the product need to the brand name. That connection sounds boring, but it is essential. Scientific research shows that time and again. Yet it is not in any brand model.”
Does this mean goodbye to the famous models like the ‘brand key’?
“No, I understand that you also use a brand model as a compass, that sometimes you all need to take a good hard look at what such a brand stands for. But the danger is that we believe that all the nuances we look for with all those old models make any substantial difference in the eyes of the consumer. They don’t. Research consistently shows that consumers do not see the differences. They don’t see all those nuances in all those models. Besides: all those models look alike. They are all based on the same principle. Strategists and creatives have been working with them for so long that the difference is sought in very small things. In my opinion, that is not where the key lies to the brain of the consumer you want to reach.”
“People are much less engaged with brands than we, advertisers, think.“
By that, do you mean we have overcomplicated it?
“Yes, we are all making it way too complicated. When you see how many nuances we advertisers try to put into our brand stories, brand promises and models… People are much less engaged with brands than we advertisers think. It has become commonplace in our profession to think in well-formulated brand promises. In words. In nuances. But that’s not how consumers look at it. They look through their eyelashes. The perception of a brand is much more superficial.”
Bouwman formulates carefully. Contemplative in a sense, always with some distance from the subject matter, as if she weighs the consideration before forming words. As if, even in the conversation, she is responsible for bringing practice and theory a little closer together. But however considered, the conversation never for a moment bogs down into an academic monologue. No woolly mutterings or scowling looks. Apparently, 18 years on the desk side has shaped her in that respect. The mindset of an academic, the modus operandi of an advertiser. Then: “It seems like it’s only about coming up with beautiful insights and well-written promises. Together, we have come to think words are very important. But it’s also about colours and shapes and anchors.”
The left side of the model focuses on brand relevance, the right side on dominance.
Is that an important element in your model?
“I think that for every conversation you have as a strategist about the essence of a brand, you should also search for the iconic form language of that brand. That’s my favourite word, which I pull out a few times a day.” Laughs. “I think I use the word ‘iconic’ quite often.”
“There is another holy grail and that is iconic brand language.”
Can you explain ‘iconic’?
“Besides the brand promise, which we saw as the holy grail all along, I now say: there is another holy grail and that is a brand’s iconic language. This is often a shape, like Apple’s white earbuds or the shape of the Coca Cola bottle, but it can also be a sound or a well-known slogan that sits like an anchor in the target audience’s brain. This iconic brand language contributes to brand recognition. It makes the brand more available, both mentally and physically. Research shows that recognisable, distinctive characters ensure a prominent place in the brain. This is just as important as a beautiful promise, or the feeling to which a brand appeals. By iconic marks, I mean signs that become unmistakably part of the brand.”
So form matters. But we knew that all along, didn’t we? It’s not new, is it?
“Sure, but it seems like that has drifted a bit. We all do too much of the same thing. The brand promise is held sacred and that is the basis for creation. But that is only half of your success. Scientific research shows that form can anchor something in the brain. That’s very technical, in fact. That’s how the brain works. People need those iconic anchors to give something a good place in the brain.”
Science has overtaken practice
“Yes, and this even goes so far that research has recently shown that that iconic shape doesn’t have to have anything to do with your brand promise. So you can also choose a roller-skating unicorn as an iconic shape, because it does the same thing in the brain. The question is whether you should do that, by the way. In my opinion, it is more valuable for the long term to choose shapes and characters that have a story attached to them that also resonates with the brand promise. But so the need for ‘iconic’ shapes has been delivered.”
Copy of the famous Apple ad (TWBA/Chiat Day, Los Angeles, 1987)
“Heres to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
Surely it is up to designers to think about design language?
“We as strategists ask too little of our designers and art directors to think about it that way. That’s what I mean by being more fundamental: we strategists should dare to claim form, as part of the strategy, not just as part of the execution of that strategy. Form is part of the brand, not just its creative translation. That requires strategists as well as designers to approach things differently in the first phase of work. That happens too little now, I think. As a result, far too few designs have iconic power.”
It’s up to strategists to make that more central again?
“I put this in the model to make all the people who are going to work with this more aware of this. Strategists as well as designers. But the ball is often in strategists’ court at this stage. They can put this on the map.”
And that is your ‘fundamental’ contribution to the profession?
“This model is a way for me to be more fundamental, that’s right. I hope it helps to focus on the relevance of strategy.” For a moment, she thinks. Then a laugh: “But I don’t present my theory as the new truth hear. More as my contribution to the profession. I think we need to stand up for our profession again. We have allowed ourselves to be shaded. It’s time to step out of it again.”