A new approach to brand strategy: The good, the ugly and the really ugly of brand strategy

A few weeks back in Lemoore California, closer to the peaks of the Sierras than the breaking waves of Santa Cruz, we saw the World Surf League (WSL) hold the inaugural Freshwater Pro. The competition is run in consistent, machine-managed waves created by a living god (Mr Kelly Slater) rather than an omnipotent one. The wave pools offered the world’s best surfers and, surprise surprise, the best technical surfers in the world 200ft of technically perfect surf running at 30 kilometres per hour. While Gabby Medina won in the Men’s and Lakey Peterson won in the Women’s, the WSL brand certainly did not. 

The WSL brand is based on the struggle to overcome rather than the enjoyment of perfect waves. The greatness is found in the choice of wave amongst all the options; the perfect line through an imperfect section; and the daring to go when no one else will. In Lemoore California, there was no struggle, no fear, no effort to get back into position at the top of the line-up and therefore no connection. It turns out chlorinated waves struggle to replicate the emotion of the classics, even if they copy perfectly their form. 

Perfect is the enemy of great

The human condition is based on contrast. It is found in the shades between good and evil, right and wrong and what we do versus what we actually feel. When we brand something we brand in this space, the inconsistent space between the ears. Humans are incredible information processing machines who toggle between stimulus and response in ways that are alarmingly consistent and simple. The equation of computers is blind binary, on then off. Humans are sentient (humans are on and off and aware of them both). We see shades of difference and associate them with our own unique experience of life. It is here that meaning is found and brand value is created.

Stop running, start walking 

The WSL went too far, as many of us do when it comes to applying and managing brand meaning. There is no question that the digital age has forced a sharper focus on employing capital versus any other means of competitive advantage. Amazon is the biggest company in the world because it has the easiest access to the most capital. The challenge for the rest of us is that we are not Amazon but through desire to loosely stay in the race we have collectively lost our focus on investing in brand saliency. The focus on digital transformation has hollowed out the investment in the meaning of many brands. Thomas Cook failed a few weeks ago because it tried to win a race it never could. It could have walked towards more customisation, more connection based on what it has always stood for, a safe way to explore a little bit more of the world, but it didn’t. The brand ran headlong into improved customer experience and became more like everyone else, and in turn less like itself and so therefore it lost. 

VC thinking versus PE thinking 

Most strategic frameworks come in some form from the military. It makes sense, as if we mess up in business we lose some money and possibly our careers while if we mess up on the battlefield the consequences are, let’s say, more consequential. The framework I most love is asymmetric. How to overcome a greater force through changing the rules of how you will play. How to zig when your enemy has defined the game as zag. 

As a brand community I would argue we have fallen victim to adopting the wrong strategic playbook to help clients find a way through their own new rules of engagement. We have fallen hook, line and sinker into the valley of Silicon rather than focusing on what brand has always been if done well: an unfair competitive advantage. Venture capital tech thinking is based on finding ideas that can scale, matching them with a growth narrative, and then building meaning through purpose. We are Google and we will change your life. 

This playbook is one most of us have adopted. We say our brand can scale when maybe the right answer is that it can’t. We push our brands into more and more categories hoping to find growth and scale and we try to compensate for the resulting loss in brand meaning by adopting higher purpose. Mouthwash will now cure toxic relationships rather than just curing bad breath. 

What if we adopted a different playbook? What if we walked in a different direction? For example, the framework employed by Private Equity. They find distressed assets that can be grown through a focused approach on extraction and reinforcement of what is already there. They find what is undervalued but what has an advantage and then focus on it. Maybe our framework in the days of disruption should be as simple. Find what people love in your brand and have a deep connection with and do more of it. Find the edge of categories and culture and push them further. Find and hold a tension where you ask something of your customer to gain their attention rather than just making it easier. Maybe this will help us create the equity we are paid to make. 

Here’s a helpful hint from my cross-country running days: if you can’t see the race leader at all times you have already lost the race, but you still have time to reach your own personal best. 

Be better to each other.

—
Picture courtesy by Ryan Young