I'm bored with the brand conversation

Branding does not have to be this convoluted idea that companies belabor over for years.  Building a brand that resonates with target audiences is important, yes.  It is something many companies struggle with, however I think that is more of a result of misunderstanding the purpose of a brand and how to use it than the nature of branding itself being some mythical beast marketers and company leadership are meant to chase.

David Warschawski blogged about the idea some years back, "This means our profession must become expert at how great brands are created and nurtured. And we better start helping our clients build resonant brands from the ground up. If we don't, others will, and we will move even further from holding that coveted seat at the table.

More and more, C-suite executives want to know how to build and grow great brands, not how to execute a great marketing campaign. If you can lead the charge in clarifying a company's brand, build a brand from the ground up, or strengthen a floundering brand—you will have a strategic seat at the management table and your purview and influence will grow astronomically."

Since 2007, when the above article was published I think the trend Warschawski speaks of has continued on some level.  C-suite executives who are removed from marketing are always looking for some magic bullet to shoot their brand to the top.  I have also seen some shift toward the opposite strategy: tactical overkill.  In this instance, companies are too comfortable in a brand and focus all of their marketing energy on the tactical end with little regard for how what they are doing relates to the brand, challenges the company or meets their customer's needs.

More than five years after this blog post, most companies still do not have the right balance of brand leading strategy and strategy supporting brand.  Here are a few things to remember.

1) There is no magic bullet.  The "perfect" brand without effective tactics that introduce and then continue the brand conversation with customers is useless.  Conversely, if not backed by a compelling story that moves the customer to do something, every marketing tactic out there combined cannot make up a sufficient marketing strategy. 

2) Silos are preventing brand genius.  The marketing team cannot sufficiently develop and execute integrated campaigns that have real value when they are not given access to the goals and objectives of the company, the vision for the brand and the support of other departments.  C-suite leaders (or clients) demand brilliance from marketing (and don't get me wrong, we are indeed brilliant), but they do not often understand all of the moving parts it takes to build a great brand and do not permit the access and resources needed for marketing to succeed. Hence, the concept of marketing earning a spot in the C-suite being so coveted.

3) Brands need to be a little flexible.  This is where marketing genius is necessary.  It seems counter-intuitive in a way that a brand that is worked so painfully on to become standard and recognizable among a larger audience should be open to change.  But, like people change, brands need to change some too.  Brands can become stale and irrelevant.  Openness to the adoption of new tactics, i.e. new ways to give audiences an interaction with the brand, are a great way to avoid staleness.  Adhering too strictly to brand rules and standards for too long defeats the purpose of what a great brand should do: connect with people.

The delicate balance act of branding is something marketers are working to master and that non-marketers are still trying to grasp.  One thing that I hope both can agree on is that the talking about "the brand conversation" is boring; let's put our brands in action as they are meant to be used... before they get boring too.