Brands should adapt their identity and value propositions to their environment, depending on the changes that occur therein.
For that you have to watch and listen. Hear what your consumer does, your environment and your competition. The result of not listening is having Deaf Brands.
Deaf brands are those carrying out their activities without counting their audiences. Deaf and blind to not see or hear what is happening in their environment, which directly affects the relationship of the target with the brand.
It seems that this has more to do with the product with the brand, but in the end the brand should have the ability to generate a unique experience at every point of contact where the consumer expects. And sometimes this leads, innovate, reinvent or be in places you’ve never been.
The powerful brands are those that are able to build a value proposition differential that can be activated in any aspect of life of its consumers. Wherever you are and whatever they do. Being part of a consumer’s life, and engage in it, is to move from being a brand to a brand irreplaceable.
One sample could be Nintendo, because it remains stuck, and determined to be a manufacturer of consoles in a world where the customer’s experience is done via smartphone, tablet or smart TV’s.
It should change its brand value proposition and focus on building relevant content to their audiences, that provide unique experiences in all possible platforms.
Kodak, Atari, Suzuki (in the U.S.), are Japanese brands that have disappeared because of not adapt and change its activity and positioning in front of a new paradigm.
Will Nintendo be the next?
Rocio, your post about deaf and blind brands reminds me one funny/sad incident with the brand Popchips 😀
In April 2012, Popchips released a video of Ashton Kutcher performing a variety of bachelor roles in a parody dating service commercial. In the commercial, one of the characters Kutcher played was an Indian guy named Raj, and Kutcher donned brownface as part of the act. The campaign had an estimated budget of $1.5 million, and included video, outdoor ads, and placement on social media sites like Facebook and YouTube.
Within hours Kutcher’s portrayal of Raj set off a firestorm of protest, including charges of racism. Anil Dash, a popular tech influencer, called the video, “a hackneyed, unfunny advertisement featuring Kutcher in brownface talking about his romantic options, with the entire punchline being that he’s doing it in a fake-Indian outfit and voice.”
Now, no one (including Dash) really believes that Popchips would commit brand suicide by purposely creating a racist ad to sell healthy potato chips. But when people of Indian descent started to complain on Twitter and other social networks, the company didn’t react right away. It continued to promote the ad.
Later, Belling took to social media himself to officially apologize on behalf of the company. It was clear that Popchips and Kutcher misunderstood that their core customers are health conscious, urban, and upper middle class, and are likely to be sensitive about racism. As the numbers of negative responses to the ad began to mount, Popchips was a little slow to react because they didn’t believe the video was racist and they hoped the controversy would blow over. This is a case of an influencer having the power to damage your brand.
Honestly, I have faith in Nintendo maintaining it’s position as a top gaming brand simply because of their ability to innovate and take risks. While they aren’t the powerhouse that they once were, they still play a dominant role in the handheld market despite the increasing focus on mobile gaming. The sheer staying power the brand has is because of the fierce loyalty of their customers and the strength of their core franchises that most people would recognize (Mario anyone?). Somewhere down the line the company may try to find other ways to be profitable, but for at least the short-to-mid term, the company will continue to maintain its success.