A Day at Works

Back to brand development…. this afternoon we invite a team from an advertising agency simply to share what they make have done for previous weeks after our briefing. We aim for maintain loyalty of our customers by developing comunity events and since the customer base we have is customer with middle-low income level thus we think we would balance what we can give and what we demand from them. Simply we would make them loyal but also maintaining their expectation slightly higher than competitor only… loyal not because what we give, but loyalty which means they ready to sacrifice for the brand.

And the recommendation is very standard from marketing science perspective although wrap-up with sophisticated and foreign axioms, phrase, picture and so on: ensure we target the right customer by exploring segments might be available and their potencies – jump to what might be their needs – jump again to core value and position we should establish on the mind and heart of those customers.

The problem.. and this is very big and often is that they make a presentation just by introducing brand buzz word, and jumping from one concept to another without data basis. Since they are the creative people they perhaps ignoring the fact that imagination without ratioale is just another day dreaming….

Unfortunately books about brand also make similar approach, lack of scientific background… at least from behavioral science. From left brain dominance perspective, brand development should be justifiable by hard fact, any initiatives should able to answer following (minimum) questions:

1. Brand is a name, so what is a natural thought generally emerge when people see and experience the product? If we have a donout like bread, what’s pop out in the mind of people who see it? a donout, a tart, or what?? When we can understand the natural thought we can determine how far we can differ? Remember that very small difference make the name not even remembered, but to overwhelming such as naming a chinese little dumb face dog with “Mozart” also make an iritation.

2. If we develop the value behind the brand, is it raise expectation unnecessarily? Do we actually doing suicide by setting high expectation without preparing operations just because we want someday our operations be there? If this happen thus the end of brand development is not brand loyalty but just stuck in brand awareness and activation. .. people should remember again the matrix of Kano, or motivational theory from Herzberg.

3. Does the return on investment can satisfy us? Many brand becoming very popular but popular just for the unpotential market. What’s the benefit is a Mercedes popular to youngster of middle low income level? Preparing when they become tycon if the economy boom again? Remember the brand trust concept,… I’m being remembered again by fellow blogger on this case.

4, Is there any measure to navigate the company dealing with brand management? or we just have survey on attitude which probably never proven to be a behavior?

So I am waiting for a local brand or creative agency which not only creative but also rational. A marketing consultant which not only very conceptual but also have a ground breaking creativity….

MarkPlus dalam blog-nya menyatakan bahwa merek yang kuat hanya akan menciptakan loyalty bila tetap menjadi identitas produk secara individual. MarkPlus dan seperti Marketing Consultant lainnya memberikan resep bahwa brand yg kuat - yg diukur dari brand equity (Ingat David Aaker’s brand awareness, association, perceived quality, dan brand loyalty) – bersumber dari brand trust.

Sebelum melangkah lebih jauh kepada analogi yang disajikan marketing witchcraft ini, pertanyaan yang perlu dijawab adalah: “Apakah merek yang menciptakan loyalty merupakan merek yang menguntungkan?” Sayangnya jawabannya adalah Belum Tentu.
Merek seperti Harley Davidson, dan Apple merupakan merek-merek yang dicintai bahkan menjadi inspirasi baik customer maupun perusahaan pesaing dalam industrinya masing-masing. Loyalitas customer merek-merek ini sampai saat ini tidak diragukan, namun apakah benar merek-merek ini jauh lebih menguntungkan daripada Honda, Microsoft dan Dell yang lebih konvensional dan tidak menciptakan emotional bonding istimewa dengan customernya? Buku Loyalty Myth yang mengupas mitos loyalitas mengupas bahwa dewasa ini businessman telah terlalu banyak dicekoki mitos loyalitas sehingga tujuan business dibengkokkan menjadi memuaskan pelanggan sedangkan kalimat terusannya “….secara menguntungkan” menjadi terabaikan. (marketing is satisfying customer need profitably)

Journal of Product and Management, menunjukkan bahwa brand trust terbentuk dari keterandalan merek memenuhi janjinya (brand reliability) dan kemampuan merek menciptakan minat dan niat untuk membeli (brand intention). Riset sebelumnya menunjukkan bahwa kekuatan merek terutama tidak ditentukan oleh komunikasi, dan popularitas yang intinya adalah menciptakan janji dan persepsi kemampuan merek untuk memberikan kualitas yang diinginkan namun lebih dari brand reliability, ketepatan janji. Seorang Warren Buffet mungkin tidak setenar George Soros, namun jelas bahwa rata-rata return jangka panjang yang dihasilkan Berkshire Hathaway Inc. lebih besar dari Quantum Fund. Bergerak dari sana ternyata riset terkini menemukan bahwa brand intention lebih besar lagi pengaruhnya. Hal ini seperti halnya seorang Investor akan lebih tertarik untuk menanamkan uangnya pada Fund yang lebih accessible (dan mungkin membutuhkan settlement lebih kecil) daripada Berkshire Hathaway Inc., seperti Barclay Global Investor, Fidelity (Prudential, Egg, dll.), ataupun CitiGroup.

Sekali lagi business yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan adalah yang memberikan bandingan top line (marketing cost dan pencapaiannya seperti popularitas dan sales) dengan bottom line (profit). Loyalitas itu baik, namun bukan tujuan utama bisnis. Dan merek yang kuat adalah merek yang memberikan keuntungan sekarang maupun yang akan datang.