The Brand Stands Alone?
What happens when brands are tied to their founders but can’t stand alone? Brand personification: is it a good or a bad thing? And what does it do to brand profitability when the founder moves on?
There are two opposite approaches to brand personification. On one end, you have the example of the Trump Empire that reads Trump all over everything his companies do: The Trump Towers, Trump hotels, the Trump National golf clubs, etc. Everything is Trump branded. On the other end you have companies like Virgin, where the founder Richard Branson keeps a low profile, but everybody knows Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Vacations, Virgin Mobile etc., are all part of his empire. Both brands very well grounded. Virgin is clearly able to stand alone with or without Richard Branson and Trump has already secured the continuation of his brand with the next generation lined up. But what if there was no “next generation” for the Trump brand? Would it continue to be as strong or would the empire slowly deteriorate? And what about a brand like Rich Dad, where the founder Robert Kiyosaki is better known than the company brand name? He’s clearly built a world-wide business but very much dependent on his own involvement. What happens when he moves on?
The question then becomes: Is it worth building a brand strategy based on a personality (could be intentionally or unintentionally) or is it too risky? There are lots of other examples – I welcome your thoughts and perspectives.
Loading ...
(avg: 4.50)
Building around a personality limits your flexibility as a brand as cultural norms shift and certain ideals become less popular. A great example of this is the economic crash of 08/09. Almost overnight we went from living beyond our means to focusing closer to home. This shifted advertising campaigns set to hit during Q4 of 08. Saving was way more important than fulfilling dreams.