{"id":3862,"date":"2012-03-12T18:49:52","date_gmt":"2012-03-12T18:49:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/?p=3862"},"modified":"2012-03-12T18:49:52","modified_gmt":"2012-03-12T18:49:52","slug":"the-importance-of-brand-in-an-era-of-digital-darwinism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/2012\/03\/the-importance-of-brand-in-an-era-of-digital-darwinism\/","title":{"rendered":"The Importance of Brand in an Era of Digital Darwinism"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Part of an unpublished appendix for The End of Business as Usual<\/a>\u2026<\/em>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Think of your favorite brand, and the first thing to come to mind is likely a logo, such as the Coca-Cola scripting, a tag-line, such as Nike\u2019s \u201cJust do it,\u201d or a jingle \u2013 remember the Oscar Meyer Wiener song? These may be the aspects of a brand you remember, but they are no longer the most important aspects of branding today. Identity, persona, essence and promise, are the new kings and queens of the branding kingdom, thanks to technology and the deeper connections it opens up between brands and consumers.<\/p>\n

Markets, consumer behavior and how businesses connect with customers are all directly impacted by technology. Looking at the rapid erosion of Blockbuster\u2019s business model, it\u2019s clear to see the impact that technology can have on consumer behavior. During Blockbuster\u2019s initial bankruptcy filing, CNBC\u2019s The Faber Report summarized it this way, \u201cAt the end of the day, this is one of those bankruptcies that\u2019s not really about a financial situation as much as it\u2019s about seminal changes in how people ultimately watch video.\u201d<\/p>\n

The increasingly important role of technology, combined with global economic unrest, means a company\u2019s brand is more important today than it has ever been. Consumers, in search of certainty, rely heavily on a brand\u2019s symbolism and significance. We don\u2019t have to look much further than Netflix for a recent example of what happens when executives misread the impact of technology and consumer demand and in turn, make decisions that have negative effects on the business and the brand. In this case Reed Hastings and company raised prices, which sent customers in an uproar. Feeling the effects of negative sentiment from a full-blown PR crisis and a declining stock price, Netflix opted to divide the company into two entities, Qwikster would handle DVDs and Netflix would focus on digital and streaming. The company caved to consumer and investor pressure however and folded the two entities back under Netflix, killing off Qwikster as quickly as it introduced it. Netflix customers weren\u2019t ready for such a bold move toward a new direction. But, any form of market research that studied conversations in social networks or quite simply, a customer engagement program would have revealed the state of consumer needs. Netflix now must focus on rebuilding its brand to earn and re-earn trust before it can take another aggressive move into the future.<\/p>\n

Brands that fail to instill this level of confidence in consumers run the risk of falling to digital Darwinism. The brands that survive this era of economic disruption, will be the ones that are best able to evolve because they recognize the need and opportunity to do so, before their competitors .<\/p>\n

Survival of the Fitting<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Digital Darwinism is the evolution of consumer behavior when society and technology evolve faster than some companies\u2019 ability to adapt.<\/p>\n

The point of natural selection is that not every business will make it. As Edward Lawler and Christopher Worley note in their book\u00a0Built to Change<\/em><\/a>, \u201cAn analysis of Fortune 1000 corporations shows that between 1973 and 1983, 35% of companies in the top 20 were new.\u201d Their work showed that the number of new companies rose to 45 percent between 1983 and 1993. That number increased to 60 percent between 1993 and 2003. And, as they so appropriately asked, \u201cAny bets [as] to where it will be between 2003 and 2013?\u201d<\/p>\n

To further their point, a recent ad produced by Babson College cited a rather humbling statistic; \u201cOver 40% of the companies that were at the top of the Fortune 500 in 2000 were no longer there in 2010.\u201d<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve witnessed the demise of seemingly invincible brands in the U.S., such as Circuit City, Borders Books, Wherehouse, Tower Records, Pontiac, Saturn, and Palm among others. Meanwhile, grim predictions show that the pattern has no end in sight. In June, 24\/7 Wall St. published its annual list of \u201cTen Brands That Will Disappear in 2012<\/a>.\u201d The publication predicts the demise of some of the world\u2019s most recognizable brands, including Sony Pictures, American Apparel and Nokia.<\/p>\n

What separates brands that falls to digital evolution from those that excel is the ability to recognize the need for change and the vision to blaze a path toward renewed relevance among a new generation of consumers.<\/p>\n

Branding is More Important Than Ever before<\/h2>\n

In 1984, Apple stunned the world with its now iconic \u201c1984<\/a>\u201d commercial. It firmly established Apple\u2019s brand and ultimately set the stage for the company\u2019s significance in the emerging personal computers market. The commercial attained legendary status, but Apple, like every brand, would still need to relentlessly compete for attention and relevance.<\/p>\n

A year later, Apple attempted to match its previous success with \u201cLemmings<\/a>,\u201d a commercial that dramatized the lemming-like behavior of the PC-based workforce. The ad, while arguably brilliant, was widely considered a flop, since following the image of businessmen following one another over a cliff confused customers. Over time, Apple\u2019s brand slowly degraded, losing touch with its core audience and missing an opportunity to connect with the growing base of consumers seeking personal computers.<\/p>\n