Restoring the Power of Brands
Category:UncategorizedSeveral days ago, I posted on Restoring the Power of Brands on johnhagel.com.
In brief summary, I made the case there that the power of brands is not eroding. Instead, brands are going through a period of disruptive change as we shift from product-centric brands to customer-centric brands. Many well-known brands will die or drift away into irrelevance. At the same time, new brands will emerge and attract the attention and loyalty of broad markets. In fact, brands have gone through several stages of evolution over the past 100 years, shaped by evolving sources of scarcity in the economy.
By understanding and acting upon this deeper process, we have an opportunity to build much more powerful and lucrative brands, shaped by network effects that traditional brands can never replicate. However, these new brands will require very different marketing techniques and even a different marketing approach – something I describe as “collaboration marketing” (much of the thinking regarding this approach evolved from my work with Marc Singer and led to the writing of Net Worth). Even more broadly, this is just one more example of changes at the edge of the enterprise that are re-shaping opportunities for innovation and value creation.
Seeking feedback
I urge you to take a look and let me know what you think – I am still developing this perspective and welcome opportunities for some productive friction with all of you (well, maybe not all . . . ) to help me tighten and refine my views.
Chris Anderson’s comments
On that note, Chris Anderson, the developer of The Long Tail concept – one of the richest and most powerful memes floating through cyberspace and executive boardrooms today, has already commented on my posting on his blog. Chris’s thoughtful comments provide me with an opportunity to clarify some of my own concepts and, ideally, kick off a conversation with Chris on this topic. I especially welcome this because the Long Tail plays a central role in the re-definition of brands that is only starting to play out.
Broadly, Chris agrees with me that brand power will shift downstream from producers to the consumers. But, we diverge over who will own the most powerful brands – I believe it will be companies, he believes it will be the customers themselves. He especially singles out tastemakers as the brands that will really matter because they will provide the filters you trust. As examples, he gives Jessica Simpson, Instapundit and Jon Stewart.
Who will own the most powerful brands – people or companies?
At one level, we don’t disagree. People have always been brands, in the sense of trusted guides to the purchase of products and services, whether it is the power computer user down the street who helps me to pick the best wireless LAN or the friend who has a 40,000 bottle wine cellar (did I forget to say “rich friend”?) who points me to a particularly smooth Burgundy. Celebrities have also been trusted guides and brands for a long time. Remember when the Beatles embraced Maharishi and set off a wave of interest across an entire generation in Indian music, apparel, meditation and yoga?
But let’s look a little more closely at these two types of people – let’s call them “expert friends” and celebrities. Expert friends are the most valuable guides because they combine a deep understanding of certain product categories with a deep understanding of my individual and evolving needs as a user of these products. Chris emphasizes the importance of filters – and uses the term “advisor” to describe the most valuable kind of filter in the Long Tail world. Well, the most valuable advisors are those who know me as an individual and can help to guide me as an individual to the best set of products and services to meet my needs. Here’s the problem, though, in physical space, expert friends don’t scale well. Even the most gregarious friends have a circle of a few thousand friends and, at this point, their knowledge of the needs of each friend is probably pretty superficial. These limits can only be overcome by companies using network-based technology.
Celebrities come from a different end of the spectrum. They don’t have a clue who I am as an individual customer. When they’re good, as in the example of Oprah Winfrey or Martha Stewart, they have a deep understanding of a certain customer segment like homemakers and they can introduce this segment to products or services that they might like. But their value as a trusted advisor is ultimately limited by the fact that they don’t really know me – my trust would be a lot greater if they knew my individual tastes.
In the terms used in my earlier brand posting, these celebrities are great examples of “customer segment” brands – they develop a deep understanding of customer segments and use this understanding to be helpful to members of the segment. Companies also can build customer segment brands – Disney (at least in the old days) and Nike being two of the most successful examples. Their brand promise is: “because I understand your segment, you can trust me to provide you with the products and services that will be most valuable to you.” They have achieved scalability, but at the expense of deep knowledge of the individual customer.
These customer segment brands are important, but transitional – they offer superior value relative to traditional product-centric brands, they will give way over time to true customer-centric brands. Customer-centric brands will create more value than customer segment brands, because they offer superior return on customer attention. Their brand promise is: “because I understand you as an individual customer better than anyone else, you can trust me to provide you with the products and services that will be most valuable to you.” This is the brand promise of an expert friend, but new technology makes this promise more scalable.
People will certainly continue to hold this kind of brand power. My interest, though, is where economic value at the brand level will tend to concentrate. And I definitely diverge from Chris if he maintains either that companies cannot build customer-centric brands or that companies will not capture significant economic value with these brands. In fact, companies will ultimately be required to harness the enormous potential power that these brands now offer.
So where are the examples?
Chris indicates that I don’t name any examples of customer-centric brands. He seems to suggest this means that I am wrong. I like to think it means I am ahead of the curve and anticipating opportunities that haven’t emerged yet. In fact, if there are lots of great examples, I worry that I am not anticipating far ahead enough. Great examples rarely exist at this stage of emergence, but lots of partial examples exist and much can be learned by looking at their limitations.
1. Business to business brands
Some of the best examples of customer centric brands exist in the business to business arena. In this arena, customer purchases are sufficiently large to justify significant investment in understanding the needs of individual customers. Li & Fung, a Chinese company, helps apparel designers around the world to connect with highly specialized providers of production and logistics services. In the IT arena, a company like Everest Group helps enterprises to get much more value out of outsourcing services by deeply understanding their individual customer’s needs and the capabilities of a broad array of outsourcing service providers. Now, these brands are not well known outside their relevant customer segments, but they are known and deeply trusted among the customer’s they serve. And these companies can become quite large and profitable – Li & Fung generates over $5 billion in revenue and return on equity in the range of 30 – 50%.
2. Niche brands
Many great examples of customer centric brands are either highly localized or limited to the very wealthy. This is because, until recently, building detailed understanding of individual customers required significant investment of effort and money and was not very scalable. Some examples? Start with Weimax, a wine store in my neighborhood. They carry a great selection of wines on their store floor, but that is just the beginning. As they get to know you as a customer, they will recommend and help you to search out wines around the world and special order them. The personal financial advisory service that I rely on is another example (sorry I won’t reveal its name, because it’s already too busy). Finally, look at Mayo Clinic. Their brand is built on the proposition that they will invest an extraordinary amount of effort in learning about you as an individual patient and then connect you with a broad network of specialized medical services based upon your individual needs.
3. Martha Stewart
Chris referred to Martha Stewart in passing, linking to an earlier posting of mine. Now, of course, Martha Stewart is an individual, but she is a lot more than that. She founded a company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia that has had its share of challenges in recent years (not the least of which was the incarceration of its founder).
Nevertheless, it provides a very interesting early (and far from perfect) indicator of the opportunity to take a strong customer segment brand and evolve it into a customer specific brand. Omnimedia is doing this through the use of direct marketing and the Internet to build profiles of individual customers. Celebrities alone can’t do this, but companies built around the celebrities can take this value to the next level. Omnimedia has built $1.5 billion in market cap so far – in spite of all of its troubles.
4. Amazon and Google
Chris says that these new brands probably won’t be held by companies at all, but rather by people, but then goes on to mention Amazon and Google as providers of filters that helped them become trusted aggregators. There’s a lot to be learned by contrasting the two.
Google is extraordinarily helpful in navigating through the Long Tail of the Web. Yet it is still a very traditional product-centric brand. Its brand promise? “Trust us because we have a great algorithm to help you find what you need.” Google doesn’t even pretend to know me as an individual – it treats me as a transaction. Each time I come, it is like they have never seen me before. They do not use any persistent profiles of me that will enable them to be even more helpful to me. They are a tool company. As soon as someone comes along with a significantly better tool, people will switch rapidly.
Contrast that with Amazon. Amazon strives to get to know me and then, based on that knowledge, seeks to connect me not only with books that I might like, but also with experts (in the form of lists) that can also help me. Again, this is far from perfect at this stage (Amazon recommends that I buy the book that I just wrote, not realizing that I’ve been there, done that, don’t need to read it again). But Amazon is on its way to building a customer centric brand. It is becoming my expert friend on steroids. Question for Chris: why won’t Amazon become a viable customer-centric brand? Why won’t its value ultimately far exceed the value of an individual tastemaker or expert friend?
Bottom line
Here’s the point. We’re on the cusp of a major transition. We haven’t made it over to the other side yet, but there are enough early suggestions of the potential and a longer-term trajectory to suggest that there’s a lot of opportunity over there. The opportunity starts with building enduring, rich and multi-dimensional relationships with customers. Use the understanding that emerges from these relationships to become even more helpful and even more trusted as an advisor, helping people to navigate through the Long Tail. People can do this themselves, but companies can amplify that capability. In the process they can become platforms for significant wealth creation and build a very different kind of brand from the ones that dominate our business landscape today.
Why couldn’t this be done before and why are there still only very limited examples of these new brands? Three reasons: technology, skills and mindset. On the technology front, the convergence of the Internet, Web services, customer profiling technology and deep analytic tools creates an opportunity to scale customer-centric brands in ways that were never economically feasible before. Using these technologies effectively requires a new set of skills and these take time to develop and deploy.
And then mindset. Even among some of the best aggregators in the Long Tail, the mindset focuses on search through larger and larger numbers of objects. They sometimes forget that there are people on the other end. They can become even more helpful by getting to know those people and using that understanding to become even more trusted advisors.

11 Comments
Alan Mitchell
July 20, 2006at 12:41 amI’ve pondered John Hagel’s article Restoring the Power of Brands and can’t help concluding that James Surowiecki – who John dismisses as ‘not addressing the challenge’ for brands – is right about ‘a meritocracy of products’. This isn’t because the ideas behind John’s notion of a customer-centric brand are wrong but because of the way he applies them, with his notion of a customer-centric brand. This conflates and confuses two fundamentally different processes: the provision of value (i.e. products and services that help consumers get particular jobs done), and the provision of services that help buyers navigate their way to find and source this value.
Until very recently, this navigation function was provided in a rather half-hearted way by retailers as a by-product of their core function as distribution channels: ensuring physical product or service availability. But now that is changing. Services that help consumers navigate their way to best value are basically ‘pure’ information services. They deal with information about products or services, rather than with products or services themselves.
Navigation services are likely to be become the first port of call for consumer attention for two important reasons. First, because navigation precedes purchase, by definition. Second, because they offer greater value. What better source of value is there to me than a service that helps me find and source best value (however I choose to define value)?
Buyer navigation services are a new type of business with different skills, infrastructure, commercial relationships, revenue streams, incentives etc to organisations focused on original value creation: the makers and sellers of soap powders, motor vehicles, flights and so on.
In fact, they are a new industry combining many different specialist services focused on helping individual consumers identify value opportunities, clarify preferences and priorities, articulate and express these preferences and priorities, make informed comparisons, seek advice, negotiate terms and conditions and so on. Chris Anderson talks about some of these emerging services in his book The Long Tail, but most are either still being invented or are just in their infancy. They haven’t yet coalesced and crystallized into the full blown specimen. (see http://www.rightsideup.net/AVBS.htm)
John’s notion of a customer-centric brand confuses these two functions of original value provision and navigation, and this confusion is compounded by terminology. The term ‘customer’ internalises a vendor-centric perspective. A customer is someone who buys what a particular vendor – soap powders, motor vehicles, flights – is trying to sell.
In the emerging world of consumer navigation, the term ‘buyer-centric’ helps clear the fog. A buyer-centric service looks out on a world of many different, competing vendors from the point of view of the buyer, and helps the buyer source best value from this environment. A customer-centric brand looks out on a world of customers and potential customers from the point of view of a particular vendor.
Buyer-centric functions can not be carried out with any credibility by product and service vendors who can never credibly pass John’s first test of so-called customer centricity: product agnosticism. Product agnosticism may not be in the vendor’s interests. And more to the point, it’s not his job. His job is to provide the buyer-centric brand with the products to be agnostic about. Asking a vendor of particular items – soap powders, motor vehicles, flights – to “move to” this role as John suggests is just a flight of fancy. He’s effectively asking them to get out of their current business and start a new one, and if his advice were taken up it would be a disaster for all concerned. We would have a world full of navigators with nothing to navigate to.
That is why James Surowiecki is right. In an environment shaped by professional, expert, dedicated, efficient buyer-centric navigators, it is a survival necessity for producers of particular products and services to offer the products and services that buyers will choose to navigate their way to. Procter and Gamble was, and still is, absolutely right about demonstrable product superiority. Toyota with its Toyota Production System is proving the power of ‘product meritocracy’.
Now, of course, as we move towards this buyer-centric environment, vendor brands will have to adjust. But that is a different story. The underlying lesson is: if you are a fish, focus all your efforts on being the very best of fish. And if you are a fowl, be the best fowl possible. If you try to mix the two you will get the worst of both worlds.
John’s insight in Net Worth was profound and path-breaking. But the conclusion he is now drawing in terms of ‘customer-centric brands’ is muddying the waters.
Alan Mitchell
technogoggles
August 3, 2005at 8:30 amTastemakers and Filters as Brands
I’ve been following with interest the conversation between Chris Anderson and John Hegal around brands and branding, not least because I find myself in the marketing industry now. In an age when we have more and more brands and yet
The ActoNetwork — Internet Marketing Firm
July 18, 2005at 8:53 amBuilding Your Brand Online
John Hagel and Chris Anderson have been engaging in an interesting conversation on brand building online. While they differ on some points, both agree that the strategy for developing a successful brand is going to need to change, as today’s brands w…
The ActoNetwork — Internet Marketing Firm
July 18, 2005at 8:52 amBuilding Your Brand Online
John Hagel and Chris Anderson have been engaging in an interesting conversation on brand building online. While they differ on some points, both agree that the strategy for developing a successful brand is going to need to change, as today’s brands w…
Emergence Marketing
July 18, 2005at 5:13 amMore on consumer-centric brands
John Hagel continues to refine his ideas around consumer-centric brands on his blog – this time also relating it to the long tail and giving emerging examples. He also debates Chris Anderson on whether the brand will be owned by…
The Fourth Estate
July 18, 2005at 12:23 amKnow Logo
Naomi Klein notwithstanding, Brands are back on the agenda. Once you abandon the mid twentieth century view of brands as just a cynical megamix of product benefits, you are open to musing about a more interesting question. What are people
jim wilde
July 17, 2005at 5:41 pmSince I am somewhat of a geek, what I look at first is the technology a company employs to support their brands. With both Amazon and Google, you can pretty much say the door is wide open, as in non-proprietary api’s and web services. Just take a look at what geeks are doing to have fun : Google Maps Overlays Satellite Photographs, Google
Maps with Craigslist, and just use del.icio.us to discover Amazon meeting the greasemonkey.
Amazon – Bang! They are making web 2.0 exciting with: http://www.advancinginsights.com/mybiz/the_changing_nature_of_brands
Mark Jen
July 17, 2005at 11:52 amThose “expert friends” you talk about are also discussed in Gladwell’s book, Tipping Point (where they are called “mavens”). He doesn’t talk about how these “expert friends” get people deeper into the long tail though; good point 🙂
I think search engines like Google sometimes actually make it hard to get into the long tail. Why? Because the top search results are typically what’s most popular, not what’s in the long tail. Users have to go page 2, or page 30, or page 100 to find the long tail content they desire.
I also agree with you about search engines being merely a tool. In the near term, people will switch to whatever tool solves the problem best; I’m curious to see if there’s brand loyalty in this respect. I for one wouldn’t use an inferior tool to search when there’s a better one just one URL away.
I further believe that search engines are about to be commoditized and people will easily switch to whatever offers more features, is easier to use, or is the default choice in your browser :-O
Digital Influence Mapping Project
July 17, 2005at 9:47 amCustomer-centric vs. Product-centric Brands
There is a great exchange between John H
Adam Marsh
July 17, 2005at 9:25 amInteresting post. While I certainly agree that technology and the changing business environment are making a customer-centric approach more important for brands, I think it’s important to remember that quality is still an extremely powerful part of any brand, and one whose neglect might be an important part of some of the brand declines mentioned.
With regard to global manufacturing, I’d argue that quality declines due to the turbulence it has caused in supply chains might be at least as important as the “flattening” of quality differentials between brands. For example, after previous research and experience, I had settled on Sony as my trusted brand for CD / DVD / TV products — they just worked better, and I was willing to pay a bit extra for it. My most recent purchase, a CD/DVD changer, is a complete disaster; I don’t know for a fact what the cause was for the sudden decline in quality, but I’m now back to being “tyrannized by choice” in this product category.
In addition, much of what makes a product “quality” today has to do with software, and there the differentials between brands can be quite large. Good examples are Nokia and Tivo, both of whom have built strong brands more on the quality of their software than their hardware.
I’d also go back to your own categorization of core business expertise into customer relationship, infrastructure management, and product innovation and commercialization. It seems to me that for customer relationship businesses, customer-centric branding might be an important facet, and from a B2B perspective, for infrastructure as well. But for product innovation businesses, this would seem to be much less of an important consideration.
edward cotton
July 16, 2005at 9:50 pmI found it interesting that you mention Li & Fung as new example of a customer-centric brand, in the business to business world.
It seems somehow ironic that this company would be interested in old brands.However, with its margins being squeezed, Li & Fung are buying brand licenses, to elevate their financial performance- one license is for Levi’s Red Tab.
Pretty interesing. if you condider the problems that Levi’s has been going through. Many are symptoms of the changing role of brands that you talk about.
More info here:
http://www.influxinsights.com/index.php?id=360