• by dave.b , Max Kalehoff , October 3, 2008

My friend Nigel Hollis, chief global aalyst at WPP's Millward Brown, an advertising research firm, invited friends to submit brand questions, and receive personal replies and insights in return. This was in anticipation of his forthcoming book, "The Global Brand," based on Millward Brown's annual BrandZ study of 10,000 brands in 31 countries. Always up for challenging Nigel's classical research assumptions, I submitted a question many advertising researchers struggle to answer: how corporate actions holistically shape brands versus marketing communications. His response was very good, so I thought I'd share his insights here.

Max: In an increasingly dynamic real-time marketplace, driven by search and transparency, where what a company does immediately informs and creates perception of what it is, don't companies need to think more about their values, operations and execution - and less about advertising and outward marketing communications? In other words, will we see company values and deeds undergo greater scrutiny in brand formation, versus traditional Madison Avenue image-making?

Nigel: When it comes to brand building, actions have always spoken louder than words. The technology transformation does not change that, but it does amplify the effect, potentially extending the reach of those actions beyond the brand's existing customers and consumers. But will people be listening or care about what they learn? It depends.

To my mind the key question is, will actions speak loud enough to be heard unaided in the future, or will companies still need to publicize their good deeds?

You refer to a 'dynamic real-time marketplace, driven by search and transparency.' Is it really transparent? With information readily available on thousands of companies, with breaking news every minute and recommendations posted on millions of Web sites, it looks pretty opaque to me.

To make it transparent, people have to be interested enough to find their way through the dross and conflicting opinions to make their own decisions about brands. The trouble is, most people don't care enough about brands to do so. If it is a high involvement category or you are putting down some serious money, that's one thing. But buying soap, insurance or fast food is another thing, entirely. Most brand purchase decisions are not the result of a carefully researched and thought-out decision, but the result of a series of random encounters and events. Even when people are engaged enough to search for information, that search still needs to be informed to be successful. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that broadcast media are one of the strongest influences on what people search for.

I think there will still be an important role for marketing to inform, create interest and focus people's attention, and to orchestrate the touch points to best effect. The most powerful communication is that which focuses on a brand truth in a compelling fashion and does not just present an image. That is one reason we see marketing migrating to more experiential touch points; it gets people to experience the brand firsthand. But as the engagement of these touch points increases, the reach decreases. Again, the need is to call out what is happening so people become interested and get involved.

So, I believe that brand building will continue to rely on the careful orchestration of touch points to ensure that a brand is presented in the best light possible. That said, I also believe that companies will be held more accountable for their actions by the small minority of motivated people who do care about the brand, a cause or an injustice. But that's not the same as brand building, that's basic corporate hygiene. In the future, companies better keep their noses clean -- or they will end up catching a cold!

(And if you have any brand questions for Nigel, leave them here in the comments. He's agreed to answer all ensuing questions.)