Brand Identity

Overview

Brand identity is the expression of a product's character to the outside world; it is a collection of attributes that the manufacturer of the product wishes people to associate with that product. A manufacturer of running shoes might desire that people associate its shoes with victory, speed, comfort, and attractiveness, for example. In addition to nebulous qualities such as these, brand identity also includes more concrete elements, including trademarks and similar visual representations that are used as signals to the public of the brand—a cartoon animal that represents a breakfast cereal, or a starburst symbol denoting a type of automobile. It is important to remember that brand identity is frequently confused with brand image, and while manufacturers might wish for the two to be identical, there are usually differences between the two. Brand image is the mental impression that the public has of a product—what people think of when presented with the product.

Manufacturers want the public to view the product in the same way that they wish it to be perceived, but it often happens that events outside of the manufacturer's control cause people to perceive a product differently. One can imagine a company that distributes fresh produce to grocery stores constructing its brand identity, hoping to be seen as fast, efficient, healthy, and safe, but if there is a contaminated shipment that makes consumers ill, then people will quickly become suspicious of the company's products. This example highlights the point that branding is constructed jointly by both producer and consumer: The producer puts forward the brand identity that it would like consumers to adopt, and consumers develop a brand image based on a combination of the brand identity and their actual experience (Black & Veloutsou, 2017).

Brand identity appears to draw upon a natural human impulse to create or identify symbols that can be used to unite a group whose members share a common purpose or attitude; this impulse can be seen in the strong feelings of patriotism evoked by a nation's flag, the camaraderie of sports fans rooting for their team and its mascot, and the inspiration conveyed by religious symbols throughout history. Brand identity is largely an application of this natural impulse to the world of commerce (Törmälä & Gyrd-Jones, 2017). Brand identity first came to prominence as the Industrial Revolution gained momentum. At that time, the manufacture of goods transitioned from the traditional labor of the craftsman to the use of automation and factories to mass-produce goods. A side effect of mass production is that the goods being manufactured lose any unique character that they may have possessed, as the goods are nearly identical to one another, even when they are manufactured by distinct, possibly competing, companies. This presented manufacturers with a problem: They needed to find a way to explain to consumers why they should purchase one manufacturer's product instead of its competitors' identical product. Their solution to this dilemma was for manufacturers to create an image of the product that would set it apart from its competition (He, Harris, Wang & Haider, 2016).

Further Insights

The traditional model for constructing a brand identity was, like much of advertising, top-down. This means that a company would work with advertising experts drawn either from its own marketing department or an outside advertising agency, to define what they wanted the brand identity to be. In constructing this definition, the company would rely on market research about the sector of the economy the product serves, consumer research about buying habits and attitudes affecting them, and research into social trends and movements that could either directly or indirectly influence buying behavior. Put another way, companies were essentially surveying the landscape of the marketplace and then making an educated guess about what people might want from a product like theirs (Orazi, Spry, Theilacker & Vredenburg, 2017). Once constructed, this identity would then be communicated to consumers using traditional radio, print, and television channels. This is described as top-down because the brand identity comes from the company, where all of the information and decisions reside, and is presented to consumers when complete, seemingly without consulting them or involving them in any way (though they are, in fact, involved indirectly by way of the company's market research).

In simpler times, when people were not yet accustomed to viewing advertising with a skeptical eye, this approach was generally effective. In the modern era, however, consumers are much better at detecting attempts to persuade them, or to steer them toward having a favorable impression of a product (Rashid & Ghose, 2015). Furthermore, in the past when consumers disagreed with the brand identity a manufacturer put forward, they might tell others in their community, but that would be an end to the matter. With ubiquitous access to the Internet a feature of everyday life, however, consumers are able to go online and share their views via social media. One or two people doing this might not pose a challenge to the brand identity constructed by a cadre of advertising professionals, but when hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of consumers join the conversation, then it quickly becomes evident that the value of a brand is no longer determined solely in reference to the brand identity that its owners have created. Instead, brand value emerges from the combination of brand identity and brand image; it is a construct that has elements of both sources.

It has taken manufacturers and advertisers some time to come to terms with the new reality that they do not possess exclusive control over their brands. Often the realization has come in the aftermath of an effort at managing the brand identity of a product—an effort that instead had the opposite effect from that which was intended and caused a substantial backlash against the brand message. Examples of this are legion, but typically they involve a company trying to use humor to demonstrate that they, and by extension their products and brands, are clever and modern, but instead coming across as flippant, insensitive, conceited, or even insensitive or racist. Such blunders can cause irreparable harm to a brand, and at the very least require time to recover and some demonstration of repentance (Voyer, Kastanakis & Rhode, 2017).

Issues

The literature of business and entrepreneurship is full of advice about how one should approach the creation and management of brand identity, due in large part to the sensitivity of the marketplace to messaging that is misguided or off target in some way. Much of the advice amounts to little more than the consistent application of common sense, yet there are a few points that merit attention. Foremost among these is that brand identity should be closely related to the core values of the company. When this is the case, it becomes much easier for the company to support its product in an authentic manner, because the product relates in some way to the values that the company sees as important. The greater the distance between the core values and the brand identity of a product, the more likely it becomes that consumers will view that identity as suspect (Centeno & Wang, 2017). Just as important as alignment with values is the quality of flexibility. Many companies have made the mistake of thinking that once they hit upon the proper brand identity, they have only to remain faithful to it and avoid changing it.

The reality is that times change, and people's expectations for products change also. In order for a brand identity to remain relevant, it must strike a balance between remaining faithful to its tradition and using a flexible approach to updating its manner of connecting with consumers. A good example of how this can be done can be found in the way that brand identity is managed with men's deodorants. Many brands of these products have been around for decades. While this long tradition has advantages for a brand, it can also have drawbacks, as young people may not want to use a product that they associate with their parents or grandparents. To mitigate this potential for the brand appearing outdated, companies will often advertise their men's deodorant by using popular athletes in their commercials. This develops an identity for the brand that acknowledges the brand's long history but adds that the product is still "cool" enough to be used by famous sports figures.

Visual identity is key to creating a successful brand identity. Visual identity is the component of a brand that is perceived with the eye: what symbols are used to represent the brand, as well as colors, shapes, and other aspects that may be seen. When a brand's identity becomes well-established, the owner of the brand will be able to evoke the brand's values and reputation simply by presenting an image that consumers have learned to equate with the brand. Visual identity often uses one or more symbols, such as a crown, a star, a tree, and so forth. This is not always the case, however. Some brand identities use a particular font or lettering style, which can have the effect of reminding people of the brand even when the written letters being displayed do not mention the brand by name (Kennedy & Guzmán, 2016).

Because brand identity is such an important source of value for a company or other organization, it is customary for organizations to go to exceptional lengths to protect the integrity of their brand identity. There are a variety of potential threats to brand integrity; another organization could attempt to appropriate a brand in order to receive value from it, for example, or it could instead seek to exert a negative influence on the brand identity of a competitor. The main protections that can be used to mitigate the attempted appropriation of a brand identity's value come from the field of intellectual property, and include copyright protection, patent protection, and trademark protection. Essentially, each of these three tools in the legal toolbox are used to protect an organization's exclusive ownership of different types of information that represent part of a brand's identity. Copyright protects the words, images, sounds, and other creations of the owner. Trademarks protect symbols and phrases that are used to represent a business entity. Patents provide protection for inventions and processes. Of these three, trademarks are most commonly used to construct brand identity. A typical case of trademark infringement might involve one company that uses as its symbol a flaming sphere, and another company that uses a burning sun that looks very similar. If there is a close similarity between the products or services offered by the two companies, and between their respective symbols, then there is a danger that consumers may become confused as to which company is which (Ng, 2018). In such cases, if one company has registered its symbol and the other has not, the company that has registered will be given the right to prevent its competitor from using the potentially confusing image.

Even when brand identity does not require protection from the courts, there still arise situations in which a brand's identity may benefit from monitoring and intervention. This type of activity is conducted by a person known as a reputation management specialist or brand manager. The duties of positions like this involve monitoring how the public's perceptions of a brand and its identity change over time, and attempting to steer these perceptions in the direction desired by the brand owner. If consumer perceptions of a brand's identity are in line with what the brand owner wants them to be, then no action is needed apart from continued monitoring. If circumstances cause perceptions of the brand identity to alter in an unwelcome fashion, the brand manager may attempt to reverse this alteration. For example, a restaurant chain might see its brand identity negatively impacted by a news report about a health code violation at one of its locations. News of this development could spread quickly on social media, as users seek to be the first to put a clever spin on the story and amuse their followers. If the story spreads far enough—"going viral"—then in a matter of minutes or hours the chain's carefully crafted brand identity could evaporate. Such damage to a brand's identity could cost the company huge sums of money to repair, or could even bring about the eventual closure of the chain. Much of this could be avoided through the intervention of a quick-thinking reputation manager, who could hop onto social media as soon as the story broke and attempt to counter the sensationalism with facts about the chain's many achievements, awards, and satisfied customers (Orth & Rose, 2017). The trick to this kind of work is to subtly change the overall tone of the conversation, while not coming across as a marketing person being paid to cover up a corporate gaffe. This is a delicate balance one has to maintain, but successful reputation management can be well worth its up-front cost, if it helps to preserve a valuable brand identity that has taken years to create.

Bibliography

Black, I., & Veloutsou, C. (2017). Working consumers: Co-creation of brand identity, consumer identity and brand community identity. Journal of Business Research, 70, 416–429. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.012

Centeno, D., & Wang, J. J. (2017). Celebrities as human brands: An inquiry on stakeholder-actor co-creation of brand identities. Journal of Business Research, 74, 133–138. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.024

He, H., Harris, L. C., Wang, W., & Haider, K. (2016). Brand identity and online self-customisation usefulness perception. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(13–14), 1308–1332. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1170720

Kennedy, E., & Guzmán, F. (2016). Co-creation of brand identities: Consumer and industry influence and motivations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(5), 313–323. doi:10.1108/JCM-07–2015–1500

Ng, C. W. (2018). Performing brand identity: Situating branding in discursive-ideological landscapes. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 21(2), 147–170. doi:10.1080/10253866.2017.1369970

Orazi, D. C., Spry, A., Theilacker, M. N., & Vredenburg, J. (2017). A multi-stakeholder IMC framework for networked brand identity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 551–571. doi:10.1108/EJM-08–2015–0612

Orth, U. R., & Rose, G. M. (2017). Consumers' brand identity complexity: Conceptualization and predictive ability. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 304–323. doi:10.1108/EJM-07–2015–0446

Rashid, S., & Ghose, K. (2015). Organisational culture and the creation of brand identity: Retail food branding in new markets. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(1), 2–19. doi:10.1108/MIP-10–2013–003

Törmälä, M., & Gyrd-Jones, R. I. (2017). Development of new B2B venture corporate brand identity: A narrative performance approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 65, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.05.002

Trivette, H. (2021, December 20). How a strong brand identity can bring in customers. Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2021/12/20/how-a-strong-brand-identity-can-bring-in-customers/?sh=38f4baef5b3a

Voyer, B. G., Kastanakis, M. N., & Rhode, A. K. (2017). Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: A cross-cultural consumer perspective. Journal of Business Research, 70, 399–410. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.010

Xi, Xi, et al. (2022, Feb. 15) We buy what we wanna be: Understanding the effect of brand identity driven by consumer perceived value in the luxury sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2022.1002275