Are we forgetting that defining a brand involves both Art and Science?

I was browsing through some files on my computer when I came across old advertising strategy development notes from my Unilever days. Yes, once upon a time, I scanned all my old reference documents before throwing away the hard copies. It’s like looking at old photographs.

Reading them reminded me that the principles of brand building have not changed much, if at all. It also made me think of all the posts I've spotted about marketing to Millennials, high-profile Superbowl ad failures and general brand-building mistakes. (See also my recent piece about brand relevance.)

While my notes were about defining an advertising strategy, it struck me they were equally applicable to broader brand strategy. And that one of the main reasons for the current crop of 'mistakes' is that we're losing sight of how to properly define our brands. If brand owners can't define their target group and brand positioning correctly and clearly articulate this to internal audiences, they don't stand a hope in hell explaining this to their creative partners.

I acknowledge brand building has more challenges today versus 30 years ago, but isn't it all relative? Perhaps, with so many distractions in the mix, we're just getting too smart for our own good.

Take the ongoing obsession with marketing to Gen Z and later Millennials. There is no denying that they have been exposed to different influences versus Baby Boomers and Gen X in their formative years. However, red flags pop up when I read articles that reference them as if they are a single 'target' group to be marketed at.

Just last week, I read another piece with some key take-outs for understanding Gen Z. They talked about relevance, trust, unique experiences and so on. Excellent. But these are tenets for engaging any audience in order to build a strong brand. Not unique means of engaging an entire so-called generation.

The same can be said about the ubiquitous brand positioning statement. I have no intention of delving into the definition and makeup of the BPS, but while it sounds stuffy and boring, if you don't get it right, everything that follows will be wrong.

It often goes wrong when 'clever' creative, technology and channels are used to prop up a brand positioning that is lacking in depth. Even technology companies have learnt that, as tempting as it is to bet everything on these tools, they are not long-term brand discriminators.

As I'd written all those years ago, consumers choose your brand above others due to unique discriminators (and differentiators). Determining these and then communicating them consistently and in a single-minded manner is part of the hard work required in defining your brand.

I've written previously that brand building is both an art and a science. You can group gut, experience and qualitative understanding under the heading of 'art' if you like. And we know (or should know) that only some have the skill and luck to use this and get it right.

Art must be combined with the hard graft of working out the science — the facts to inform the art. Skip over this, and the chances are you won't be seeing many lift-offs or touchdowns for your brand any time soon.

This article was originally published in February 2018 and has been updated.