I’ve come out of seeing Mission: Impossible III—it was interesting to note how many countries got this movie before the United States. Normally here in New Zealand it’s the other way around and we get movies later.
It spawned several thoughts. First, this movie has nothing to do with the TV series other than the Lalo Schifrin theme and the idea of a guy getting a mission. We all know that by now: after 10 years, the movie series’ action has become the image most people have.
In fact, when I walked into a bookstore the other day to enquire about the Mission: Impossible TV series on DVD, the girl at the counter asked with huge surprise, ‘Was it a TV series?’
This is how brands work. Every brand has an image. In a rebrand, new images are desired. Their success in people’s minds depends on the strength of the old image, the quality of the branding programme, and, it has to be said, the expense and impact of the new campaign.
Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner have produced a series of ﬁlms that have created a strong new image, so much so that even diehard Mission: Impossible fans like me did not even contemplate a movie with any aspect of the TV series.
And the movie delivers in a big way, with just enough red herrings, and never-ending action. It is another Hollywood blockbuster with sufﬁcient explosions for a mass audience.
This makes Mr Cruise quite an expert on rebranding. He is attempting to do just that with his wife, whom I understand he wishes to be called Kate Holmes, rather than Katie, now that she is a Mom. Katie Holmes has changed tremendously in the last year in terms of her personal image; perhaps it is only right that her appellation changes now, to suit the new brand.
Right now, it doesn’t sound right. Give it another year. Posted by Jack Yan, 13:45
Got me thinking again, thanks Jack.
Are brands static or dynamic?
When I serve large corporations (especially in my past as an internet business strategist) they tend to calcify their brands. They like static I suppose because they liked control.
But is it not both/and? Brands have static unchanging cores perhaps. Values and vision might be considered the unchanging aspects of a brand. But they need to grow and expand too. But how? Especially when many companies are suffering from “hardening of their brand category”?
See, you’ve got me thinking Jack!
Ooh, I like this, Michael. (I ﬁnd my short posts are good for these thoughts, too—because they allow us to explore more.)Post a Comment
My ﬁrst reaction was ‘dynamic’, given that audience perceptions are dynamic. That static brands are “Branding 1·0”. However, every brand must have a core—regardless of how positively or negatively it is viewed, there is always an intersection between how the organization views its brand, and how the collective of consumers views it.
Whether the vision and values are part of the core is another interesting consideration. The problem is the vision can be held in a different form by the audience; ditto the values. But I think realistically it is fair to say there are aspects of the vision that are held universally by organization and audience that will be static.
Maybe it is like those stars which have a solid core and a gaseous surface. The core is technically moving as it rotates around the universe, but to a closer observer the changes seem to be happening only on the surface.
I am no astronomer or scientist so forgive me if my analogy actually doesn’t work in those circles!
On how values and visions change: I would say they need to be as subject to the audiences as every other part of the brand equation. Say Company A says its vision is x and the sum of the audience perceptions of the vision is x ± 0·01 (the same perception but with some variance). Then what we have under the “new model” is for x to shift toward x ± 0·01. That becomes the “new” x. or x1. But the audience may hold, because the environment is also changing, a new perception, which is x1 ± 0·01.
So x is still somewhere in there, but not as much—it has shifted, though 0·99 of it has remained as a static core.
I am not a mathematical person either (you could even say I am numerophobic!) but I hope this makes sense!
Links to this post:
NoteEntries from 2006 to the end of 2009 were done on the Blogger service. As of January 1, 2010, this blog has shifted to a Wordpress installation, with the latest posts here.
With Blogger ceasing to support FTP publishing on May 1, I have decided to turn these older pages in to an archive, so you will no longer be able to enter comments. However, you can comment on entries posted after January 1, 2010.
Individual JY&A and Medinge Group blogs
DonateIf you wish to help with my hosting costs, please feel free to donate.
Copyright ©200210 by Jack Yan & Associates. All rights reserved. Photograph of Jack Yan by Chelfyn Baxter.