Image: PototoJunkie
1. It is difficult to assess a new brandline without some context. Even the best brandlines benefit from some explanatory introduction.
2. Brandlines generally take years to really build equity. To test them ‘cold’ is not an indication of how successful they could be after years of use and equity has been built around them.
3. Respondents tend to get too caught up in the executional details of a tagline rather than the conceptual side. For example they might concentrate on a full stop/period between the two words or get fixated that the brandline isn’t grammatically correct ie doesn’t contain a full sentence.
4. Exposing respondents to a new identity and its possible applications in a short interview situation doesn’t in any way replicate the real world experience of seeing the brand repeatedly over time.
5. If a brandline is to be shown, it ought be shown in some sort of context, perhaps with the identity as a whole, even in other applications (ad, exhibition stand, etc.). However, there will then be issue of trying to disentangle which bit of the new identity and tagline has what effect on respondent response.
6. There are issues of secrecy: respondents may ‘leak’ the idea to others, to competitors which whom they may also have a relationship, to the press, to colleagues who may ‘leak’ it further.
7. There are also issues of politics: will an external respondent feel ‘hurt’ if their comments are not taken on board? Will they use the fact that they were asked as a way of showing some favouritism versus those who were not asked?
8. In research situations when confronted by stimulus material that people are unfamiliar with, especially in a business context, there seems to be an overly rationale and negative response. Respondents often want to appear ‘clever’ by being critical rather than looking for the positive.
9. There are cost and time implications of conducting external research.
10. If ‘testing’ does happen, it is better to talk about the thinking and concepts behind the new identity and brandline; for example spend 30 minutes talking to some customers about the strategic direction and personality of the company rather than a crude (and forced) exposure of the brandlines. It should be possible from a wide discussion to understand if the brandline should work. If brandline has to be shown it is better to do it with other elements, generally explaining why things are as they are and leaving pauses for spontaneous responses. It is silly to pretend that the situation is anything but artificial so why not take the respondent through the thinking like it would be presenting into the company. The respondent will at least be able to judge brandline intention against objectives and have a meaningful discussion. It is better than a barrage of questions administered via questionnaire.
11. Ultimately the decision on brandline and brand identity is a CEO decision. It is a question about business strategy and direction and how the company projects itself. The logo is the company’s identity. Input and counsel to the decision is very valuable but at some point the leader needs to make a decision and set a path forwards.
2. Brandlines generally take years to really build equity. To test them ‘cold’ is not an indication of how successful they could be after years of use and equity has been built around them.
3. Respondents tend to get too caught up in the executional details of a tagline rather than the conceptual side. For example they might concentrate on a full stop/period between the two words or get fixated that the brandline isn’t grammatically correct ie doesn’t contain a full sentence.
4. Exposing respondents to a new identity and its possible applications in a short interview situation doesn’t in any way replicate the real world experience of seeing the brand repeatedly over time.
5. If a brandline is to be shown, it ought be shown in some sort of context, perhaps with the identity as a whole, even in other applications (ad, exhibition stand, etc.). However, there will then be issue of trying to disentangle which bit of the new identity and tagline has what effect on respondent response.
6. There are issues of secrecy: respondents may ‘leak’ the idea to others, to competitors which whom they may also have a relationship, to the press, to colleagues who may ‘leak’ it further.
7. There are also issues of politics: will an external respondent feel ‘hurt’ if their comments are not taken on board? Will they use the fact that they were asked as a way of showing some favouritism versus those who were not asked?
8. In research situations when confronted by stimulus material that people are unfamiliar with, especially in a business context, there seems to be an overly rationale and negative response. Respondents often want to appear ‘clever’ by being critical rather than looking for the positive.
9. There are cost and time implications of conducting external research.
10. If ‘testing’ does happen, it is better to talk about the thinking and concepts behind the new identity and brandline; for example spend 30 minutes talking to some customers about the strategic direction and personality of the company rather than a crude (and forced) exposure of the brandlines. It should be possible from a wide discussion to understand if the brandline should work. If brandline has to be shown it is better to do it with other elements, generally explaining why things are as they are and leaving pauses for spontaneous responses. It is silly to pretend that the situation is anything but artificial so why not take the respondent through the thinking like it would be presenting into the company. The respondent will at least be able to judge brandline intention against objectives and have a meaningful discussion. It is better than a barrage of questions administered via questionnaire.
11. Ultimately the decision on brandline and brand identity is a CEO decision. It is a question about business strategy and direction and how the company projects itself. The logo is the company’s identity. Input and counsel to the decision is very valuable but at some point the leader needs to make a decision and set a path forwards.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment