Brand as Operating System, or … is it?
My friends Cristián Saracco post and Thomas Marzano 's Brand Constitution make excellent points on it. And lots is being said overall, but often naively and superficially. For me, the analogy has merit - but ...
Let's define the concept first, and its dual role. < The Third Place > is Starbucks's 'operating system', governing its ...
- Business: ubiquitous, spacious, couches, etc.
- Market Persona: welcoming, familiar, friendly, etc. with 'consistent' recognizable assets and within the boundaries of a 'brand narrative' (I resist using 'storytelling' as it may suggest the dressing up of shallow concepts, and I resist the latest trend of calling 'storytelling' ... a 'vibe'
(spinning existing things so that they can be passed as New Thinking is insufferable nowadays).
As such, Brand as OS has requirements: you need to do This and not do That - an OS is factually built on imperatives. But good practitioners know that Brand is not / should not be black & white, and solve the issue by ... yes, Brand is an OS but with humans as watchful eye and intelligent interpretators who can draw boundaries and make decisions.
Excellent - but now we're back to a Guidelines Manual (better and electronic) and a Manager. And while the codification and the general controls are on steroids (fuller, faster, truer, sharper, more complete), the human manager ... is not any better than yesterday, and arguably less so in fact (but surely s/he has a far better dashboard and can delegate some responsibilities to a machine). Structurally, it's the same as it always was: Rules, and a Rules Manager. And what bothers me today is that many believe that the technology advancements has resolved the issue of 'Brand Management' at large. They did not. More efficient, not better. (or if efficiency and strict accuracy is all there is to it ... yeah, it's better).
I always used two models, based on the clients' characteristics:
- Brand as an 'operating system' works well for simpler companies, simpler businesses, stronger management, and when the need for interpretations isn't extensive.
- for other businesses, I use Brand as a Cone of Light: a directional space within which all that the Company does and says and operates as must reside.
The difference is clear: an OS is precise, while a Cone of Light has an unmistakable core plus peripheries.
Both of them require human supervision and interpretation - but the latter gives the human manager permission to deal with and manage the peripheries or occasions, while an OS would just say No (and the manager would cut 'exceptions). As so the Cone of Lights is a governing business principle by creating a defined-space-with-flex - which requires an illuminated Human Supervisor - an Advocate really.
And it all also depends upon the Positioning one has - I wrote a whole 8,000-word Declaration of Brandependence on it.
==