Branding doesn’t stop

‘The importance of branding’ is often touted on the web by companies like ours that provide branding. Let’s not add to that pile. Instead let’s look at two big, smart, rich, established companies, Starbucks and Polestar, who are grappling with branding challenges right now and suggest that branding is an ongoing process, like marketing.

Starbucks

Starbucks really wants to be its self-labelled ‘third space’: that cosy place that isn’t your home or work where you meet up with friends, colleagues or family. Unfortunately, 70% of Starbucks’ American customers order their coffee from the app or drive thru. So that’s mainly to go and increasingly iced. The whole: meet up, sit down, lingering coffee morning thing is a lot less of an actual thing nowadays.

Starbucks’ new rockstar CEO Brian Niccol, he of the corporate-jet-commute fame, says he wants to get back to the business of being a coffee house – experiential not transactional. However, he is a serial fast-food boss: Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Chipotle, so don’t expect him to close down apps or drive thrus.

Brand vs perception vs reality

The issue seems to be brand vs perception vs reality. Starbucks wants to charge more for an experience. Customers want their app-ordered, insanely customised coffee waiting for them at 8.54am. On. The. Dot. The reality is neither is able to get what they want. And nowadays you can get a coffee every 30 metres in most cities.

Perhaps the brand needs to decide what it is, a bespoke coffeehouse that doesn’t do fast (like the thousands of self-consciously independent cafes), or a fast Barista-presses-a-button takeaway (like the thousands of other chains). Experiential or transactional?

Polestar

Premium electric car company Polestar is not as well known as it would like. (I just described it as an ‘electric car company’ for instance, not something I would feel the need to do for Tesla). Polestar also seems to be struggling to be clear about who it is. Those that know about it know it is something Volvo-y. Those that don’t know about it are the vast majority of the world.

It may be being coy about that Volvo link because Lexus doesn’t mention its embarrassing parent to ensure that people will continue to pay top dollar for a Toyota. Plus the Volvo connection is…messy and as Volvo now sells their own, premium, electric cars, in roughly the same price bracket, Polestar is more a competitor than an association to be proud of.

Too quiet luxury 

Another strategic reason Polestar may also be consciously keeping a low, indistinct profile (pursuing the ‘quiet luxury’ approach of being understated, if you know you’re in the know etc), is to become the EV choice for those unwilling to drive around in the personification of Elon.

These are all smart rationales for their branding, however Polestar is losing over a billion a year. And shouty Tesla and famous Volvo aren’t. A brand, even a quiet luxury one, needs to be communicating something strong, something that differentiates them, even if they’re whispering it. Polestar doesn’t seem to be whispering anything.

Branding: benefit or burden?

These are two companies, with strong products, who should be killing it. Yet branding issues are seriously affecting their bottom line, share price and investment. Branding isn’t something that’s ‘done’ and then you can forget about it until your logo looks a little old fashioned. It needs to be nurtured, remain relevant and tweaked to not only attract your customers, but also, on occasion, follow them. A brand can, and should, change.

At Lime Creative, we understand the importance of agile branding. Our expertise helps companies refine their identity and stay ahead of the competition. Your brand deserves to grow, not stand still.

Insights Credits:

• CNBC
• ft.com
• Wired
• msn.com