litmanlive.me

I've been working on a few projects recently where the inevitable questions around brand architectures and 'brand houses' are starting to come up in order to funnel all of the thinking and research into the right framework. Perfectly fine questions and expectations, but I think like many people, I'm dissatisfied with brand architecture models many of us are used to (and unfortunately often still use due to the lack of readily implementable solutions that could work across clients). Further adding to the current situation is that people (like Adrian among others) have been talking about this for years, and yet it seems to me that we still haven't collectively found a model or even a set of models/tools that we all feel is the right leap forward (and that have proven to be effective in bringing internal and external parties along for the ride).

Good place to start would be with a couple models that have gotten me pretty excited in the last year or a bit more.

In mid 2008 when The Open Brand (written by the very smart Kelly Mooney and Nita Rollins) came out, I thought that it might be a framework I could start using with even the more conservative clients and brands, but it hasn't quite caught broader recognition and attention that I expected (though I still find the experience framework overall to be quite useful).

 

Specifically, putting shared passion at the center of more familiar elements I think is a no-brainer today

More recently, have been spending some time thinking about The Molecular Brand laid out by the also smart folks at Nouve, which I think is spot on for the times and pushes brands to think beyond the traditional notions of 'the big idea' and more about how brands can mean different things to different people, with different approaches, and many moving parts.

(In fact, just in case you haven't read up on their thinking, definitely worth your time)

Yet as fantastic as I think it is, for some I feel that there may be an intermediate step missing. For those still perfectly happy with brand houses and other traditional models, the ability to jump towards brands as molecules isn't the easiest move. I think that's one of the reasons many of us still fall back on that model-- almost everyone in the room can buy off on the approach, it's quick and easy to understand, and something that even those unfamiliar with marketing jargon and tactics will be able to look at and immediately understand (ie its still a fine tool in getting employees organization wide to understand the approach marketing is trying to take with the company). And so currently I'm trying to find and/or work through and develop some kind of interim walk up that a more traditional company might need in order to fully embrace this kind of thinking.

I use the Molecular Brand as one great example, but I'm sure there are others out there that fellow planners, strategists, consultants and brand managers may be using with great success that I may not have fully explored yet. And I also have to imagine that some of you have encountered similar issues with other great brand models-- the challenge of introducing everyone to that new(er) thinking and getting organizational buyoff (including internally at your agency).

But I'm curious to hear if anyone has had success in making the full on jump from old models to new, or if you've had success in doing the intermediate walkup to something more contemporary (and what that walk-up looked like). I'll certainly be sharing if I come upon something that seems to be the golden ticket (part of my ongoing quest to help build and implement planning's new tools), but thought I would throw the question out there in the meantime to all of you who are smarter than I and see if some form of the answer were already floating around out there.