A brand is a collection of symbols, experiences and associations connected with a product, a service, a person or any other artifact or entity.

This is how Wikipedia defines brand. But here’s the thing. Brands aren’t defined by Wikipedia. They’re defined by each one of us, in a way unique to us. Ford means one thing to you, another thing to me. Every brand has this same inherent characteristic. All Ford can do is contribute the raw materials used to create the concept of the Ford brand in my mind, but it can’t control how I put those things together.

Originally, all brands started as a promise of quality to the consumer. People were familiar with goods produced by local craftsman. The craftsman was the brand: the more skilled the creator, the higher the quality and the more trust placed in the product. Mass production needed to provide that peace of mind, so brands were placed on products as an assurance of quality. But somewhere in the latter half of the 20th century, brands became more than a promise, they became a religion. And that’s where everything became really wacky. Brands moved from a rational evaluation of quality to an emotional connection.

A Religious Experience

All brands want to become a religion, but not all brands have what it takes to make the transition, at least with a substantial number of customers. GM is a promise, BMW is a religion. United is a promise, JetBlue is a religion. And sorry to tell you this, Steve — but Microsoft is a promise, Apple is a religion.

Promises and religions are judged by different criteria. The customer-product relationships are driven by different motivations. If your brand is not a religion, you can’t suddenly build a church and expect people to worship. I see Microsoft retail stores as destined for dismal failure. First of all, Microsoft products are ubiquitous, so why do I need to go to a special store to find them? Secondly, Microsoft products have none of the religious aura surrounding them that Apple products do. The Microsoft brand never became more than a promise.

Brand Starts and Ends at the Core

One thing that both these natures of brand have in common: ultimately they depend on the values, integrity and effectiveness of the organization that creates the brand. If the brand is a promise of a level of quality, you can’t break the promise with immunity, especially in a digitally amplified world of blogs, forums and buzz. Each of the “promise” brands I used as examples, GM, United and Microsoft, stand in danger of their promises losing all meaning with customers. A promise is only as good as the level of trust you’ve built with the recipient.

But if the brand is a religion, the culture of the organization becomes even more important. Irrational decision factors run amok: the perceived culture of the organization, how the brand label connects with who we are, the social circles it places us it, or the circles we wish it would place us in, the values the company stands for, the exclusivity of the brand. The brand relationship becomes a complex stew of beliefs and emotions. We only make this investment for brands that hold a unique position in our mindscape. We feel we have to get as much from the brand as we’re willing to give it in terms of our emotional loyalty. And if a brand doesn’t reciprocate, it is quickly downscaled from a religion to a passing fancy.

I Am What I Buy (Sometimes)

One of the most ironic things about humans is that we seek to define who we are as individuals by the social associations we make. We stand out by joining groups. And this is a huge motivating factor in the brands we chose to give religious devotion to (Rob Walker’s book “Buying In” is a great exploration of this). Using a Mac puts us in the top 10% of the technically cool population (aka Justin Long). Using Windows means we’re lumped in with the remaining 90% of poor, boring schlumps (aka John Hodgman). Again, not a very compelling reason to seek out a Microsoft store.

This dichotomy of branding becomes important when we look at how brand awareness may be built online. First, you have to be brutally honest about assessing whether your brand is a promise or a religion. It worries me greatly that Microsoft seems to be suffering from delusions of brand religion. There’s nothing wrong with being a solid promise. Many brand religions started there. Personally, I believe brands would be much better off worrying more about delivering on a promise and less about becoming a religion. By the way, it’s unusual for the biggest brand in a category to be the religious brand (Coke is one exception). It’s tough to be unique when you’re following the herd.

But the first step is accepting what you are.”

(Gord Hotchkiss – www.outofmygord.com)

Interesting enough some others think, from the other part of the game, that such requests could and should be fulfilled. After all, need leads to offer in the current economic framework.

Rude enough I think that such behavior vitiate the process of communication and defies all the principals and achievements of modern advertising. It twists the concept of reciprocity and value transaction in a wicked way and on the long run it will hurt everybody: advertisers, mobile media and the audience.

Any mechanic applied to a media channel that creates information overload and disrespects the needs of the audience is doomed and the channel will suffer on the long run. “Banner blindness”, “Outdoor blindness” are examples that speak for themselves.

On the other hand is it a bad thing to let advertisers know some things about you? I argue not because on the long run only smart brands will survive, brands that understand the importance of relevance and know how to build real value for their customers.

I’ve just received an email from an e-shop trying to sell me some laptops… it went directly to junk and will never bother me again. Please spam me, it’s free…

CityGT Promo from Millipede Creative on Vimeo.

While mobile phones outnumbered TV sets by over 3 to 1, PC based internet users by 4 to 1 and total laptop/desktop PC population by 5 to 1 the devices have evolved becoming highly competitive Internet terminals. This phenomenon combined with the need of a more direct, targeted approach and the opportunity of building response mechanisms are transforming mobile terminals into a very attractive channel of communication.

However there will be no recipe of success, no perfect channel or mix, the future landscape of advertising is yet to be defined and will have to be redefined over and over in always faster turnaround times. I remember a funny story I have heard some time ago during a lecture: a 7 years girl was drawing. The teacher stops and asks her “What are you drawing there?” “I’m drawing a picture of God.” (she replies) “How can you do it as nobody knows how God looks like?” (the teacher asks) Her answer was stunning “Now they will know!”

We are somehow in the position of this little girl, we navigate in uncharted waters and as Apple was reminding us so beautifully some time ago “the ones that are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who will do it.”

One of the great things happening in Scala JWT is the way people approach media. It is an agency where the idea is king and demands a particular mix of communication channels. Our proven track record speaks for itself. There where projects where we had to build blogs, hire people to draw crop circles, ghost write, generate news, create underground businesses and services, involve, inspire people to generate content, create social networks from scratch, build statues.

None of this would have been possible without smart clients, open to actively listen, open to learn by experience together with us and share the risk and the glory.

On 7th December Starbucks had several people around the world sing Beatles’ All You Need Is Love at the same time, to raise awareness for AIDS in Africa.

It got 464.000 views since 13th December and climbing the top viral video chart ever since.

“This one’s for my dad. Kingdom of the unreal but also a higher state of being, ultimately free of the limitations of the material world through the agency of science, technology, and imagination.” (The Neurosonics Audiomedical Labs Inc)…

The video was directed by Chris Cairns of the Partizan Lab. The film was made in collaboration with The Scratch Perverts, Foreign Beggars, Shlomo and Will Clarke with sound design by Will Cohen. Post production by The Mill London.