The Internet Didn’t Kill Your Brand.

Since the tech revolution of the late 90’s and early 2000’s we’ve been told that the rise of the internet was going to mean the demise of brands. That freely available information: product specs, expert reviews and crowd-sourced ratings would make brands, and branding, unnecessary. People would eventually become the rational beings of economist’s dreams and would always end up with the perfect product for them, brand be damned.

And as web 1.0 became web 2.0 and social media and internet video proliferated this prediction only got louder and more prevalent. The New Yorker declared The Twilight of Brands and Andrew Essex, the former CEO of Droga5, said we are in a time of “brand devolution…” that there is “no more need for a brand story.” It sounds like a pretty scary time to be a brand but I would argue that the internet, and its associated applications aren’t killing brands, they’re making them more important than ever.

In order to explain my point of view I’m going to break down the two main arguments in favor of the “brands are dead” narrative and then walk through a couple thought experiments to demonstrate the flaws in this line of thinking. As I see it, the two arguments central to this narrative are: information and personalization. Information is the potential customer’s access to product specs and reviews. Personalization is the use of technology like behavioral tracking, algorithms, AI, etc. to look at a person’s history and recommend, and eventually predict, the perfect purchase. So let’s dig deeper:

Information

The idea that product specs and reviews would kill brands is not new and not native to the internet. Consumer Reports has been publishing product reviews since 1936, with no effect on the need for a brand. But it is true that the internet has created more information and democratized that information. But to ascertain if more, widely available information is killing brands we have to look at the purpose of that information. And generally, the underlying purpose of the information is to enable us to buy the product that’s “better”. This idea, that one product is inherently “better” than another is the heart of the problem. Without an objective “better,” information can’t eliminate brands.

This idea, that one product is inherently “better” than another is the heart of the problem.

For example, let’s say I wanted to buy a new midsize SUV. Consumer Reports currently “recommends” nine models, with the following top five: #1 Subaru Ascent, #2 Toyota Highlander, #3 Hyundai Santa Fe, #4 Kia Sorrento and #5 Mazda CX-9. While at Edmunds.com the top 5 midsize SUVs are: #1 Honda Pilot, #2 Mazda CX-9, #3 Volkswagen Atlas, #4 Subaru Ascent and #5 Kia Sorrento. So, the rankings are different, and there are some brands that appear in both…but which do I choose? In theory the information should tell me…but all it’s “saying” right now is that there are a handful of brands out there building high quality midsize SUVs. This is the space where the brand becomes extremely important. The brand helps create the emotional connection, or the predisposition to that connection, that elevates one high-quality brand over the other. A Subaru is a family vehicle. Toyota is well-built and reliable.Volkswagen is German engineering. Kia is a value option. And on. Differing perceptions of high-quality products based upon brand and brand marketing — extremely important in the decision making process of a potential car buyer.

So while The New Yorker is right to say that in the past “brands served as proxies for quality,” just because that’s not necessarily the case now doesn’t mean brands are unimportant. In fact, once a basic level of quality is assumed the brand and its associated values are one of the key assets to determining the value of the product.

Personalization

Personalization was born with the internet. Once people felt safe buying things online companies began recommending other things they should buy. Now, with big data and AI, companies can take all of that product information we just talked about, mix it in with customer data and purchase history, and place ads and recommend products in ways that should make the decision making process seamless…and thus eliminate the need for brands. Right now an example of this is Amazon’s “Recommended for you” and “Customers also bought.” But the future, as Andrew Essex writes, is Amazon Alexa’s ability to just choose for us: “Alexa buy deodorant” or “Alexa buy soap.” The underlying assumption driving this vision for the future of personalization is that you and the data you produce are one and the same. And by knowing you, internet brands like Amazon can deliver exactly what you want when you want. But that’s not how it really works.

The underlying assumption driving this vision for the future of personalization is that you and the data you produce are one and the same.

Let’s walk through the deodorant example from above to see how this plays out. Think about how you ended up using the brand you have now. You probably went to a reputable seller of such products, a brand you trust like CVS or Harris Teeter, and picked out something that you thought met your needs. Most likely the choice was made based upon a combination of emotional and functional needs. Old Spice, it’s been around forever and is kind of cool now. Dove, they have a positive and empowering outlook on women. Axe, I’m a tween boy going through puberty and hoping to get a girlfriend one day. And then you probably looked at different scents and product features like “48 hour protection.” Or, if you’re one of the less than 10% of people who buy direct from a company like Harry’s or Dollar Shave Club you probably saw branded communication, likely online, that made you interested in what their company is about, then you checked out their products. All of those experiences are tied up with who you are and what you care about, and they’re all brand driven experiences, from the channel through which you made the purchase to the brand you ultimately ended up with.

Now imagine you just said “Alexa buy deodorant.” If Alexa didn’t know what type of deodorant you use now, do you believe Amazon could pick out the right brand for you? Does Amazon know you? Would it know if you needed an antiperspirant? What about scent? Should it be organic? Powder or roll on? And on and on. Based upon the general mediocrity of Amazon’s “Recommended for you” product section, I can’t imagine they’d pick out the right deodorant for me…unless I’ve already purchased deodorant from them. And in that case Amazon isn’t eliminating brands and making the choice for me, they’re just fulfilling my already predetermined need, which is for a specific brand of deodorant.

So, if personalization isn’t capable of deciding for us because our data is not us, what can it do? My belief is that personalization, done well, can connect potential customers to new brands based upon previous behavior. So, rather than eliminating brands, it opens the door for new brands to find new customers.

How should we view the role of brands now?

Originally a mark of ownership then a symbol of quality and now the emotional connective tissue between company, culture and customer. Brands have definitely evolved, and the internet has played a large role in sparking that evolution. More information means that brands are less a symbol of quality and more a set of values. Today personalization makes it more likely that your brand may be seen by an interested customer, while personalization tomorrow may mean that customers become more loyal to brands through automated purchasing patterns.

Brands aren’t dead. They’re the thin line between success and failure. So build a brand. Stand for something. Stand out. And maybe you’ll earn a customer for life.