Abstract
The author will challenge the ancient “brand-related” thinking, submitting that somehow companies are still in control of what consumers think or even how customers act. As a counterproposition, the author highlights that the only thing companies can manage these days are the experiences customers have with them and their offerings. Supported by our research, I propose to end the chicken-and-egg question of if brands drive the customer experience which is (how CX), or vice versa. I suggest researching the only thing that matters, how CX offerings, and how CX influences the way customer search, collect, and evaluate information and behave. This proposition leads into the implications for the market research community and CX management.
The notion of proclaiming that brands are dead once the Internet arrives is neither novel nor new (e.g., Shapiro, Carl, & Varian, 1998). Researchers still propose that in a world where consumers can assess product and service quality through more “trustworthy” sources, such as their fellow users, peers, social media, and experts, brands will become less important (Simonson & Rosen, 2014). This is contradicted by researchers highlighting that the digital brands, such as Google, Amazon, or Apple, are more valuable than ever and that the product is the ultimate brand (e.g., Skibsted & Hansen, 2014). Others predict that new technologies, such as voice-bots like Alexa and Siri, will change the face of brands and branding alike (e.g., Labecki, Klaus, & Zaichkowsky, 2018). Labecki et al. (2018) challenge the notion that products will be the focus of the brand for two reasons. One, if voice-bots like Alexa will make decisions for consumers, an algorithm will evaluate product quality and value based upon consumer preferences, independently of brand or “suggested” brand value. Two, this limits the influence of emotive responses and brand loyalty, possibly leading to a customer becoming loyal to Alexa rather than the brand the customer purchases—the bot becomes the brand (Labecki et al., 2018).
All of these researchers deliver evidence for their viewpoint, but perhaps they are all missing the point. I am not interested which one of these perspectives will prove correct over time, what I do know is that brands per se will not be disappearing. Brands will still have a role in our decision-making process, no matter how we will be purchasing products and services in the future. What are brands but a collection of direct and interactions that is manifested in our brain as an overall perception. We can compare brands with a bird’s nest, carefully constructed from little sticks, branches, feathers, and building material. The brand building materials are all direct and indirect interactions you had with a brand throughout your life. The brand is the evaluation and overall perception of these interactions, your personal bird’s nest, so to say. And this is exactly the point I am trying to convert; we evaluate brands based upon our (and others’) experiences with the brand. It is not the advertising, marketing, persuasion, or even logos, colors, and brand ambassadors that make us choose one brand over another. Do not get me wrong, I understand that these traditional branding tools can be a part of the customer experience (CX), but their main function is to stimulate interest. Regrettably, though, they often raise (high and false) expectations on what the brand will deliver. We as consumers then compare our expectations with our CX or the experience of others. Often the evaluation is not favorable, leading to a decrease of these traditional branding tools as determinant of consumer behavior. In layman’s terms, we do not trust what brands are saying. Instead, we move our evaluation and trust in our (direct interactions) or other consumer’s (indirect interactions) evaluation of their CXs. I believe that most of the readers reflecting upon their own decision-making processes will agree with this notion.
Subsequently, the old question of brand being the chicken or egg of the equation can easily be answered. Brands are the evaluation of our experiences. Therefore, brands, per se, cannot be managed in the traditional way, because the traditional tools do not influence our behavior anymore. The only thing companies can manage is what drives the brand perception—the CX. CX is the cause of why a brand is perceived positive or negative, because we evaluate brands upon the experiences they deliver. Managers need to work on the cause (CX), not the effect (brand) or the expectations raised by traditional branding tools.
Where does this leaves us, the market researcher community? Traditionally, with all due respect, market research is seen as a tactical function in the firm. Market research either investigates customer perceptions or collects data to support and/or research for an initiative/project in the firm. I believe that market research can use CX to move from a tactical level toward a strategic-shaping function. Market research should not be reduced to examine if, how, and when branding tools will or will not work. Instead, CX gives market research a unique opportunity to explore what really drives customer behavior and ultimately business performance. CX is, by definition, a complex field and most companies are struggling to define what it is and how it can be measured, and ultimately managed. We know that managers trying to determine CX’s possible scope, objectives, and impact fail in their vast majority to do so (Klaus, 2014). Why cannot market researcher position themselves at the CX forefront and use their exploratory and analytical skills to define and assist managers to understand CX and its crucial importance for their business? I might go out on a limb here, but I know enough market researchers that have these capabilities, so what is holding us back? Are we, as market researchers, just to complacent in our comfortable and well-defined tactical function? Do we lack the resources to make our case? Do we use and provide the right tools to measure CX (see, for example, Klaus & Maklan, 2013)? Or do we simply do not talk the language that will allow managers to understand the strategic value of market research (Klaus, Edvardsson, Keiningham, & Gruber, 2014)? CX is a great opportunity to increase the relevance and impact of market research, and I hope we can take full advantage of this chance.
In summary, brands are not dead, but branding, as we know it, is. Managers need to focus on the only thing they can control—how customers experience their product/services/offerings and interactions. Managers are struggling to grasp CX, how to measure and to manage it—they need help. And this is where market researchers can deliver the insights that managers are looking for. By doing this, market research will earn a well-deserved seat on the strategic decision-making table.
In reference to the Game of Thrones title, thing of branding as the Lannisters, trying to hold on to their power, no matter what, while CX is Jon Snow/Aegon Targaryen, the rightful heir to the Iron Throne (independently of what the show’s writers decide).
