Blog

Are Model Positions Fastened Or Versatile?

Are brand positions fixed or flexible?

It is increasingly accepted that a brand is not just elements like logo, website, product, etc., but also values, beliefs, mission, purpose, behavior and principles. With this definition of brand, we could rethink how we look at a brand. Especially when a brand has its values, beliefs, goals, experiences, etc., can it best be viewed spatially or temporally? So if a brand is to be viewed in terms of time, should it have a static brand position at all? Is the definition of a brand as a "position" helpful, does it indicate a rigid, inflexible unit set in stone that occupies a fixed space?

That's why I say we should forget about the brand position – a brand is always in development, in the process of being redefined.

But redefinition by whom and how? In our connected digital economy, brand content and value is increasingly being created by all stakeholders, and by stakeholders I mean the company, employees, users, etc. We understand how digital technology has fueled conversations between a company and its users & # 39 ;, between the users themselves and the value that User Insight for & # 39; brings together created & # 39; content. The social, cultural and economic environment is constantly changing. So if a brand is social, cultural and economic, shouldn't it be flexible?

So what makes us think that the old, static model of “positioning” a brand makes sense?

Yes, different elements of a brand exist spatially, e.g. B. Products, visual designs etc, but not the brand itself when viewed as values, beliefs and purposes. A brand exists in time and therefore cannot be fully understood spatially, but must be viewed both in its historical process and as part of its current environment. In other words, its current form consists of its history, its current environment, and its possible future.

The continuous brand

I think in order to better understand the brand we have to look for a way to look at it in terms of time, not space. Here I look increasingly at Bergson and, more recently, at Kember and Zylinska and their definitions of intellect and intuition. Bergson discussed how the intellect looks at spatiality, how intellectually we break down temporal processes into static things in order to see them (photographs are a good example). This is of course crucial for everyday life, but if we want to look at a brand continuously and permanently, we also have to take intuition into account.

"Instead of a discontinuity of moments that replace each other in an infinitely divided time, she will perceive the continuous fluidity of real-time, which flows indivisibly" (Bergson, H. 1946: 127).

For me, we can begin to understand the brand better through Bergson's definition of intuition – a way of using ambiguous but relevant forms of metaphor and comparison to paint a picture that cannot be fully explained intellectually. What makes intuitive thinking possible are considerations of a brand as a whole, not as “time slices”. Intuition cannot and should not replace the intellect, but it can paint a bigger picture if not entirely discarded.

As you'd expect, this is not what I would call my "position" on the brand. These are some brand thoughts that are in the works. They are not meant to be an “answer” to anything, just to stimulate thought.

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. " Einstein

Contribution to Branding Strategy Insider by: Paul Bailey, Strategy Director at Halo

The Blake Project Can Help: The Brand Positioning Workshop

Brand Strategy Insider is a service from The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in brand research, brand strategy, brand growth and branding

Free publications and resources for marketers