As for the Gap logo, I am not so sure it was people feeling “ownership” towards the brand identity as it was a matter of people speaking up because they could. I personally think that if The Gap felt that they wanted to change their identity, had research to support the change, and spent money on it…then they should have moved forward with it. Where they got into trouble was the backpedalling and the crowdsourcing games. I have said the same thing about Motrin. I don’t think they should have pulled their traditional ad campaign because three moms that blog got out of sorts (and 6 WEEEKS after the campaign had been running too).

Yes, I think in many ways we’re talking about the same central idea, only taking two approaches to outline it.

The last paragraph in your reply above may be where we diverge a little, perhaps over semantics or maybe its at the root. I believe I’ve felt strongly enough about certain brands that I hold some personal ownership stake, figuratively speaking. Certainly not in terms of financial sheets, but the brand was one I was committed to through the trials of time, access, convenience, or cost. I think I bucket it more in the ‘ownership’ category because it’s a conscious, selective personal choice I make where maybe I see the ‘relationship’ bucket as folding in more reciprocal and 2-way exchanges through brand communications tactics and my in-turn response. To get specific, I feel a connection I believe borders on ownership for a brand of butter my grandmother used and the one flat iron I found which works on my thick coarse hair. But neither of those brands has taken steps to build a relationship with me (which I’m OK with); that doesn’t diminish the import I place on buying those two brands in my own mind. Their performance has helped create an emotional – if unrecognized by the brand – connection with me. I don’t mean to sound contrarian, this is just how I think about it. Ownership is my choice and the psychology in my head; relationship may have plotted points and is more 2-way.

Separately, I’m still sorting out the bruhaha over the new Gap logo. The company’s decision to recant the logo and reinstate the old version fits with your reference about listening and adjusting based on feedback. What are your thoughts on the issue, maybe as it relates to Brand Ownership or Brand Relationship? Maybe part of the issue consumers had with it was the manner of the reveal, all sudden like?

Thanks again.
Heather Rast recently posted..What do you know about the 3-legged brand stool

Not sure what you mean by my “assertions,” so I’ll just jump into the other points you made by first saying that I think you are and I are saying the exact same things, just in different ways.

“And yet I think customers may attribute other associations with the product/service than those intended by the brand. Those associations are most likely related to memories, events, sensory experiences, and other subjective (and highly variable) issues that live only in the world of the buyer.”

I think I said the same thing, but by using product examples. This is why people by fake Gucci bags (I fit in if I have a Gucci or I feel “rich” being seen carrying a Gucci) or stay with a brand even though it has problems (Apple & the latest iPhone version). The company can’t create (for some) or control those ‘memories, events, sensory experiences, and other subjective (and highly variable)’ it a unique experience for each person (most of the time).

“I’d say that the customer takes some ownership of the brand–for how it fits in their life’s choices and the manner in which they may position it to others.”

Unless I am wrong I think what you mean by “brand ownership” is brand relationship (or taking pride in the relationship so that it seems like ownership?). Customers can’t own the brand nor can they change it. Well, unless, the brand is willing to listen and make adjustments to their brand culture, promises, identity, messaging, etc. based on customer feedback to better connect with their core customers.

It sounds like we are on the same page…am I missing something?

I don’t think I wholly agree with some of your assertions, though I can’t say that I think my views are completely opposed, either. I’ll agree that a company owns and directs the brand top-down and inside-out. By that I mean executive leadership holds a set of values and beliefs that become norms (and sometimes in structured ways) for internal stakeholders like employees and other vested parties. Over time those values and beliefs mature into a culture and hopefully attract the interest of like-minded people…some of which may be external constitutants like the business community and customers. This may come in the form of direct interaction (sales of goods or services) or through visibility. A marketing department may build or extend on those values and create messaging and support materials that promote and even propogate it outwardly. And yet I think customers may attribute other associations with the product/service than those intended by the brand. Those associations are most likely related to memories, events, sensory experiences, and other subjective (and highly variable) issues that live only in the world of the buyer. In that respect, I’d say that the customer takes some ownership of the brand–for how it fits in their life’s choices and the manner in which they may position it to others.

Lots of good stuff here. Thanks for making me think.
Heather Rast recently posted..What do you know about the 3-legged brand stool