A Fool's Guide To Branding

Ah... brand... it's such a delicate orchid. If some evil or misguided soul makes unfair, inappropriate or unprofessional use of your brand then it can apparently cause great damage. I can't recollect a good example of this, but I'm assured by various victims of brand police that this is, indeed, the case. It must be so, since otherwise how does one explain the draconian measures that the brand police invoke. And yet, much of such policing must, of necessity, happen behind closed doors. Why? Well... it's a curiously delicious irony that, to be seen to be invoking extreme or excessive brand management, actually reflects badly on your brand, potentially doing more harm than the damage your management sought to limit in the first place.

On the other hand, if you are trying to move from being a private West Coast geek academy to become the public powerhouse behind the next generation of the internet, then you might see a rather late-in-the-day conversion to extreme brand management as proving that you were now grown-up, wore long trousers and could be taken seriously by the big pension funds and other potential investors. Hmmmm... or maybe they might see such excessive zeal as evidence that you're West Coast geeks playing at being business people. Roll the dice.

Like I say... brand is a delicate thing.

The virtual worlds blogosphere has been having a field day with Linden Lab's decision to flip from something akin to a hippy-dippy love'n'peace commune to something resembling a Kafkaesque nightmare of anally-retentive branding thugs. Yet they have failed to heed that, if you try and carry big weapons without proper training, there is a real risk of shooting yourself in the foot.

To ramble off into reverie...

At the time of writing it seems that any mention of the company, its products or its logos must be accompanied by a swarm of ® and ™ symbols, rendering even the simplest text into a digital version of a well-used medieval palimpsest. I may be misreading this slightly, but it seems that any word beginning with, or containing, the letters "sl" are now the sole property of Linden Lab and can only be used if you have a correctly validated, signed certificate of authorisation. The same is true for the pair "ll". And as for using them in upper case - just don't even think about it.

As you might expect, any use of the word "second" or "life" must now be approved by a Star Chamber, whose decision is final. In fact, anything that could be interpreted as a synonym, antonym, exaggeration or diminution of any word ever written by the company, it would be wise to leave out. Sure, your vocabulary might suffer, but at least you can be happy in the knowledge that you are following the brand rules (as they stand at the moment).

And what about the eye in the hand logo? You know... the one that could be loosely based on Herbert Bayer's photomontage Lonely Metropolitan (1932)? That's right out, that is.

Now I will leave it to brainy people, who can write reams and reams of peerless prose, to make the proper case against this insanity.

I will conclude by saying: I admit this post is pointless, childish, a tad petulant and prone to misfire - which is rather like this new branding policy then.

Happy All Fools' Day.

Brand Protection in Virtual Worlds

The topic of branding should be close to the heart of any organisation setting up in a virtual world. In theory, this new environment should not pose any greater problem than existing communications channels, such as the web, TV or the printed word. However, there is one key difference between this and existing channels: it is an unknown.

I will use Second Life to illustrate my thesis - mainly because it is aVW that I know well, and it is still the VW of choice for organisations.

I don't have any facts and figures to back up my assertion, but I believe that many organisations come into Second Life following the efforts of employees who are already residents and avid advocates of virtual worlds. The objective, definition and approach for the subsequent build will normally fall to the marketing folks who are responsible for brand and channel exploitation. However, the dynamics of environments like Second Life, despite their initial superficial similarity to the real world, are not simple to understand and may often confound expectations. A lack of understanding of the technology, physics and social dynamics of Second Life can lead to well-intentioned but flawed deployments. It does not require an Einstein to see that a poorly thought-out deployment will inevitably reflect badly on an organisation's brand.

An alternative course may be to allow your advocates to run with the build. But your organisation is then dependent on these people understanding and working within the constraints inherent in protecting your brand. These are not necessarily skills I would expect from Second Lifers, who are far more used to behaving in a free and unconstrained manner within the virtual world.

The perceived route of least risk would be to employ a specialist company capable of advising on the marketing approach, as well as managing the construction of the site. There are many such companies plying their wares across a number of virtual worlds. But even this is not without its problems, as the number of corporate ghost sims will attest. More importantly, these companies can only ever act as brand consultants. The organisation itself retains full responsibility and accountability for the protection of its brand.

Consequently, there has to be a level of "brand policing" applied by the organisation on the work of its builders. But if the "brand police" lack Second Life experience, how qualified are they to assess the suitability of the build? They can ensure that the static look and feel meets brand guidelines, but assessing the "usability" of the build is far more complicated. I have seen more than a few sites that meet brand guidelines, yet deliver a wholly unsatisfactory user experience.

In my view, the approach must start with a private build, involving (and educating) the branding folks as soon as possible. Use specialists where appropriate, placing particular emphasis on brand conformance and usability testing, to ensure that both the static and dynamic aspects of the build fully satisfy the brand police. I would not be surprised to find that the brand guidelines are reviewed and extended as a result of the exercise.

Well... it's a thought.