Each was presented with passion and intelligence, and, of course, each was put forward as the definitive way of summarising a brand ("brand map, framework, architecture, hierarchy" etc).
Personally, I long ago became a bit blase. If a client wanted a certain format for communicating his brand, so be it. If they wanted me to propose the format and formula, I'd think about the particular client, the issues that needed addressing and the usage of it.
Then I'd pick and choose from my collected bits and a few of my own (I've had at least three) and come up with what I thought most appropriate.
The best brand summary I ever created, by the way, was an anecdote told to me by one of the client's staff, because everyone I've ever talked to about it -- marketers, staff, and customers -- immediately understood.
But I've recently run into a problem created by the specific use and understanding of a couple of brand descriptors. If it hadn't gotten sorted out, it could have led to a disastrous result.
The problem was over the use of the phrases "brand personality" and "tone of voice". The situation arose when a client of mine spent a significant amount of money with a brand consultancy which provided its own, cubistic brand structure.
It included, among much else, a mission directive about being customer focused, and a brand personality, with all those worthy "brand bingo" terms you'd expect to see -- "authoritative", "intelligent", "rational", "trustworthy", "humane", "helpful", yadda yadda yadda.
I felt overall that the output was quite good, and I could easily pick out the elements we could leverage to make compelling direct marketing -- the "verbs" as I think of them, or the "action" phrases. So, we created some new direct response executions based on this summary.
The objectives were to gain specific target responses and sales from a specific prospect customer segment. I believed our new work was "on brand", as were my direct clients. But, because it was the first direct marketing to be produced using the new brand "cube", it was shown to the newly appointed Brand Policeman. And that's when the problems started.
"It's off brand!" exclaimed the cop. "You don't understand our brand personality!"
"Why do you say that?" I asked. "It's authoritative, intelligent, rational, etc."
"Yes" was the reply, "but it's also demanding, and exclamatory, and pushy!"
"True" I responded, "but that's the execution's tone of voice. It's a brand that is authoritative, intelligent, etc, talking in a demanding, exclamatory manner in order to get this specific group of people to call."
"But brand personality is the brand's tone of voice!", came the shouted reply.
I made the mental note that if he was right -- that brand personality was a tone of voice -- then he was now "off brand" himself in that he was no longer authoritative, intelligent, or rational.
I managed not to say that out loud. But I did, over the course of the next half hour, manage to convince him of the difference, and why it is so important (without resulting to insults, rages, or physical violence).
My view is this: When brand planners use anthropomorphic terms to describe brands, it's important they do so with a basic understanding of people. To believe that a person's personality is its tone of voice in any given situation is, frankly, inhumane.
Think about it. Assuming you are not schizophrenic, you probably have only one personality. You may be introverted or extroverted, confident or insecure, optimistic or pessimistic, considered or impulsive, etc.
But does that mean you always talk in the same manner, regardless of the situation?
Do you talk using the same volume when whispering sweet nothings into someone's ear as you do when cheering on your football team at your home ground?
Do you use the same language with infant children as you do when talking to your accountant or lawyer?
Does your voice convey the same emotional timbre when you're snuggling with your cat as it does when you are pleading with a traffic warden? (Easy tiger).
The only thing I know that has a constant tone of voice is a Dalek. Oh, and maybe a sociopath or two I've met over the years.
Our personality affects our tone of voice, just like our accent does. But it does not have the final say.
Quiet people shout sometimes, and loud people speak softly; articulate people choke on their words while the monosyllabic wax lyrical. It all depends on the situation, who you are talking to, what you want to communicate, what you want them to think, feel, or do, and, by the way, how you are feeling (tired or energetic, sad or happy, content or stressed etc)
So there is a huge difference between brand personality and tone of voice. The former should be unchanging and affect the latter, but so to does the situation: specifically, the particular marketing objectives, strategy and tactics behind any individual execution.
This is hugely important for direct response marketing, particularly in the arena of recruiting new, "cold" customers or donors. By its very nature, this type of marketing has to stimulate a response. Given the competition for our reader/viewer's attention, we generally have to use disruptive, urgent creative work to cut through and grab the attention of our prospect.
And once they have engaged with us, we need then to drive behaviour by creating urgency: a powerfully compelling reason to "act now!".
Executions with soft spoken, enigmatic, gentle tones of voice are liked, but in most -- though not all -- sectors seldom manage to deliver a positive return on investment.
In direct response marketing we have to "shout at our football team", not "whisper sweet nothings".
The direct marketing brand planner is tasked with understanding how our client's brand personality would grab the intention of a specific group of people, and, once we've done that, get them to do something.
And if you achieve that, then you're beginning to learn to "live" the brand. Whatever that means.
In the end, the brand cop turned out to be a good bloke. He actually listened, and challenged intelligently, and, ultimately accepted -- with some reservations -- our approach.
Those last two sentences are, of course, not related.