The Design Council site features "Thirteen examples of successful brand experiences".
This piece exemplifies my issues with brand experience definitions of those who engage the phrase most often: embodied by an inherent element of 'staged event'. Our paths of understanding diverge.
Experiences happen. When they happen to include inference to a brand, the brand owner better hope that the experience is a positive one, or at the very least, not a negative one.
Each experience is framed by the fundamentals of economics. Consider the concept of elasticity. "Behavioral elasticity" and "elasticity of substitution" both come to play in brand experiences. Indeed, they help define a key element Marketers often rely on: affinity.
My throat is parched and I open my refrigerator. As my eyes identify a can of Caffeine-Free Diet Coke, a positive brand experience begins as I imagine the taste of the Coke, satisfying my thirst. The reality is, if the formula is not quite 'right', my experience will be impacted. If the can contains "Classic Coke" instead, my personal experience will be quite negative. In all cases I have engaged in a brand experience. The latter, impacted by a breakdown in quality control, results in a negative experience. Repeated too often, brand trust is eroded. My affinity is weakened.
Severity depends on current elements that can impact my elasticity of substitution. If there is another brand with which I can have a similar positive experience, I will likely switch to that brand. If my perception of cola is only filled by a Caffeine-Free Diet Coke, then I have lower elasticity and will tolerate the variability as long as I can occasionally encounter the familiar experience that I prefer.
The impact of changing a preferred brand experience is readily illustrated in Coke's historic error in abandoning the "Classic Coke" formula, rather than creating a different product to expand consumption.
Consumer control over brand experiences, good or bad, is significant. In today's market, their voice is stronger. With lowering barriers to entry, there are many waiting to rush in and capitalize on the mistakes of others.
Please. If you're going to engage in a brand experience conversation, do it in a deeper, meaningful way. Do it in a way that truly increases understanding of the many dimensions of brand experience and its direct impact on relationships. Those who focus on entertainment or event aspects (e.g. Chuck E. Cheese), limit the types of products/services to which they can apply their principles. They are more subjected to the shifting whims of tastes, preferences, and clever competition. And they are less likely to account for significant variables that can impact product affinity, and therefore, sales.
Which definition do you embrace?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Image Attribution: Getty Images
BOB JACOBSON is fascinated by the experience of experience. A planner and technologist, Bob has a Ph.D. in Urban Planning & Design from UCLA. He's been a policy researcher, technology CEO, science writer, and consultant. As a Fulbright Scholar, he studied cellular telephony's impacts on transborder communities in the Nordic Arctic Circle. Bob edited Information Design (MIT Press 2000) and is now writing a book on the theory and practice of creating edifying, transformative experiences.
PAULA THORNTON says, "Understanding human behavior (economics), optimizing interactions (design) and facilitating conversations (markets), are the means to achieve strategic differentiation. This is the focus of our discipline. It is not a 'nice to have'‚ and is not, like documentation once was, an afterthought. It is the means by which to start a strategic discussion and the means by which to drive a tactical initiative. All design should be evidence-based."
