brand names

EVERYTHING in life is cyclical. Usages, habits and practices in the realm of the consumer at large take one large circle and get back to the good old way of doing things. Life in the fast lane of branding is also cyclical.

Look at the practice of naming a brand. In the very beginning, it was simple. Brands even took the names of the colours of their labels. A Red Label tea and a Black Label whisky, for instance. And then things got complex. As every other colour on the horizon got exhausted, brands and their keepers sought differentiation with the use of the more complicated in the naming game.

In came the complex words. In came the words that had the dual meaning in them. In came created words such as `Bru', which in any case represented cleverly the strong brew the name touted.

The creative guy went on a spree. In came names that meant nothing as well. In came brand names that represented a monument, a remote exotic town and at times even a name of a personality that sounded so different and classy. Meet Mr Allen Solly and, of course, his honest country cousin, Mr Peter England.

Brand names became even more complex. Some even so difficult to pronounce that they needed a multi-media campaign to get the consumer to roll his Ps and Rs correctly. Remember `Al-pen-lee-bay'.

Back to the present then. The names are getting simple once again. The creators of brand names (shall we call them Brand Brahmas?) have come a full circle. The names are generic once again. There is a Tamarind shirt, an Orange cellular service, an Idea even. Wait for the Potato motorcycle, the Tomato detergent and the Cucumber designer wristwatch!

A completely new thought, then.

Everything in the realm of branding, be it in the very naming of a brand, the practice of nurturing its campaign, the type of local promotions, the reality (candid camera) in advertising, the core strategies in pricing and literally in everything else about the science and craft of branding is getting back to the good old way of doing things. It's cyclical!

Look at a possibility in this trend game of branding. Look at the very process of branding itself. How long till the Brand Brahmas (the creators) turn Brand Maheshwaras (the destroyers)?

Look at this thought differently. To date, the brand manager has performed the traditional role of a Brand Brahma (creator) and a Brand Vishnu (preserver) to good levels of satisfaction. The tradition of branding, the foundations of which have been laid in the writings and practice of the Western brand mind, have always encouraged the role of the brand manager as the creator and the preserver.

The brand guardian who creates and nurtures, maintaining the integrity of the process of branding. Tomes of brand knowledge emanating from the quills of brand practitioners and academicians alike tout the wisdom of the process.

A process that creates and maintains. Take a different view. Add the dimension of destruction to the branding process. Imagine a process where brands that are created and preserved by the brand manager are disintegrated into non-brands altogether. The brand manager as Maheshwara (destroyer), if you will!

The theory I tout in the trend game of brands is this: Brands must be created and nurtured for sure. And when the time comes, brands will be destroyed and must be destroyed. The onus of doing this rests with the brand manager at one end and the consumer at the other end.

Why would the brand manager want to do this? Just to ensure that the offering keeps to the relevance parameter of the consumer as his wants and needs evolve. Sounds strange at this moment of time.

Give it time, and catch the trend in the consumer markets we live in today. Here is an example.

The product is a very popular chiwda! Laxminarayan Chiwda of Pune. In the beginning, it was a generic product altogether. Over the hoary years of franchise, the store is a brand today. So much so that visitors to Pune crave the brightly printed, red polypacks of the product. A 500 gm pack could cost you Rs 40, let's say. The brand is very popular and the product is unique and pretty much non-replicable.

This popular brand with limited distribution in the country is picked up by a whole host of specialty retailers in cities far away such as Kolkata in the East and Bangalore in the South.

The Laxminarayan Chiwda is made loose and stocked in bottles. The chiwda is then sold as a generic product. This time at a price twice the price of the polypack product. Consumers throng these locations not knowing the identity of the original product.

There is a thriving trade in a whole host of brands that get de-branded in the market place and get sold at prices higher than their branded versions. This is a small business at play at the moment. But think about it. Branding is a continuum.

The generic commodity is branded first. And then de-branded. The process of de-branding itself giving legitimacy to the higher price tag.

There is value in the process of destruction of the brand as well. Advanced branded societies such as the US are already in the bulking game of specialty items.

Indian beedies are bulked from their pink paper labels and stored in wooden casks that help sell the humble beedi at a price that is ten times more than what the primary beedi maker in India realises. Most products sourced from exotic markets are similarly bulked.

The brand identity is destroyed to make a margin that is much more than what the brand with its clonal offering of consistency would offer. Is this a thought then? A trend to look out for at least?