Back at the end of February I posted a discussion (following up a post from a year earlier) of what I think is a very important idea about brands and how a market's perception toward established brands may change over time and sometimes very quickly. I generated the original idea between two and three years ago by first looking all the way back to the circumstances of both the (two) Tylenol and (one) Perrier brand events in the years 1982-1990. To some people, my follow-up post in February seemed like an opportunistic pounce onto America's bedrock financial brands when they were down and an easy way to seemingly make a point by piling on the social acrimony. I can point out, again, that my original argument had nothing to do with financial brands, was constructed in 2007 and posted very early in early 2008, then edited and updated months later because I do this in my spare time, all of which was well before this past fall's events with our financial brands.
That stated, it is a great time to share my developing thoughts using America's financial brands as speculative fodder for the larger universe of American brands because right now, this month, we find ourselves collectively wondering if the big mess might be behind us and we can get back to extrapolating the old trends that were much more comfortable to follow.
Managing brands that individually face crisis (or even when an entire industry does because of a specific issue-think Tylenol) is a very important topic for the years in front of us because of the important distinction between periods of social expansion and social correction. As I will discuss, the distinction between these two periods holds dramatic insight to how markets perceive both the positive and negative traits associated with relevant brands and the implications this has to the enterprise holding these brands. This is an important topic. This post will be up shortly. Dave
Comments