In a post titled, ‘What is a brand?’ I finished with the words, “…branding is a verb. It is the consistent, continuous and single-minded creation of a unique concept in the prospect’s mind, based on fulfilling rational and emotional needs. Therefore, a brand is not a product, it is an evolving concept in the customer’s mind.” However, at the time, I was thinking of ending the article with this thought:

I’m starting to wonder whether a brand is also the culmination of everybody involved with it. Not just the consumer, but namely, management and employees.

I think there’s good reason to ponder this question. Take a look at GM, for example. At one time it was one of the greatest companies in the world, with a brand portfolio others only dreamed of having. It’s now basically a penny stock and its brands are in the toilet.

By contrast and in comparison, according to Interbrand’s latest assessment, the brand value of Coca Cola is $68.73 billion, making it the world’s most valuable brand.

Why has Coke’s brand held, or increased in value, while GM’s brands have plummeted?

In one word: People.

According to Coke, its mission is to refresh the world; to inspire moments of optimism and happiness; and to create value and make a difference.

Seems to me the people involved with the company and brand are doing a pretty good and consistent job of it.

Whereas and from a distance, GM’s methods strike me as arrogant and deserving of failure. From the botched handling of their pioneering electric car, the EV1, to how their current multi-million dollar, publicly funded advertising is telling us they’ve changed, without, you know, actually changing - the company has been in a downward spiral.

An article in Harvard Business Revue talks about a few reasons for their failure, including that GM makes cars people don't want. It’s too slow to innovate because of its size. And it’s too bureaucratic and unable to adjust to changing markets.

To be fair, the authors also claim that GM had trouble cutting costs, because most of the costs were fixed.

What does this have to do with brands in the age of social media?

Quite a bit, I think. GM is still acting as though communicating with consumers is an outbound monologue only. They haven’t appeared to retool and put a better product on the road, despite what their advertising says. They seem to be ignoring the fact that consumers can talk back and massively talk with each other through social media.

Overall, there seems to be a lack of transparency, honesty and acknowledgment, especially given that the public knows it’s our dollars that bailed them out. In continuing to do things the same old way, GM missed an opportunity.

People like underdogs. They like comebacks. But most importantly, they first have to like the contender.

What might GM have done to earn public support and empathy? Why not turn the distaste of public funding into an opportunity? For example, why not create a public advisory board and use social media in the election process? They could have also gotten the public involved in suggesting design and features they want. Hell, we're the investors, why not give us a sense of ownership? There’s lots they could have, should have done.

None-the-less, I think GM would have been further ahead had they spent more time conversing with and involving customers. Not to mention, changing their products, service and people’s beliefs about the company and its brands in the process.

All in all, social media is primarily about people first and technology second. A brand is about people first as well. Poorly managed and uninspired people, provided with no belief or vision - or even simply employing the wrong people - will likely result in wrong decisions, affecting a brand and pissing off its audience. And this scenario will only be magnified through social media, whether the people managing the brand like it or not.

Loading mentions Retweet