Google's Branding Problem
Monday, February 8, 2010
[Editor's note: This blog post has been given a shamelessly incendiary title in a heavy-handed attempt to provoke a little discussion.]
As Google becomes the most well known and most used digital technology brand in the world, their company motto - and probably the closest thing they've got to a brand positioning statement - "Don't be evil" is no longer specific enough to give people a sense of what Google's brand means in their life.
Among all the hoopla about the big advertising event last night (I think there might have been some kind of sports thing going on too...?), was the news that the most popular website on the internet, Google, decided to spend $5-6 million on a TV ad promoting their already hugely dominant web search service. As much as anyone may have enjoyed the spot itself, I think that a lot of people had the same question that me and the people I was watching it with had: Why does Google need to waste any money on a TV ad during the Super Bowl?
I continue to believe that Google is quickly going to replace Microsoft as the most popular personal computing operating system; they're invading through the mobile device. As mobile devices become our primary computing devices, Google will become the dominant operating system. And this new market position presents a slew of new opportunities and challenges for Google.
So far, the Google brand has been built on branded utility. They provide one phenomenal service, Search, and an array of other extremely competitive and useful tools and services (YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, Android, Docs, Reader, etc.) all at no monetary cost to the user (just let Google watch you use the internet : ). And this model has been one that most smart brands have started to chase in the past couple years. Don't just interrupt, make yourself useful. Add genuine value to your customer's lives in everything you do, and in every experience you create.
Ironically, Google has only ever had this kind of approach to branding, and now finds itself missing the more fuzzy aspects of a well-rounded and well-loved brand. What are its core values? What's important to Google, that a potential fan would identify with? What kind of emotions bubble up when someone thinks of Google? Why would you choose Google over Apple? What is it about Google, as opposed to Apple, that makes someone say "I'm a Google person"?
Google is going to have to come up with good answers to these questions. And I think it's wise for them to start experimenting now.
The ad that they ran last night during the Super Bowl, and the other search ads like it, are an interesting foray. Their strength is that they remind people of the personal emotions and investments that are part of the Google experience. The ads' weaknesses, on the other hand, are that they keep Google as something that can mean anything to anyone; Google is whatever you think it is.
Can a brand be successful, if every person who uses it has a unique perception of what it means? And if so, then where's the community?
I've got plenty of questions. Hopefully, you've got some answers. What do you think? Comments welcome.
As Google becomes the most well known and most used digital technology brand in the world, their company motto - and probably the closest thing they've got to a brand positioning statement - "Don't be evil" is no longer specific enough to give people a sense of what Google's brand means in their life.
Among all the hoopla about the big advertising event last night (I think there might have been some kind of sports thing going on too...?), was the news that the most popular website on the internet, Google, decided to spend $5-6 million on a TV ad promoting their already hugely dominant web search service. As much as anyone may have enjoyed the spot itself, I think that a lot of people had the same question that me and the people I was watching it with had: Why does Google need to waste any money on a TV ad during the Super Bowl?
I continue to believe that Google is quickly going to replace Microsoft as the most popular personal computing operating system; they're invading through the mobile device. As mobile devices become our primary computing devices, Google will become the dominant operating system. And this new market position presents a slew of new opportunities and challenges for Google.
So far, the Google brand has been built on branded utility. They provide one phenomenal service, Search, and an array of other extremely competitive and useful tools and services (YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, Android, Docs, Reader, etc.) all at no monetary cost to the user (just let Google watch you use the internet : ). And this model has been one that most smart brands have started to chase in the past couple years. Don't just interrupt, make yourself useful. Add genuine value to your customer's lives in everything you do, and in every experience you create.
Ironically, Google has only ever had this kind of approach to branding, and now finds itself missing the more fuzzy aspects of a well-rounded and well-loved brand. What are its core values? What's important to Google, that a potential fan would identify with? What kind of emotions bubble up when someone thinks of Google? Why would you choose Google over Apple? What is it about Google, as opposed to Apple, that makes someone say "I'm a Google person"?
Google is going to have to come up with good answers to these questions. And I think it's wise for them to start experimenting now.
The ad that they ran last night during the Super Bowl, and the other search ads like it, are an interesting foray. Their strength is that they remind people of the personal emotions and investments that are part of the Google experience. The ads' weaknesses, on the other hand, are that they keep Google as something that can mean anything to anyone; Google is whatever you think it is.
Can a brand be successful, if every person who uses it has a unique perception of what it means? And if so, then where's the community?
I've got plenty of questions. Hopefully, you've got some answers. What do you think? Comments welcome.
6 Comments:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and question the Holy Grail of our industry, "The Brand".
We're an industry obsessed by brands, branding, brandthis, brandthat. And it grew this way because we had to stick a name on this abstract thing that was the core of our business.
But Parisian Love is not a commercial that tries to build a brand. It's a product demo.
It's a love story thinly disguised as a product demo. Or the other way around.
So maybe it's not about "building the Google brand in the mind of consumers".
But about "Let's show people how cool our product is."
Because maybe people don't use or buy brands, they use and buy products.
So this "commercial" either undermines the whole advertising industry and everything it stood for for the last 50 years.
Or.
They had this sweet little film made by an intern (fact) and some spare pocket change and decided to air it during the SuperBowl.
-----
(btw, I blogged about the same thing 20 minutes ago)
Why did Google run an ad during the Superbowl? I think that's an easy one to answer: they want more people to use Google more of the time and this was a quick way of showcasing search using a simple storytelling technique.
The bigger questions one should be asking is why hasn't Google advertised before? And will this be the precursor to Google reaching out to more people more often now that they have Bing for company?
The fact is this ad must have paid for itself many times over simply because of the publicity it generated (your blog article being just one example)
Interestingly, on their own blog Google say this wasn't an ad, but a short film (that was previously available on YouTube) one they just wanted to be seen by a wider audience.
To my mind, whilst I don't think it will win any creative awards, it was head and shoulders above the rest of the ads shown during Superbowl. Google's aside, the one thing they all shared is they were quite awful.
Mike,
Important question.
Perhaps it's about the audience of the ad – what we'd typically dub the laggards – while the superbowl is as mass as it gets, I see the choice as one to target a very specific audience (and an audience segmented by their use of technology).
But I agree with you, it was disappointing to see Google advertise at all and so boringly.
I have to disagree with the 'use the product' idea of ads for a product that has market dominance, that people use daily. iPhone ads work for people who've never touched one – less so for those of us with the phone in our pocket.
Didn't Google actually use the spot to introduce a bit of new positioning? It's the first time we saw a bit of an emotional overlay to this Web utility, and the spot ended with the first tag we've ever seen for Google: "Search On." It suggests "Game on" as well as "we're here for wherever life takes you." Collectively, I saw the spot as moving Google out of the purely utilitarian space and into the "partner/navigator" space.
Google's missing "fuzzy aspects of a well-loved brand"? If anything, I'd imagine Google to dominate any brand attribute study against its peer set. People wear Google t-shirts for recreation!
Sure, it will not have the emotional connection that you'd observe from a car or fashion company--but it's a search engine first, a highly functional and technical service.
Rob Walker, of NY Times fame, wrote an interesting book, Buying In, that parallels your comment, "Google is whatever you think it is." His main thesis is that many brands have achieved success with such fuzzy positioning (he cites companies like Red Bull and PBR). Could be worth checking out.
I would hope the choice to air a Super Bowl Spot was driven by the concept itself. It was so simple and eloquent—obviously it'd stick out in a sea of beer ads.
It you're going to do TV, it's a great way to rise above the fray.
Post a Comment
<< Home