A few days ago I posted about one of my academic failures on Facebook. A failed research grant application. Reactions were surprising. I did not get near my average number of likes and, also, comments tried to comfort and console in the assumed tragic moment I was thought to be experiencing. “You will be fine.“ “You will next time” etc. Strange: I just wanted to share something absolutely normal and everydayish that happened to me as an academic. In my world of research financing and publication rush you sometimes win, sometimes loose. Others have to win also. Time to time you are that other. But most of the time you do not make it. That’s the name of the game. Excellence is a rare quality: you work for it a lot. FB crowd is, apparently, not used to failures. Facebook is about putting on a happy face. So is brand communication – we think. So what to do with brand failure?
Communicating failure
How can, then, a brand communicate failure? Should it do that at all? Failures happen, just think of Volkswagens recent “dieselgate” scandal. I think failures need to be addressed cautiously. Brands that are honest may witness their Facebook moment: people do not want to hear about brand failures through brand communication. There are other means of corporate communications that may address failures. You need to manage you communication mix well. Audiences do like honest brands to a limit. Their choice is not about honesty, it is about consumer value. Therefore honesty works in as much as it gives credibility and legitimation to the brand promise brands try to deliver.
So let’s see the basics of what to do if failure hits the fans.
In the world of brands, only people fail.
Brands are not products, nor are they companies. Brands are communities: the “space” where users may express their identities through being part of a community of values a brand represents. Therefore brands do not make mistakes. Corporate decision makers do.
People like credible, not honest brands.
Credibility does not mean talking about failures. It means building up credibility of the source. People want to hear the offer from a source they find credible. The coms game is about source credibility: I believe almost anything from the source I trust. Who gets the right to speak and whom do I listen to all ears; this is what makes it or breaks it. There are number of ways to build credibility – being socially responsible, avoiding overpromise, using trusted celebrities, being ironic etc. But credibility is not the same as honesty. Honesty is telling your friend about your secrets; credibility is being faithful and trustworthy to your community. Corporate secrets, like family mysteries, are yours to keep; people want to be proud of the brand they choose to associate with. Failures do not make people proud, taking action to mend the problem does.
Marketers manage the community – to an extent.
Marketers have a big responsibility in managing the brand community; they control most of the communication. However, brand communities may decide against marketers, as we have witnessed in the case of Coke (new taste) or Apple (closing the production of Apple Newton). Therefore, marketers have to walk a thin line of telling the truth and making the community proud. The best advice is to stick to your core brand message. Volkswagen makes good cars. “Das Auto” – remember. So after dieselgate its new ad introduces VW electromobility. Is it credible? Yes. VW makes good cars. And they deal with the emission problem where it belongs: the corporation where people work. Keep it away from the brand. That’s where people live. We keep our brand message clean.
People want strong brands.
We keep our brands strong, because our brands (and their costumers) are here to stay. Brands always win, because we always (want to) win. Brands provide us with the sense of belonging and being members of something bigger then ourselves. This is how they make us stronger. Failed brands cannot deliver this promise.
So what is the takeaway?
Facebook is much criticized for creating “echo chambers” where people get only the information that fits their own predispositions and prejudices. This is not good when FB becomes the only source for social and political information. Echo chambers may prohibit people becoming informed citizens. However, brands are not in the business of creating informed citizens. Not even about the brand, the product or the service. Brands are to offer membership in a brand community that can make one feel stronger and prouder. Brands are communities that create an imagined community of likeminded people. Addressing failures are important to build credibility of source. But brands belong to the members of the community. And costumers do not make mistakes. Only marketers do.
