brand co-dependency
A plea for brands to stand on their own two feet when bringing their core brand promise to life for consumers.
I’m trying to figure out why I don’t like Philips’ new simplicity concierge program. They seem to have done it well. Philips teamed with Condé Nast to provide a “mobile travel companion” that texts recommendations for specific cities of where to eat, have fun, get some culture, and do other sorts of out-and-about sorts of things to your phone. It’s geared for travelers, so you’ll have something interesting to do while you’re on the road.
Okay, that’s kind of cool. They thought about their audience and are providing a potentially useful service for that audience. I don’t have much ability to judge the quality of the content for other cities, but the list for New York is good enough. I texted “see nyc” to 82222 and got this back: FRICK COLLECTION 212 288 0700, GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL 212 340 2345, MORGAN LIBRARY & MUSEUM 212 685 0008. Certainly an acceptable list of stuff for an out-of-towner to go see. I wouldn’t have minded having their web sites texted to me as well, but still.
This is why I ultimately don’t think I like the service though:
1) Concierge. The hallmark of a good concierge is the ability to recommend something specifically for YOU. Philips and Condé Nast is giving us broadest-common-denominator stuff.
2) Co-dependency. Why does Philips lean on the Condé Nast crutch? If your brand is truly about providing simplicity, then your brand should be able to deliver simplicity. Period. You shouldn’t have to rely on other brands to deliver what is supposedly your brand’s core competency.
Personally, I think this last point is a pervasive problem. I think brands depend on the media companies like Condé Nast far too often to bring them interesting ideas and to provide content. I don’t know for sure, but I bet the idea for the concierge service came from Condé Nast, through the section labeled “merchandising” on the print RFP. But regardless of where the idea came from, I want Philips to be its own brand, to stand proudly on its own two feet to bring this potentially useful service to its customers.
Stop the co-dependency!
Thought it was a great idea when I first heard of it, but I was also disappointed upon further inspection.
Whenever similar recommendation services like in:nyc advertise the most “raved-about” restaurants, “hottest” clubs, I’m always skeptical.
The co-dependency thing I kind of disagree with though. I think collaboration bt. brands is a good thing, but I would have liked to see Philips partner with someone who could offer more unique recommendations like a gothamist or flavorpill.
hi adrian! yeah, by the time a restaurant or club makes the “hottest” list, they’re inevitably past their prime…
and i agree that brand partnerships have the potential to be a good thing. but only if the brands involved both bring something to the table and both get something out of the deal. here, i think condé nast is a winner for providing interesting/useful content. and philips… just slaps their brand name on it? they’re not really providing anything, and they’re not bringing anything to the table.
if your brand stands for something — say, simplicity — then shouldn’t it be able to deliver that thing all by itself? and if it can’t, then maybe it’s not the thing your brand should be standing for…?