A new chapter in the book on consistency
There’s a terrific article in the New York Times about Barnes & Noble, CEO James Daunt, and the brand’s shift away from store consistency. The focus of the story – Barnes & Noble Sets Itself Free – is on Mr. Daunt’s push to “(break) a cardinal rule of corporate branding and store design: consistency.” I know that as a brand guy I’m supposed to cringe at the idea of embracing inconsistency. The article even says so several times, has quotes from various branding noteables claiming the move will prove disastrous, and suggests that Daunt and his moves are at odds with classic brand thinking.
My take? I think the author interviewed the wrong brand experts. Classic brand thinking is classic for a reason: it’s old. But that doesn’t make it right. Had they asked me, my quote would have been this: “Brilliant.”
Classic brand thinking is classic for a reason: it’s old. But that doesn’t make it right.
Why? Rather than get caught up in the idea that store design, logo and color palate consistency was what drove choice, Barnes & Noble is embracing the actual drivers of choice in their category. Book selection, ease of finding titles in the store, helpfulness of the staff. They’re losing the gummy bears and Skittles that inexplicably lined the walk to the cash register, experimenting with different aesthetics and designs, and even loosening logo consistency in the same city. Maybe a few people will have a hard time finding the store in the mall parking lot, but isn’t that what Google Maps is for? And the benefit is that individual stores are allowed more flexibility, more freedom to cater to the local shoppers, more time to focus on sharing their passion for books and helping people find something to read.
At the end of the day, isn’t that why we go to a bookstore? Barnes & Noble is not more convenient (see: Amazon), it isn’t faster (see: Amazon), it doesn’t have a bigger selection (see: Amazon) and it’s not cheaper (see: Amazon). So, if they can’t compete and win on those items, they’ve got to be more relevant, have a better experience, and feel like something worth the effort. And that focus is what the brand experts interviewed for the story missed. Barnes & Noble isn’t dropping consistency. It’s shifting to a different kind of consistency.
Barnes & Noble isn’t dropping consistency. It’s shifting to a different kind of consistency.
The consistency that falls into the classic brand thinking category involves things like logos and color palettes, grid systems and tone of voice. It’s taglines and product tags. It’s nomenclature, spokespeople and campaigns. But beyond the stuff that a branding firm will offer up and what brand management departments will obsess about are the elements that shape how a company comes to life, not just how it looks.
A dozen years ago a team and I built a business bringing brand experience to technology companies. While they’d all obsessed about optimizing UX and UI, they’d lost sight of the nature of that experience. One company found itself with a password recovery process that required people to make 42 clicks before they entered their contact info and waited for someone to call them. Every one of those clicks made sense from a security perspective, but it ran counter to a brand built around making things quick and easy. Brand experience principles made it easier for the people redesigning the process to do a better job of delivering what users expected from the brand.
And, in a way, that’s exactly what Daunt and Barnes & Noble are doing. They’re shifting away from consistency in how things look and moving towards how consumers want the place to feel. That is a really, really consumer-centric way of thinking. And if brands are tools that we’re supposed to use to make it easier for consumers to choose us, then isn’t that the actual cardinal rule of branding?
I’m not saying that every brand should run out and burn their brand guidelines. But perhaps the right thing to do is think about what kind of consistency is right and helpful for the company and its consumers.
